USDA Forest Service 

 Black Hills National Forest

Custer, South Dakota 

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE RESPONSE PROJECT 

DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ARC At-Risk-Community 

BA Basal Area 

BF Board Foot 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CCF Cubic Hundred Feet 

CDA Connected Disturbed Area 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CF Cubic Feet 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI Culmination of Mean Annual 

Increment 

CPUA Concentrated Public Use Area 

CWD Coarse Woody Debris 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan 

DBH Diameter Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

FS Forest Service 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

ID Team Interdisciplinary Team 

MA Management Area 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 

MPBRP Mountain Pine Beetle 

Response Project 

MVUM Motorized Vehicle Use Map 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NFSR National Forest System Road 

OHV Off Highway Vehicle 

ROD Record of Decision 

S&G Standard(s) and Guideline(s) 

SDGF&P South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SOLC Species of Local Concern 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TMP Travel Management Plan 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface 

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, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page ii 

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project 

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

and Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor 

1019 N 5th Street 

Custer, South Dakota 57730 

For Information Contact: Katie Van Alstyne, Team Leader 

8221 South Highway 16 

Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

(605) 343-1567 

Abstract: The Black Hills National Forest has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant 

Federal and State laws and regulations. The Black Hills National Forest proposes to implement 

multiple resource management actions within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project 

(MPBRP) as guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan) as amended, by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and supported by the 

National Fire Plan, the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, and by other National level policy. 

The focus of the actions proposed is to manage the vegetation to reduce the threat to ecosystem 

components, including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine 

beetle) epidemic and to reduce hazardous fuels in order to minimize the potential for large-scale 

severe wildfires. Three alternatives are considered in detail. Alternative A is the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative B is the proposed action. Integrated Pest Management techniques are 

proposed for areas at high risk and most susceptible to MPB infestation, with the objective of 

treating and removing infested trees before beetles can disperse. Alternative C responds to 

comments received during scoping. It includes treating in advance of MPB, and addresses 

concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress). This Draft EIS discloses the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and 

alternatives. At this time, the Forest Service has not identified a preferred alternative. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of 

the draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and 

respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the 

final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental 

Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page iii 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and 

should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 

CFR 1503.3). 

Send Comments To: Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor 

 MPBR Project 

1019 N 5th Street 

Custer, South Dakota 57730 

 email: comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills@fs.fed.us
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page iv 

Summary 

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to implement multiple resource management actions 

within the MPBR Project. This proposal is guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan as amended by the Phase II Amendment; the statutory authority and 

direction provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and supported by the National Fire Plan; 

The 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan agreed to by the Western Governors 

Association; and The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative. 

The area affected by the proposal includes portions of stands at high risk for MPB scattered 

across the roughly 1.2 million acres of NFS lands managed by the Black Hills National Forest, 

within the proclaimed Forest Boundary. Any vegetation treatment decision(s) on the MPB 

Response Project would not include project areas that are currently under NEPA analysis, have 

NEPA Decisions, or are designated as a special area (RNA’s, Botanical Areas, etc.). The forest 

condition is representative of a ponderosa pine fire adaptive ecosystem that has been managed 

for multiple-use objectives for decades. 

The focus of the actions proposed would treat recently infested MPB trees on portions of 

approximately 242,000 acres of ‘High Risk’ stands on National Forest System lands in South Dakota 

and Wyoming to reduce and slow the spread of MPB to reduce the threat to ecosystem components, 

including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic and 

reduce the potential for severe large-scale wildfire. There is a need to slow or appreciably halt the 

ongoing development and spread of mountain pine beetle (MPB) in the project area. The 

implications of continued spread of this epidemic include: increased tree mortality across the 

landscape; further accumulation of hazardous fuels and increased potential for severe large-scale 

wildfires threatening the values of the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) within the area and beyond; 

major changes in the scenery; and alteration of wildlife habitat. According to Schmid et al (2007), 

the most important aspect of managing mature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills National 

Forest is minimizing the MPB-caused mortality. The only effective long-term strategy to minimize 

MPB-cause mortality is controlling stand conditions through silvicultural means over large 

landscapes and monitoring areas of beetle buildup (USDA Forest Service, 2010e).

The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. This epidemic is killing 

mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. Locally (and nationally), the 

public is demanding action to reduce the risk of MPB affecting their lands, as well as, reducing 

potential for large-scale wildfires on public lands. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 

2003, represents the culmination of a number of National level policy documents and efforts

developed to address this issue. Guided by the Forest Plan and the HFRA, the MPBR Project 

proposed action has been developed to treat vegetation on a landscape scale to reduce the threat to 

ecosystem components from the existing insect and disease (MPB) epidemic and reduce the potential 

for large-scale severe wildfires. Furthermore, the project intent is to limit effects to the environment 

from MPB and reduce the potential for loss of property or life due to large-scale wildfire. 

The MPBR Project is based on known methods to reduce MPB infested stands using an adaptive 

approach because it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of MPB activity, but 

reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, the expanding MPB 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page v 

brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large volume and wide distribution of high 

risk stands in the project area. 

Through varied public involvement and collaboration efforts, comments on the proposed action, 

potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the MPBR Project were solicited from Forest 

Service resource specialists, tribal representatives, members of the public, other public agencies, 

adjacent property owners, and organizations. Methods used to request comments included: 

Publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare and EIS in the Federal Register on August 9, 

2010; publication of news releases and articles in the Rapid City Journal; mailing a scoping letter 

that solicited comments to approximately 400 interested parties; conducted public meetings; and 

meeting with interested individuals and parties. 

Comments received during the scoping process were used to help in defining issues, develop 

alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. Through review and analysis of the 

scoping comments and input, the MPBRP Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) identified three (3) 

prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. The three key issues include: vegetation 

and wildlife habitat diversity’ wildfire and fuels hazard, and social/economics. 

These issues led the ID Team to develop alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives 

analyzed in detail in this EIS are briefly described as follows: 

Alternative A (No Action) – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of 

the no action alternative, and to use it as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and 

other alternatives. This alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed 

action or other action alternatives. However, such things as ongoing fire suppression efforts, 

noxious weed treatments, and recurring road maintenance on Forest roads would continue as 

directed by the Forest Plan. 

The no action alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for 

action or the issues raised during scoping for this project. For example, there would be no effort 

to modify existing vegetation or related fuels conditions in the project area. The effort to reduce 

the widespread MPB epidemic and associated fuel loads would not be undertaken. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) – Alternative B was developed in response to the purpose and need 

and represents the proposed action. Alternative B is designed to treat the vegetation to reduce the 

potential for Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) infestations. Integrated Pest Management techniques are 

proposed for areas at high risk and most susceptible to MPB infestation, with the objective of treating 

and removing infested trees before beetles can disperse. Techniques such as: cut and chunk, 

chipping, and cut-pile-burn, and cut-pile-burn with equipment would be scattered across the

landscape and generally adjacent to or along private property and roads to remove pockets of infested 

trees. Insecticide spraying (i.e. carbaryl) would generally occur in developed campgrounds, FS 

facilities, and on scattered legacy trees and would use chemicals appropriate for a forested 

environment. Semiochemical use would be limited along the ‘leading edge’ of the BHNF MPB 

Strategy. Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may occur generally southwest of Custer, SD 

adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of Spearfish, SD towards the SD-WY State line; 

north of Sundance in cooperation and coordination with Forest Health entomologists and the States of 

SD and WY. Cable and Helicopter logging would generally occur in high value areas on slopes 

greater than 40 percent. Cable units would utilize existing roads. Commercial and non-commercial 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page vi 

thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees would generally occur across the 

landscape on slopes generally less than 40 percent on up to 1,000 contiguous acres. 

Vegetative management in this alternative is characterized by a number of treatments. There 

would be approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 acres of noncommercial (products other than logs (POL)) thinning over an approximate five to seven year 

period to remove MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. 

Commercial treatments would not be authorized in Non-motorized Backcountry (MA 3.32). 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning would generally occur on slopes less than 40 percent. 

Sanitation harvest to remove infested trees may be conducted in areas near or adjacent to identified 

stands in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. Most harvest would be conducted 

using whole tree logging methods in order to reduce after-harvest fuel loading. 

Alternative C – Alternative C was developed in response to comments received during the scoping 

period. Under this alternative, approximately 124,000 acres would be treated mechanically 

(commercial and non-commercial). Alternative C includes all aspects of Alternative B. Integrated 

Pest Management techniques would occur on portions of approximately 248,000 acres to reduce the 

spread of MPB across NFS lands to manage and protect ecosystem components. Alternative C 

includes three additional elements: 1) Landscape level thinning in advance of large beetle 

infestations to reduce stand densities and the risk of MPB infestation, thereby reducing the wildfire 

hazard, and creating landscape-scale fuel breaks; 2) Treatments in MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon and 

3) Up to 250 miles of road construction (70 miles new System and 180 temporary). 

Alternative C proposes timber harvest via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders, as well as 

some road construction, in MA4.2A. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountainsnail and 

SOLC snails in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a 

Forest Plan amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place 

within MA4.2A. This amendment would apply only to actions approved under this project, and 

would not be an enduring amendment for other decisions, nor would it change the wording of 

Standard 3103 in the Forest Plan. 

Table 0-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative on NFS lands using Measurement Indicators

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Alt A Alt B Alt C 

MPB Risk Rating – Low (acres) 0 48,400 124,000 

MPB Risk Rating – High (acres) 248,000 193,600 124,000 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Fire Hazard Rating (Low) Post Treatment 0 0 0 

Fire Hazard Rating (Moderate) Post Treatment 0 48,400 124,000 

Fire Hazard Rating (High / Very High) Post Treatment 248,000 199,600 124,000 

Wildland Urban Interface (acres) 206,000 200,000 206,000 

Level 3-5 System Roads - Ingress/Egress (miles) 177 162 177 

3. Social-Economical Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Cooperative Efforts with County, State, Other Groups and 

Individuals (poor to best) Poor Better Best 

Total Cost (million) N/A -$27.849 -$72.702 

Commercial Thinning Treatments (acres) 0 41,140 105,400 

Non-Commercial Thinning Treatment 0 7,260 18,600 

Volume (over five to seven years) 

Sawtimber CCF 0 403,140 1,032,920 

POL CCF 0 14,520 37,200 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page vii 

Structural Stages: In the hardest hit areas, near complete mortality of the larger trees could occur 

on up to 50 percent of structural stage 4C. This mortality of 4C would result in a mix of structural 

stage 2 and 3A due to the prolific pine regeneration’ that occurs naturally in the Black Hills, thus 

avoiding the non-stocked structural stage 1. Structural stage 3A stands would result from the 

advance regeneration presently occurring within the stands. The other 50% of the 4C the mountain 

pine beetle attack area size could result in a variation of overstory stand densities resulting in mostly 

a 4A structure with some 4B. As the mountain pine beetle moves across the landscape there is the 

probability of complete landscapes being killed over time as evident of the on-going epidemic. 

The Mountain Pine Beetle Project purpose and need (see Chapter 1) provides the focus and scope 

of the proposal as related to National and Forest level policy and direction, plus the statutory 

mandate provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Given this purpose and need, the 

Deciding Official (Forest Supervisor) reviews the proposed action, the issues identified during 

scoping, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of implementing the proposal and 

alternatives disclosed in this EIS. This forms the basis for the Deciding Official to make the 

following determinations: 

• Whether or not the proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, are responsive to 

National policy/guidance/law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need for 

action in the MPBR Project. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities. 

• Which actions, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or mix of activities to 

implement). 

• Whether there is a need for site-specific amendments to existing Forest Plan direction. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page viii 

Table of Contents 

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ iv

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION and PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .................... 13

Document Structure .................................................................................................................. 13

Background ............................................................................................................................... 14

Management Direction.............................................................................................................. 17

Forest Plan Direction ............................................................................................................ 18

Management Areas ............................................................................................................... 18

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 19

Management Area Specific Goals and Objectives................................................................ 21

Other Direction ..................................................................................................................... 24

Purpose Of and Need for Action ............................................................................................... 25

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 26

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 27

Public Involvement and Collaboration ..................................................................................... 28

Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 29

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity ....................................................................... 29

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard ................................................................................................ 30

3. Social................................................................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 33

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 33

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...................................................................... 33

Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................... 34

Alternative B – Proposed Action .......................................................................................... 35

Alternative C ......................................................................................................................... 36

ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 38

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 39

MONITORING ......................................................................................................................... 39

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED but ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ........... 41

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 44

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Issue ............................................................. 44

2. Wildfire and Fuel Hazard Issue ....................................................................................... 45

3. Social................................................................................................................................ 46

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ... 49

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 49

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................. 50

WATERSHED ...................................................................................................................... 50

SOILS ................................................................................................................................... 82

TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................... 102

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 111

VEGETATION ................................................................................................................... 111

FIRE and FUELS ................................................................................................................ 129

RANGE ............................................................................................................................... 148

NOXIOUS and INVASIVE WEEDS ................................................................................. 151

WILDLIFE .......................................................................................................................... 155

Management Indicator Species (MIS): ........................................................................... 156
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page ix 

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species ..................................................................................... 161

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ................................................................................. 173

Summary of Determinations ........................................................................................... 190

FISHERIES ......................................................................................................................... 219

BOTANY ............................................................................................................................ 226

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species .................................................................................... 227

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ................................................................................. 228

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 243

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 243

SCENIC QUALITY............................................................................................................ 243

RECREATION USE ........................................................................................................... 265

HERITAGE......................................................................................................................... 274

SOCIAL .............................................................................................................................. 284

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ............. 292

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ........................................... 293

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .............................................................................. 293

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPY/REFERENCES ......................................................................... 295

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................... 347

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 369

CHAPTER 7 INDEX .................................................................................................................. 371

List of Tables 

Table 0-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative on NFS lands using Measurement Indicators ..... vi

Table 1-1 Management Area Designations and Acreage in the Project Area .............................. 19

Table 2-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative ............................................................................ 47

Table 2-2 Treatments by Alternative ............................................................................................ 48

Table 3-1 Beneficial Uses and Impaired Streams ......................................................................... 52

Table 3-2 Wetland within Potential Treatment Areas .................................................................. 53

Table 3-3 Watersheds with an Impaired Stream or Lake ............................................................. 56

Table 3-4 Watersheds and Associated Watershed Condition Class ............................................. 58

Table 3-5 Acres of Treatment within WIZ ................................................................................... 61

Table 3-6 Temperature Impaired Watersheds and WIZ Proposed Treatment Areas .................... 64

Table 3-7 Upper Cold Brook Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary ...................................... 73

Table 3-8 Upper Beaver Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary ................................... 74

Table 3-9 Silver Creek-Rapid Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary .......................... 75

Table 3-10 South Fork Castle Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary .......................... 77

Table 3-11 Park Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary ................................................ 78

Table 3-12 Boulder Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary .......................................... 79

Table 3-13 Little Spearfish Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary .............................. 80

Table 3-14 Miles of Roads/Routes ............................................................................................. 103

Table 3-15 Open Road/Trail Density in the MPBR PTAs for Alternatives B and C. ................ 103

Table 3-16 Activity in Miles and Estimated Cost for Alternatives B and C .............................. 105

Table 3-17 Summary of proposed transportation miles for the existing District Landscape 

projects. ............................................................................................................................... 108

Table 3-18 Summary of Road Miles ........................................................................................... 111

Table 3-19 Forest-wide Structural Stages and Management Areas ............................................ 114
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page x 

Table 3-20 Structural Stage Distribution .................................................................................... 114

Table 3-21 Alternative B Management Areas ............................................................................ 120

Table 3-22 Alternative C Structural Stages Distribution Post Treatment................................... 126

Table 3-23 Fire Regimes in the Black Hills................................................................................ 130

Table 3-24 Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) ...................................................................... 131

Table 3-25 Fire history Occurrence and Size of Fires from 1970 to Present. ............................ 132

Table 3-26 Area of Large Fire (1970-2011) Within the Project Area (Alternative B) ............... 133

Table 3-27 Area of Large Fires (1970-2011) Within the Project Area (Alternative C) ............. 133

Table 3-28 Existing and Alternative B Post Treatment Structural Stage and Fire Hazard Rating

............................................................................................................................................. 141

Table 3-29 Existing and Alternative C Post Treatment Structural Stage and Fire Hazard Rating

............................................................................................................................................. 144

Table 3-30 Fire Hazard Rating Summary ................................................................................... 147

Table 3-31 Grazing Allotments and Developments within the MPBR Project Area ................. 148

Table 3-32 Invasive and Noxious Weeds in the MPBR Project Area ........................................ 152

Table 3-33 Habitat Descriptions for SOLC occurring within the Project Area. ......................... 173

Table 3-34 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Having Suitable Habitat within the Project Area.228

Table 3-35 Plant Species of Local Concern with Respect to the Project Area ........................... 229

Table 3-36 Comparison of Potential Treatment Impacts on Acres of Known and Assumed 

Occurrences of R2 Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................ 241

Table 3-37 ROS Classification Acres and Percent ..................................................................... 267

Table 3-38 Historic Properties Identified To-Date within Project Area. .................................... 278

Table 3-39 Population by Race ................................................................................................... 285

Table 3-40 Demographics Indicators for Low-Income Populations for the Project Area .......... 287

Table 3-41 Household Earnings .................................................................................................. 287

Table 3-42 Employment by Industry .......................................................................................... 288

Table 3-43 Employment by Wood Product Industries ............................................................... 288

Table 3-44 Financial Efficiency Measures for Alternative B and C (2011 Dollars) .................. 291

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 MPBR Project Vicinity ............................................................................................... 14

Figure 1-2 Estimated Acres Affected by MPB ............................................................................. 16

Figure 2-1 The Adaptive Management Cycle. .............................................................................. 40

Figure 2-2 Selection of IPM ......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 3-1 Comparison of Potential Activities and Potential Ground Disturbance on Soils ........ 89

Figure 3-2 Alternative A Structural Stages ................................................................................. 118

Figure 3-3 Alternative A Structural Stages in Five Years: ......................................................... 118

Figure 3-4 Alternative A Predicted Changes vs. Alternative B Post Treatment ........................ 124

Figure 3-5 Alternative A Predicted Changes vs. Alternative C Post Treatment ........................ 128

Figure 3-6 Typical Stand Structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class ............................... 131

Figure 3-7 Point Fire History Within and Adjacent to the Project Area .................................... 132

Figure 3-8 Large Fire History (100 Acres or larger) Within and Adjacent to the Project Area. 133

Figure 3-9 Structures within 3 Miles of Project Area ................................................................. 135

Figure 3-10 Alternative A Fire Hazard Rating ........................................................................... 140

Figure 3-11 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating ........................................................................... 142

Figure 3-12 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating ........................................................................... 144
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page xi 

Figure 3-13 MPB Activity Middleground .................................................................................. 247

Figure 3-14 MPB No Treatment Middleground ......................................................................... 247

Figure 3-15 Before Treatment of MPB Stand ............................................................................. 250

Figure 3-16 Post Treatment of MPB Stand................................................................................. 250

Figure 3-17 MPB Activity Before Thinning ............................................................................... 251

Figure 3-18 Thinning Recently Infested Trees ........................................................................... 251

Figure 3-19 Percent Change in Population 2000-2010 ............................................................... 285

Appendices 

Appendix A - Public Involvement and Collaboration............................................... A-1 

Appendix B - Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring...................................... B-1 

Appendix C - Past, Present, Foreseeable Activities................................................... C-1 

Appendix D - Maps........................................................................... ......... D-1 

Map 1 – Vicinity 

Map 2 – Management Areas 

Map 3 – Alternative B Treatments 

Map 4 – Alternative C Treatments 

Map 5 – Travel Management 

Map 6 – Alternative B Transportation 

Map 7 – Alternative C Transportation 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 13 

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION and PURPOSE AND 

NEED FOR ACTION 

Document Structure 

The Black Hills National Forest has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

(HFRA), and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Impact 

Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result 

from two action alternatives and No Action alternative. The document is organized into seven 

chapters followed by Appendices A – E. 

Chapter 1. Proposed Action and Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes 

information related to background of the project proposal, issues, the purpose of and need for the

project, and a description of the agency’s proposal for addressing that purpose and need. This 

section also details how the Forest Service involved the public, how the public responded and what 

issues were generated regarding the proposal. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. 

The proposed action (Alternative B) was developed based on addressing the purpose and need. 

Alternative C was developed based on comments raised by the public, other agencies, and internally. 

This chapter also provides a discussion of design criteria and monitoring required. Finally, this 

section includes summary tables of the environmental consequences and a comparison of effects 

associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis 

documentation is organized by resource area, e.g., Fire and Fuels, Wildlife Habitat, Watershed, etc. 

Chapter 4. Bibliography/References: The bibliography provides a list of references supporting 

the documentation in the EIS. 

Chapter 5. Glossary: The glossary provides a list and explanation of key words, acronyms, and 

terminology used throughout the EIS. 

Chapter 6. List of Preparers: This chapter provides a list of preparers involved during the 

development of the environmental impact statement.

Chapter 7. Index: The index references page numbers for many key document topics and words. 

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the documentation and 

analysis presented in the EIS. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found 

in the Project File located at Forest Supervisor’s Office in Custer, South Dakota. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 14 

Background 

The project area includes portions of ponderosa pine stands at high risk for mountain pine beetle 

(MPB) scattered across the roughly 1.2 million acres of NFS lands managed by the Black Hills 

National Forest, within the proclaimed Forest Boundary. Any vegetation treatment decision(s) on 

the Mountain Pine Beetle Response (MPBR) Project would not include project areas that are 

currently under NEPA analysis, have NEPA Decisions, or are designated as a special area (RNA’s, 

Botanical Areas, etc.). Figure 1-1 displays the location of the MPBR Project Area. 

Figure 1-1 MPBR Project Vicinity 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 15 

Historic Perspective: 

Sporadic use of the Black Hills by Euro-Americans began in the early 1800s and consisted mainly of 

fur trappers and traders (Sundstrom 1989). The western half of South Dakota, including the Black 

Hills, portions of southern North Dakota, and nearly the entire area of the Powder River Basin in 

Wyoming and Montana, were recognized as unceded Indian Territory by the 1868 treaty between the 

United States and the Sioux and Arapaho. More intense Euro-American occupation in the Black 

Hills began shortly after gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874. It was this discovery that 

brought a full-scale influx of Euro-American prospectors and miners to the Black Hills. 

In addition to gold, several other minerals began to be extracted from the Black Hills in the late 

19th and early 20th centuries. These minerals were largely contained in the pegmatite dikes 

exposed throughout the Black Hills which frequently form resistant ridges and were mined from 

the surface. Typically, the rock was blasted from the pegmatite dikes using dynamite placed in 

either hand- or machine-drilled holes. The blasted rock was then sorted by hand and transferred to 

other locations for processing. After mining was complete, the extraction of rock typically left 

small open pits or cuts where the pegmatite dikes were once present. 

Historic settlement in the Black Hills by Euro-Americans is generally auxiliary to this history of 

the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800s through the 1920s. 

Industries such as ranching and logging became common in the early 1900s; however, much of the 

land was not patented and remained public land. 

As a result of the gold rush-era settlement, the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming is a 

heavily settled area. There are numerous communities scattered throughout the Black Hills, along 

with a complex pattern of private land interspersed with National Forest System land. Many of 

these private lands have housing developments or isolated houses or structures. Others are rapidly 

becoming residential developments. This poses unique challenges to the management of National 

Forest System lands, as the effects of such management greatly affect our neighbors, and vice versa. 

Mountain Pine Beetle and Wildfire 

The composition of today’s vegetation is more the result of a combination of aggressive fire 

suppression and past management activities than from natural events. Photographs and records from 

the late 1800s and early 1900s indicate that today’s forest is more continuous, uniform and dense than 

what has historically occurred. There are more pine trees in this area than existed under natural 

conditions, and less meadows/grasslands and hardwoods due to pine tree encroachment. Historically, 

insects and fire were a major force in shaping and contributing to the structure and composition of the 

ponderosa pine forests of the western United States, including the Black Hills. Insect infestations, 

especially mountain pine beetle, have played a role in thinning dense stands. 

Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is the number one insect killer of pines 

throughout the western United States. The beetle is a native species to the West and attacks most 

pine species including ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. 

During the mid-1990s, beetle mortality was light and scattered throughout the Black Hills. In 

1997, there was a noticeable increase in mortality detected. The 1999 survey showed another 

sharp increase from 1998, with much of the heaviest damage concentrated into a few areas. The 

aerial survey from 1999 detected a total of 25,562 trees killed throughout the Black Hills. This is 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 16 

an increase from the 10,726 trees killed on National Forest System lands in 1998. In 2000, the

amount of mortality increased again to 38,262 trees. In all cases, much of the damage was 

concentrated in groups of 25 trees or more in a few areas. More than 60% of the total tree

mortality recorded in the 1999 and 2000 aerial surveys was found in the Beaver Park area. Other 

areas sustaining concentrated pockets of tree mortality included Bear Mountain, Steamboat Rock 

and areas west and south of Deerfield Lake. In 2001 there was a tremendous increase in the 

number of trees killed. From 2002 through 2005 an increase in beetle mortality was beginning to 

concentrate in the central Hills, with smaller spots elsewhere. From 2006 through 2010 

epidemics intensified and continued on about 25,000-40,000 acres per year in the central Hills 

and intensified with new areas beginning to appear in the northern and southern Hills. In 2011 

the acres affected with new attacks was approximately 67,000 acres. Since 1996, approximately 

405,000 acres of NFS lands have been affected by MPB. 

Figure 1-2 Estimated Acres Affected by MPB 

The MPB epidemic is continuing to expand within and adjacent to the MPBR Project potential 

treatment areas (PTA’s). This current epidemic is killing large numbers of mature pine trees. The 

vegetation structure and wildlife habitat is changing on a landscape scale. As trees are killed they 

fall to the ground adding dead, dry fuels within an area already rated as having high wildfire hazard. 

The rate of infestation is increasing and is likely to spread over a large area over the next three to 

five years. MPB prefer stands of dense, mature pine trees, which is abundant and continuous 

throughout the area. The primary management tool for reducing MPB-caused mortality is to remove 

the infested trees and to reduce the density of the remaining trees through mechanical thinning. 

Fires occurring since 1970, approximately 3,781 are known lightning-caused, 161 equipment-caused, 

574 campfire-caused, 131 smoking-caused, 147 debris burning-caused, 68 railroad-caused, 133 arson-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 17 

caused, 83 children-caused and 246 miscellaneous. The number of fires on National Forest System 

(NFS) lands has remained fairly constant at 65-130 starts per year. 

Recent wildfires, including but not limited to the Jasper Fire, Roger’s Shack, Elk Mountain II, Battle 

Creek, Grizzly Gulch, Red Point, Ricco, Cement, East Ridge, and Alabaugh Fires have burned over 

approximately 296,000 acres. Large wildfires (fires greater than 300 acres) burned about 312,000 

acres during the period from 1970 to 2011 in the Black Hills. Since 1980, a dramatic increase in 

acreage burned has occurred. These intense fires covered large areas, moving as far as eleven miles 

in one day and as fast as five miles in three hours. 

Although wildland fires are natural occurrences, they can conflict with land management objectives 

by impacting soil productivity, increasing conditions for soil erosion, expanding noxious weeds, 

harming some plant and animal species, reducing visual quality and recreation values, and 

destroying valuable timber resources. In addition, large wildfires threaten the lives of residents and 

firefighters, destroy houses and other private property, and contribute to substantial impact to the 

local economy and private landowners. 

The project area contains wildland-urban interface, as defined by the Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans (CWPPs) for Crook, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, and Weston counties. 

This project would help accomplish goals of those plans by developing an accelerated program on 

certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations (Crook County); reduce the risk, and help restore, 

recover, and mitigate the damage caused by fire, insects, invasive species, and damaging weather 

(Meade, Lawrence County); and reduce fire and forest health risks within and around Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) areas and At-Risk Communities (ARC) (All Counties). The threat of wildfire is a 

major concern for those living, working, and recreating in this area, and for the communities that 

depend on the Forest watersheds for a portion of their domestic water supply. 

The potential treatment areas identified in the MPBR Project are rated as having a high to very high 

wildfire hazard. This rating is based mainly on crown fire hazard. The ongoing MPB epidemic is 

making this situation worse by replacing live, green standing fuels with large amounts of dead and 

dry fuels. These dead fuels are slow to decompose in this dry environment and would be a fire 

hazard for the next several decades. Fires burning in these heavy fuels would be difficult and 

dangerous to suppress. The primary management tools to reduce fuel loads and wildfire hazards are 

to mechanically thin dense stands with high wildfire hazard, remove MPB infested trees, and 

remove activity fuels from the forest floor. 

The MPBR Project is based on known methods to reduce MPB infested stands using an adaptive 

approach because it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of MPB activity, but 

reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, the expanding MPB 

brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large volume and wide distribution of high 

risk stands in the project area. 

Management Direction 

The following sections provide an overview of the management direction applicable to the 

MPBR Project. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 18 

Forest Plan Direction 

The Black Hills National Forest programmatic management direction is the 1997 Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan), as amended by the Phase II Amendment 

(October 2005), and supported by the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Phase 

II Amendment to the 1997 LRMP. The Forest Plan is required by the rules implementing the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). 

The Forest Plan as amended, provides revised and new goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines 

focused on protecting communities, property, and forest values by reducing severe insect infestations 

and fire hazards; conserving viable plant and animal species and habitats for the long term supported 

by the best available science; designating research natural areas; and providing for the continuing 

viability of the existing forest products industry and infrastructure essential to cost effectively 

managing vegetation on the Black Hills National Forest. Moreover, the Forest Plan provides overall 

management allocations, goals and objectives (FP Chapter I), as well as associated standard and 

guidelines (FP Chapter II) for management. 

Forest Plan Standard 3103 directs to manage colonies of sensitive species of snails and snail 

species of local concern to retain important habitat features, by avoiding burning and heavy 

equipment use and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and 

ground cover. A listed sensitive species, Cooper’s mountainsnail, Oreohelix strigosa cooperi, is 

known to occur on the Black Hills, and is protected by this standard. Numerous colonies of this

species are known to occur in Spearfish Canyon, Management Area 4.2A. Four snail Species of 

Local Concern (SOLC) - Callused vertigo (Vertigo arthuri), frigid ambersnail (Catinella gelida), 

mystery vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa) and striate disc (Discus shemekii) - also occur in Spearfish 

Canyon, though not as abundantly as Cooper’s mountainsnail. 

Alternative B proposes no activities in MA4.2A. However, Alternative C proposes timber 

harvest via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders, as well as some road construction, in 

MA 4.2A. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountainsnail and SOLC snails in MA4.2A 

these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a Forest Plan amendment 

is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place within MA4.2A. This 

amendment would apply only to any actions approved under this project, and would not be an 

enduring amendment for other decisions, nor would it change the wording of Standard 3103 in 

the Forest Plan. 

Management Areas 

The Forest Plan sets management allocations for specific uses of land (Management Areas) within 

the Forest to meet multiple use objectives (FP Chapter III). The MPBR Project Interdisciplinary 

(ID) Team reviewed Management Area (MA) direction and confirmed that no new information 

existed that would require reconsideration of Forest Plan resource allocations. The MAs designated 

in the Forest Plan for the MPBR Project Area are listed in Table 1-1. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 19 

Table 1-1 Management Area Designations and Acreage in the Project Area 

MANAGEMENT AREA ACRES NFS % 

3.31 - Backcountry Motorized 4,411 2% 

3.32 - Backcountry Non-Motorized 3,120 1% 

4.1 - Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis 4,184 2% 

4.2A - Spearfish Canyon (Alternative C only) 5,583 2% 

5.1 - Resource Production Emphasis 102,979 41% 

5.1A - Southern Hills 21,360 9% 

5.2A - Fort Meade VA Hospital Watershed 2,604 1% 

5.4 - Big Game Winter Range Emphasis 91,691 37% 

5.43 - Big Game and Resource Production 4,642 2% 

5.6 - Forest Products, Recreation Big Game Emphasis 7,085 3% 

8.2 - Developed Recreation Complexes 339 0% 

Total NFS 248,984 100.00% 

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives 

The Forest Plan establishes eleven multiple use goals and associated objectives for management of 

the Forest. Goals 1-4, 10 and 11 are directed toward natural resource objectives for multiple use 

management of the Forest. Goal 3 and 5-9 provide socio-economic emphasis for management of 

the Forest. The goals and objectives, applicable to specific resource management issues needing 

resolution, provide the basic direction for defining the purpose and need and subsequently 

developing the project proposal. The eleven Forest Plan goals are discussed in Chapter I of the 

Forest Plan. The Responsible Official for the MPBR Project has chosen to propose resource 

management actions that respond to Forest Plan Goals 7, and 10. 

 Goal 7. Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation. 

 Goal 10. Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences 

of catastrophic fire, insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease 

management and firefighting capability. 

Associated with these goals are specific resource objectives. Comparing objectives to current 

conditions is integral to defining the purpose and need and developing the proposed action. 

Objectives providing management emphasis for this project are summarized below. Note that 

other Forest Plan goals and numerous objectives not mentioned in detail also provide guidance and 

are achieved to varying degrees as a function of project implementation and effect. 

Goal 7 - Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation. 

Objective 701. “Continue to cooperate with interested parties and organizations in the 

development of plans and projects.” 

• There is an opportunity to work with the Counties, State, and private landowners to 

generate a broad base of support and/or a well-informed public regarding project 

plan/design and project actions proposed and taken.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 20 

• There is an opportunity with the adaptive process of this Project to be more efficient in 

coordinating with partners and cooperators based on MPB populations rapidly changing 

the landscape.

Objective 702. “Encourage cost sharing as part of cooperative efforts.” 

• There is an opportunity to work with the Counties, State, and private landowners on cost 

sharing in an "All Lands" approach to MPB in the Project Area. 

Objective 703. “Seek partnerships with other service providers – federal, state, county, local and 

private sector – to define complementary roles that best meet customer needs.” 

• There is an opportunity to coordinate with the Counties, State, and private landowners to 

partner and possibly cost-share in vegetation treatment and fuel reduction actions 

adjacent to and/or across mutual boundaries. 

Objective 704. “Consult with tribal governments, traditional practitioners, and other 

knowledgeable individuals to identify important areas of American Indian religious significance.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize the ongoing BHNF process and project-specific 

consultation to provide mutually beneficial information exchange, cooperative and open 

relations, and maintains trust and credibility between the agency and tribal representatives. 

Goal 10 - Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce the occurrences of 

catastrophic fire, insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and 

firefighting capability. 

Objective 10-01. “Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildlandurban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures... Manage the remainder of 

the Forest for 50 percent moderate-to-low fire hazard...” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing fire hazard that currently exceeds objectives 

on NFS lands in the project area. 

Objective 10-04. “Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate with risks (fire occurrence), 

hazard (fuel flammability), and land and resource values common to the area, using the criteria 

in Forest-wide Guideline 4110.”

• There is an opportunity to treat fuels and reduce hazards in the area. 

Objective 10-05. “Manage wildfires using the appropriate response based management area 

emphasis, existing values, risk of ignition, and fuel hazards within a given area.” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing and activity fuels to a manageable level 

thereby facilitating a proactive and effective response to wildfire. 

Objective 10-06. “Develop fuel management and protection strategies for intermixed land 

ownerships in partnership with private, state, and other federal agencies.” 

• There is an opportunity to coordinate with the State and Counties based on goals established 

in the CWPP’s to reduce fuels on both public and private lands in order to reduce the 

potential for large wildfires that could affect homes, infrastructure, visual quality, timber and 

forest ecosystem values, and wildlife (including sensitive species) habitat in the area. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 21 

Objective 10-07. “Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management 

objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa-pine stands that are in medium or 

high risk for infestation.” 

• Although it is not possible to determine exactly which stands would become infested and 

the precise level of MPB activity, there is an opportunity to respond to MPB infestations by 

removing infested trees and thinning pine trees to reduce the amount of high risk stands.

Objective 10-08. Using analyses of insect and disease occurrences, prioritize suppression strategies 

to meet management objectives and minimize value loss of tree vegetation affected by outbreaks of 

insect and disease pests. 

• There is an opportunity to use Integrated Pest Management techniques to prioritize treatments 

by using an adaptive approach - allowing flexibility and efficiency to treat areas that are 

changing considerably across the landscape.

Management Area Specific Goals and Objectives 

Management Area 3.31 – Backcountry Motorized 

Guideline 3.31-2101. “Vegetative management practices are available...Timber harvest may 

also be used to prevent or respond to epidemic insect conditions...” 

• An opportunity exists to maintain and promote the recreation, wildlife, and forest 

appearance by treating stand infested with MPB.

Management Area 3.32 – Backcountry Non-Motorized 

The MPBR Project Area contains 3,120 acres in MA 3.32. Commercial harvest activities would 

not be authorized under Alternative B. 

Guideline 3.32-2102. “Vegetative management practices are available...Timber harvest may 

also be used to prevent or respond to epidemic insect conditions...” 

• An opportunity exists to maintain and promote the recreation, wildlife, and forest 

appearance by treating stand infested with MPB.

Management Area 4.1 – Limited Motorized Use and Forest Products Emphasis

Goal 4.1-201. “Emphasize wood-fiber production, wildlife habitat, and visual quality”. 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels hazards 

designed to be fully compatible with the objective of providing wildlife habitat and visual quality.

Management 4.2A – Spearfish Canyon. 

The MPBR Project Area contains 5,583 acres in MA 4.2A. Activities proposed would not be 

authorized under Alternative B.

Standard 4.2A-4101. “Manage Fire and fuels through various methods to protect the biological and 

scenic values, but in the wildland-urban interface the priority will be fuel reduction.” 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 22 

• An opportunity exists to enhance the biological and scenic values by thinning and treating 

stands infested with MPB. 

Management Area 5.1 - Resource Production Emphasis. 

Goal 5.1-201. “Manage tree stands to emphasize timber products, forage production, and water yield.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently providing timber products, forage production, and contributing to 

increased water yield.

Objective 5.1-202. “While meeting other objectives for this management area, provide variety in 

stand sizes, shape, crown closure, age structure and interspersion.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels hazards 

designed to be fully compatible with the objective of providing variety in the forested setting.

Objective 5.1-203. “Maintain or enhance hardwood shrub communities where biologically 

feasible, and within management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation geared to improve hardwoods and also 

contribute to the fuel break benefits that hardwoods naturally provide.

Objective 5.1-204. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa pine 

across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage table, 

LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-67) 

• See opportunity statement (italics) under Objective 5.1-202 above. 

Guideline 5.1-4101. “Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including prescribed fire, to 

meet management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize a full complement of fuel treatment tools in 

accomplishing insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction objectives.

Management Area 5.1A – Southern Hills. 

Objective 5.1A-202. “Vary tree densities (0-140 basal area) within stands to create small-scale 

diversity...” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels 

hazard to be compatible with other habitat objectives.

Guideline 5.1A-2101. “Timber harvest may be used to achieve management objectives”. 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently benefiting wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.

Management Area 5.2A – Fort Meade VA Hospital Watershed. 

Goal 5.2A-101. “Vegetation will be managed to provide optimum water quality while meeting 

state water quality standards”. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 23 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently providing optimum water quality and contributing to increased water 

yield.

Standard 5.2A-4101. “Manage fire and fuels through control practices and a full array of fuel 

treatment options which will provide the greatest measure of protection or improvement to the 

quality and quantity of municipal water supplies”. 

• See Goal 5.2A-101 above.

Management Area 5.4 - Big Game Winter Range Emphasis. 

Goal 5.4-201. “Manage tree stands for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently benefiting wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.

Objective 5.4-206. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa pine 

across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage table, 

LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-92) 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels 

hazard to be compatible with structural stage objectives.

Guideline 5.4-4101. “Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including prescribed fire, to 

achieve resource management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize a full complement of fuel treatment tools in 

accomplishing wildlife habitat improvement objectives while concurrently contributing to 

fuel and fire hazard reduction objectives. 

Management Area 5.43 - Big Game and Resource Production. 

Goal 5.43-201. “Emphasize wildlife habitat and wood-fiber production”. 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels hazards 

designed to be fully compatible with the objective of providing wildlife habitat and wood-fiber.

Objective 5.43-204-FC. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa 

pine across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage 

table, LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-108) 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels 

hazard to be compatible with structural stage objectives.

Management Area 5.6 – Forest Products, Recreation, Big Game Emphasis. 

Goal 5.6-202. “Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes, shape, crown 

closure, age structure and interspersion”. 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently providing variety of stand structure.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 24 

Objective 5.6-204-FC. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa 

pine across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage 

table, LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-114) 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels 

hazard to be compatible with structural stage objectives.

Management 8.2 - Developed Recreation Complexes. 

Goal 8.2-201. “Manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to provide for public safety, to 

improve forest condition...” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing and activity fuels to a reasonable and 

manageable level for effective response to visuals and public safety concerns.

Goal 8.2-204. “Manage fuels to retain a natural forest appearance and to reduce the threat of 

wildfire damage to forest resources.” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce the threat of wildfire damage to the infrastructure and 

natural setting of the Developed Recreation Complexes. 

Goal 8.2-206. “Control insect-and-disease pest populations in and adjacent to the area through 

active monitoring while reducing pest-population potential through vegetative management...” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation by reducing mountain pine beetle 

infestations and lower the risk/hazard in the project area.

Other Direction 

While fires have always helped shape the landscape, today’s fires are not simply those of the 

past; they are often hotter, more destructive, and more dangerous to suppress. The increase in 

large-scale wildfire nation-wide has led to considerable new and/or revised National level 

initiatives, policy, and law regarding fire and fuels management. These initiatives, policy, and 

law also apply to insect and disease epidemics. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (H.R. 1904) provides improved statutory 

processes for hazardous fuel (including insect/disease) reduction projects and healthy forest 

restoration on National Forest System lands. Other supporting policy includes the Healthy Forest 

Initiative, intended to reduce administrative process delays related to implementation of fuels (and 

insect/disease) reduction projects; National Fire Plan, and The Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy. The main focus of this National guidance is an emphasis on reducing the probability and 

occurrence of large-scale wildfire in fire adapted ecosystems, especially near at-risk communities 

and the wildland-urban interface (WUI); and to reduce the levels of insect infestations and disease. 

HFRA contains a variety of provisions to expedite hazardous fuel reductions on specific types of 

National Forest land. The MPBR Project is an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under 

Section 102(a)(4) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The area qualifies under 

section 102(a)(4) because there is an existing mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring within 

and adjacent to the project area which poses a significant risk to resource values on National 

Forest and private lands (see Determination of Insect Epidemic letter held in the Project File). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 25 

The HFRA provides expedited procedures for complying with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requirements. Section 104 of HFRA provides guidance on the range of alternatives studied 

and disclosed in the NEPA document. All authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects must be

consistent with applicable Forest Plan direction or, if not, it includes an amendment to the Forest Plan. 

Another provision of the HFRA regards the encouragement of communities to prepare a

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which identifies areas of wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and recommends the types and methods of treatments on Federal and non-Federal land. The 

project area contains wildland-urban interface, as defined by the Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans for Crook, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, and Weston counties. This 

project would help accomplish goals of those plans by developing an accelerated program on 

certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations (Crook County); reduce the risk, and help 

restore, recover, and mitigate the damage caused by fire, insects, invasive species, and damaging 

weather (Meade, Lawrence County); and reduce fire and forest health risks within and around 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and At-Risk Communities (ARC) (All Counties). 

The MPB Response Project also integrates goals and objectives established in the July 2011 ‘The 

Western Bark Beetle Strategy (WBBS) for Human Safety, Recovery, and Resiliency.’ The 

Western Bark Beetle Strategy identifies how the Forest Service is responding to and will respond 

to the western bark beetle epidemic over the next five years. The extent of the epidemic requires 

prioritization of treatments, first providing for human safety in areas threatened by standing dead 

hazard trees, and second, addressing dead and down trees that create hazardous fuels conditions 

adjacent to high value areas. After the priority of safety, forested areas with severe mortality will 

be reforested with the appropriate species (Recovery). Forests will also be thinned to reduce the 

number of trees per acre and create more diverse stand structures to minimize extensive epidemic 

bark beetle areas (resiliency). 

The Black Hills National Forest MPB Strategy incorporates the WBBS, the current understanding 

of available scientific research, and presents a science-based path forward. The strategy will be 

achieved through well-defined goals, objectives, and action items, to address each of the three 

prongs of the bark beetle problem: human safety, forest recovery, and long-term forest resiliency. 

The action alternatives in Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project address, to varying degrees, the 

safety, recovery, and resiliency presented in the WBBS and the Forest Strategy. 

Purpose Of and Need for Action 

The Purpose and Need provides the basis for development of the Proposed Action and any 

alternatives generated. The Purpose and Need is based on direction provided by the Black Hills 

National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and National level policy and 

law. The Purpose and Need provides fundamental rationale for the project and it provides guidance 

to the MPBR Interdisciplinary Team during environmental analysis for the MPBR Project Area. 

Purpose and Need. The management focus is to develop a vegetation condition in the project area 

that: 

• Reduces the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the 

existing mountain pine beetle epidemic. 

• Help protect local communities and resources from large scale wildfire by reducing 

hazardous fuels. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 26 

The MPB Response Project is designed to reduce the threat to ecosystem components from the 

existing insect and disease (MPB) epidemic; help protect forested areas on adjacent private and 

state lands; and to alleviate potential adverse effects of the beetle epidemic on Forest resources. The 

Project is based on known methods to reduce MPB infested stands using an adaptive approach 

because it is not possible to determine when or exactly which stands would become infested with 

MPB and/or the precise level of MPB activity, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the 

current extent of the epidemic, the expanding MPB brood populations available to infest new trees, 

and the large volume and wide distribution of high risk stands in the project area. 

There is a need to be more efficient and timely in treating newly infested areas of MPB across the 

Forest. As an adaptive project, provides a more timely and effective response as well as allowing 

the Forest more flexibility in responding to MPB outbreaks by allowing the use of a suite of tools to 

reduce or blunt MPB. Secondly, there is a need to manage hazardous fuel loading associated with 

the MPB epidemic and conduct sanitation/salvage operations to minimize the potential for large 

high intensity/high severity wildfires. 

There is a need to maintain or improve forest health and vigor on a landscape scale with the 

objective of maintaining a healthy forest that is less susceptible to forest insects and diseases, and 

can better withstand events such as wildfire, wind, snow, drought, or other weather related impacts. 

There is a need to appreciably slow or halt the ongoing development and spread of mountain 

pine beetle (MPB) in the project area. The implications of continued spread of this epidemic 

include: increased tree mortality across the landscape; further accumulation of hazardous fuels 

and increased potential for severe large-scale wildfires threatening forest resources and values of 

the WUI within the area and beyond; major changes in the scenery; alteration of wildlife habitat; 

and impacts to soil and water resources. 

Associated with the need to address the MPB epidemic is the need to reduce the potential for 

severe large-scale wildfire. This can be accomplished by breaking up the continuity and 

implementing a variety of vegetation management treatments to thin and reinvigorate pine 

stands, reduce forest fuels, and to facilitate effective wildfire suppression/protection in the area – 

much of which is WUI. 

In association with the focus on improving forest health in the project area, stemming the 

advance of MPB, and reducing fuels/fire hazard, there is an opportunity to address other Forest 

Plan objectives. These include maintaining or improving wildlife/plant habitat, providing forest 

products to local industry, and providing for other resource amenities and uses. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action was introduced to the public during the scoping period (see Public Involvement 

and Collaboration section discussed later in Chapter 1). This proposal was based on addressing the 

purpose and need described in the previous section. Comments received during the comment period 

and at the public meetings were used to refine the proposed action and to develop alternatives to the 

proposed action. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 27 

The proposed action is presented in detail in Chapter 2 of this EIS. It would treat recently infested 

MPB trees on portions of approximately 242,000 acres of ‘High Risk’ stands on National Forest 

System lands in South Dakota and Wyoming to reduce and slow the spread of MPB. The proposed 

action uses Integrated Pest Management techniques to reduce the spread of MPB across NFS lands to 

manage and protect ecosystem components. Integrated Pest Management techniques are proposed for 

areas at high risk and most susceptible to MPB infestation, with the objective of treating and removing 

infested trees before beetles can disperse. Techniques such as: cut and chunk, chipping, and cut-pileburn, and cut-pile-burn with equipment would be scattered across the landscape and generally adjacent 

to or along private property and roads. Insecticide spraying (i.e. carbaryl) would generally occur in 

developed campgrounds, FS facilities, and on scattered legacy trees and would use chemicals 

appropriate for a forested environment. Semiochemical use would be limited along the ‘leading edge’ 

of the BHNF MPB Strategy. Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may occur generally 

southwest of Custer, SD adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of Spearfish, SD towards the 

SD-WY State line; north of Sundance in cooperation and coordination with Forest Health

entomologists and the States of SD and WY. Helicopter and cable logging would occur in areas of 

high value and generally on slopes greater than 40 percent. Cable units would utilize existing roads. 

Generally, commercial and non-commercial treatments to remove infested trees with associated 

thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees would occur across the landscape on slopes 

less than 40 percent on up to 1,000 contiguous acres. 

The proposed action includes approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 

acres of non-commercial (products other than logs (POL)) thinning over an approximate five to 

seven year period to remove MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire 

hazard. Commercial treatments would not be authorized in Non-Motorized Backcountry (MA 

3.32). Commercial and non-commercial thinning would generally occur on slopes less than 40 

percent. This focused forest thinning serves to reduce MPB habitat and fuel loads. 

Decision Framework 

The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project purpose and need (see Chapter 1) provides the focus 

and scope of the proposal as related to National and Forest level policy and direction, plus the 

statutory mandate provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Given this purpose and need, 

the Deciding Official (Forest Supervisor) reviews the proposed action, the issues identified during 

scoping, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of implementing the proposal and 

alternatives disclosed in this EIS. This forms the basis for the Deciding Official to make the 

following determinations: 

• Whether or not the proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, are responsive to 

National policy/guidance/law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need for 

action in the MPBR Project. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities. 

• Which actions, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or mix of activities to 

implement). 

• Whether there is a need for site-specific amendments to existing Forest Plan direction. 

If any action alternative is selected, project implementation could begin in the Fall 2012. The initial 

focus would be to remove MPB infested trees and thin stands in the areas of highest infestation. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 28 

Public Involvement and Collaboration 

During the project development and analysis period, efforts were made to collaborate with 

individuals and groups interested in the MPBR Project. Part of this effort included public 

scoping (see Appendix A). 

Scoping is the process of soliciting and reviewing public comments about proposed federal 

actions to determine the breadth of issues to be addressed. Comments on the proposed action, 

potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the MPBR Project Area were solicited from 

members of the public, American Indian Tribes, other public agencies, adjacent property owners, 

organizations, and Forest Service specialists. 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on Monday, 

August 8, 2011. This provided official notification that the public comment period for the 

MPBR Project Area would last for 30-days concluding September 7, 2011. A corrected NOI 

was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, February 23, 2012 to update the Deciding 

Official determinations.

A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 333 potentially interested parties, including adjacent 

landowners, Tribes, and State and local governments, beginning on August 2, 2011. This letter 

included a description of the project area, an overview of the NEPA process, a general explanation 

of the actions proposed and the reasons for the proposal, and an invitation to comment. Three 

public meetings were held to explain the proposal to the public, and to take comment. A total of 

268 members of the public attended these meetings, which were held in Sundance, WY; Hill City, 

SD; and Spearfish, SD. 

The project was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in October 2011. SOPA 

contains a list of Forest Service proposed actions that will soon begin or are undergoing 

environmental analysis and documentation. It provides information so the public can become

aware of and indicate interest on specific proposals (located on-line at www.fs.fed.us/sopa). 

The Forest received 164 emails and letters during the scoping period, and 581 individual 

comments were identified. There was considerable public response supporting the proposal and 

rationale for action. Many responders urged more and faster actions to address the beetle 

epidemic. Several responses were also received that questioned the need for the project, suggested 

other approaches, or expressed concern about the possible effects of the proposal on natural 

resources and other factors. 

Some key interest groups consulted with and/or involved in the planning process were the South 

Dakota Department of Agriculture - Division of Resource Conservation and Forestry and 

Division of Wildlife Fire Suppression, Conservation Leaders, Chamber of Commerce for Rapid 

City and County Supervisors for Pennington and Lawrence Counties, Rapid City Optimist Club 

and National Forest Advisory Board. A concerted effort was made to engage in consultation 

regarding the project with Tribal contacts known to have interest in management of the National 

Forest. Tribal authorities have been invited to participate in the development of a programmatic 

agreement for this project (see Heritage Section). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 29 

Issues 

This section provides a summary of issues identified during the public and internal scoping period 

for the MPBR Project. Comments received during scoping were used to help in defining issues, 

develop alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 164 comments were 

received via letters, faxes, public meeting transcripts, personal-delivery, or email during the formal 

scoping process. The majority of responses were supportive of the overall project, a few were not. 

Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the MPBR Project Core ID Team 

identified three prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. Comments received and 

the agency ‘response to comments’ are summarized in the MPBR Project File located at the Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Custer, South Dakota. 

The ID Team reviewed input submitted during the scoping period and separated the issues into 

significant [as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 

1500.4(g) and 1501.7)] and non-significant issues. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified 

as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest 

Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and 

not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review (Sec. 1506.3)....” Non-significant issues and rationale regarding their categorization as 

non-significant may be found in the project record. A brief description of the three key issues and 

measurement indicators follows below: 

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity 

The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. The epidemic is killing 

mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. The 250,000 acres of pine 

trees are rated as high risk for MPB infestation. A high level of mortality is expected throughout 

the area as a result of the ongoing epidemic. This would increase fuel loads and wildfire hazard, 

and poses a (significant) threat to ecosystem components and forest resources.

The proposed action seeks to maintain and enhance vegetation and wildlife diversity by 

removing infested pine trees to limit MPB spread locally. Reducing the amount of MPB caused 

mortality and maintaining mature pine trees within stands would reduce the potential for wildfire 

that could impact large areas of the forested ecosystem. 

Most respondents commented on their support to limit the spread of MPB and reduce wildfire 

hazard. A few respondents commented directly on vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity. 

Generally, the emphasis of these comments was to leave the maximum amount of mature pine on the 

landscape. A concern was raised that efforts to suppress and prevent a potential insect infestation 

would result in reduced snag densities, tree diameters and longevity across the landscape. 

Measurement indicators are listed below for the varied aspects of the vegetative and wildlife 

habitat diversity issue. These indicators are represented by vegetative diversity and wildlife 

habitat components applicable to the Black Hills NF as specified in the Forest Plan or other 

direction. Thus, as measurement indicators, these components can provide the public and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 30 

decision maker a basis for making a relative comparison between alternative resolutions 

regarding vegetative and wildlife habitat diversity. A comparison between alternatives is 

displayed in table format at the end of chapter 2. Also, a written description of the comparative 

differences in effects is presented in the Comparison of Alternatives section in Chapter 2 and in 

the Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicators: 

MPB Hazard Rating (Acres Low / High) 

Structural Stages 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard 

The need to reduce fuels, and the potential for large-scale wildfire are currently of foremost 

concern with the public and the agency in this area. The seven Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan’s designate most of the proposed treatment areas as wildland-urban interface. There are 56 

at-risk-communities and these issues have understandably been elevated to a higher level of 

concern with the local public, given the massive MPB epidemic and wildfires that have been 

experienced recently throughout the West and certainly within the Black Hills. 

Comments from local, State, and Federal elected officials indicated that the Forest Service needs 

to be proactive and do more to address the ongoing MPB epidemic and wildfire and fuels hazard 

on National Forest lands with emphasis focused on the wildland-urban interface areas and 

private property boundaries. 

The proposed action includes removing recently infested MPB trees. Many of the stands with a 

high/very high wildfire hazard also have a high risk for MPB. The proposed action recognizes 

that wildfire in this setting cannot be eliminated, but by managing vegetation and fuels, fire 

severity and intensities may be reduced. 

The parameters listed below are measurement indicators for the multiple aspects of the fire and fuel 

hazard reduction issue in the MPB Response Project Area. These indicators are representative of a 

number of variables associated with fuels and fire hazard reduction. These measurement indicators 

are intended to provide the public and decision maker a basis for making a relative comparison 

between alternative resolutions regarding fuels and fire hazard reduction. A comparison between 

alternatives is displayed in table format at the end of Chapter 2 (see Table 2-1and Table 2-2). A 

narrative description of the comparative differences in effects is presented briefly in the 

Comparison of Alternatives section in Chapter 2 and in more detail under the Fire and Fuels section 

in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicators: 

Fire Hazard Rating (Acres Low/Moderate/High/Very High) 

Wildland Urban Interface (Acres) 

Miles of Roads – Ingress/Egress (Levels 3-5) 

3. Social 

The Project area lies within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and contains numerous at-risk 

communities. The many people who live within and adjacent to the area strongly value its 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 31 

forested setting and the experiences and lifestyle associated with this environment. Landowners 

are concerned about property values and their health and safety as related to the ongoing MPB 

epidemic and the potential threat of large-scale wildfire. Values at risk on the approximately 

300,000 acres of private land within the project are characterized by: extensive structure and 

subdivision development, 56 at-risk-communities, utility infrastructure, businesses, highways, 

roads, fences, outbuildings, recreation sites, and community watersheds. 

The MPB Response project area contains many distinctive features that visitors look for when 

visiting National Forest System lands – solitude, fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, and 

motorized and non-motorized travel within a short distance of their communities. 

The local public strongly supports using multiple management tools (including commercial timber 

harvest) to reduce the potential for insect/disease infestations and reducing the potential for largescale wildfire. Public comments also support commercial harvest because it utilizes a renewable 

resource and provides a needed commodity, employs local residents, adds favorably to the local and 

State economy, is environmentally acceptable, and can make an important difference in quickly and 

effectively reducing insect/disease infestations and wildfire potential. 

There were comments about the need to preserve the scenic beauty of the area, and to maintain 

the balance of the need for insect/fuel treatment with the amount of development/use within the 

area. Some respondents question whether the proposed thinning to reduce stand density would 

actually reduce mountain pine beetle risk. These respondents prefer an approach of either no 

active management or the use of prescribed burning as the way to naturally thin stands. 

There was a remarkable expression of urgency and expectation by locals participating during the 

public involvement period. They clearly felt that the agency should act quickly and do 

something significant and effective to safeguard their well-being and the resource amenities from 

the MPB epidemic and potential impacts of large-scale wildfire. 

The parameters listed below are measurement indicators for the various aspects of this social 

issue. These indicators are intended to provide the public and decision maker a basis for making 

a relative comparison between alternative resolutions regarding the social and economic 

concerns as related to the proposal, MPB, and fuel/fire hazard conditions in the area. A 

comparison between alternatives is displayed in table format at the end of Chapter 2. Also, a 

written description of the comparative differences in effects is presented in the Comparison of 

Alternatives section in Chapter 2 and in the Socio-economic section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicators: 

Fire Hazard Rating (Acres Low/ High) 

At-Risk Communities – Cooperative efforts with County, State, other Groups/Individuals 

(subjective estimate of cooperation and involvement with interested entities) 

Cost (millions) 

Commercial Timber Harvest (Volume) 

Non-Commercial Thinning (Volume) 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft EIS, Page 32 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 33 

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

This Chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action (Alternative B), Alternative C, 

as well as a No Action alternative (Alternative A) for the MPBR Project Area. Maps of the 

proposed action and alternatives are located in Appendix D of this EIS. The Agency has not 

identified a preferred alternative at this time. 

This chapter presents the alternatives comparatively by both describing and displaying the quantitative 

and qualitative differences between each alternative. The intent is to provide the public and decision 

maker a basis for choice among management options when considering the environmental 

consequences (effects) of implementing each alternative as disclosed in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

A brief overview is presented toward the end of this chapter regarding those alternatives that were 

considered by the Core ID Team but eliminated from detailed development and study. The last 

section of the chapter contains two comparative tabular summaries that describe each alternative and 

display the quantitative and/or qualitative effects of implementing each alternative relative to the 

three key issues presented in Chapter 1. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

This section provides a summary of activities that are planned to occur during implementation of 

any of the alternatives. It is important to note that the amount (e.g. acres, miles, etc.) of a certain 

activity in any alternative is approximate (based on inventory and survey estimates). Actual 

figures may increase or decrease somewhat during “on-the-ground” preparation of the project 

actions based on such things as non-uniform fuels regime or stand structure, small inclusions of 

inoperable terrain, refinement of length or standard of road needed or eliminated, etc. 

The MPBR Project qualifies as an “authorized fuel hazard reduction project” pursuant to HFRA Sec. 

102(a)(4). This determination is set forth in a project memo entitled “Authorized Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction Projects per HFRA” held in the MPBR Project file. 

Pursuant to HFRA, authorized projects cannot take place in wilderness areas, wilderness study 

areas or areas where removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or Presidential 

proclamation. None of these restrictions apply to the MPBR Project (Sec. 102 (d)). Also, HFRA 

requires that projects, such as the MPBR Project, be consistent with the LRMP (Sec. 102 (b)). 

The MPBR Project Core ID Team recommended (with Deciding Official concurrence) that the No 

Action, Proposed Action, and one additional action alternative would be considered in detail. 

Section 104 of HFRA provides guidance on the range of alternatives studied in detail and disclosed 

in the NEPA document. 

The MPBR Project Action Alternatives are based on known methods to reduce MPB infested stands 

using an adaptive approach because it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of MPB 

activity, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 34 

expanding MPB brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large volume and wide

distribution of high risk stands in the project area. 

Alternative A would take no action to address the purpose and need. Alternatives B and C are action 

alternatives that focus to varying degrees on meeting the purpose and need. Alternative B is the 

proposed action and includes commercial and non-commercial thinning. Alternative C was developed 

in response to public comments received during the scoping period. Specifically, it responds to 

concerns about not treating more ‘high risk’ stands on a landscape basis, treating in advance of MPB, 

and addresses concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress). 

The HFRA (Sec. 101(3)) also encourages the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

(CWPP), which identify areas of WUI and recommends the types and methods of treatments on 

Federal and non-Federal land. The project area contains wildland-urban interface, as defined by the 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans for Crook, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, 

and Weston counties. This project would help accomplish goals of those plans by developing an 

accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations (Crook County); reduce 

the risk, and help restore, recover, and mitigate the damage caused by fire, insects, invasive species, 

and damaging weather (Meade, Lawrence County); and reduce fire and forest health risks within and 

around Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and At-Risk Communities (ARC) (All Counties). 

The plans designate most of the MPBR Project Area as WUI for the purposes “covered” by HFRA 

(Sec. 102(a)(1)). 

Alternative A – No Action 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the No Action Alternative 

and to use it as a basis for comparing the effects of the Proposed Action and other alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the proposed action 

or other action alternative would take place within the MPB Response Project Area. This 

alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action, the issues, 

or concerns identified during scoping for this project. There would be no effort to modify existing 

vegetation and related fuels conditions in the project area. Vegetation structure would change over 

time through natural growth and mortality and events such as wildfires, storms, and insect and 

disease outbreaks. None of the actions associated with this EIS would occur. 

It is important to note that the absence of management actions does not mean that conditions in the 

area would remain static over time. In fact, there would likely be dramatic changes. This is related to 

the actions of nature and to the actions of people. Natural processes are likely to result in the largescale mortality of mature pine trees due to the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic. Dead pine 

trees would add to the accumulation of ground and ladder fuels and increase the potential for largescale wildfires with associated negative effects on the land, values, wildlife, and people. Human 

caused changes include a further increase in development on private land, expanded dispersed 

recreation use, and increased traffic on the newly designated road and trail system in the project area. 

Actions such as ongoing Forest protection efforts, fire suppression, noxious weed treatment, and 

recurring road maintenance on system roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 35 

Vegetative management would not take place unless authorized by other decisions (see 

cumulative effects actions in Chapter 3). 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Alternative B is designed to reduce the threat from recently detected infestations of MPB in high risk 

stands. Infested trees would be treated before the beetles disperse to other trees (stands). Some 

surrounding (non-infested) trees at risk of infestation may also be thinned to reduce stand densities and 

the associated threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing (mountain 

pine beetle) epidemic and reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire. The alternative was developed 

as a response to the purpose and need for action and it represents the Forest Service proposed action 

(see description of the purpose and need plus the proposed action in Chapter 1 of this EIS). 

Vegetative management in this alternative uses Integrated Pest Management techniques on portions 

of approximately 242,000 acres to reduce the spread of MPB across NFS lands to manage and 

protect ecosystem components. Integrated Pest Management techniques are proposed for areas at 

high risk and most susceptible to MPB infestation, with the objective of treating and removing 

infested trees before beetles can disperse. Techniques such as: 

• Cut and chunk, chipping, cut-hand pile-burn, and cut-equipment pile-burn would be scattered 

across the landscape. Generally chipping and cut-equipment pile-burn would be in areas

with good access adjacent to or along private property and roads. Cut and chunk and cuthand pile-burn would be scattered along roads, private property and hillsides to remove 

pockets of infested trees. 

• Insecticide spraying (i.e. carbaryl) would generally occur in developed campgrounds, FS 

facilities, and on scattered legacy trees. Semiochemical use would be limited along the 

‘leading edge’ of the BHNF MPB Strategy. Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may 

occur generally southwest of Custer, SD adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of 

Spearfish, SD towards the SD-WY State line; north of Sundance in cooperation and 

coordination with Forest Health entomologists and the States of SD and WY. 

• Cable and Helicopter logging would generally occur in high value areas on slopes greater 

than 40 percent. Cable units would utilize existing roads. 

• Commercial and non-commercial thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees 

would generally occur across the landscape on slopes generally less than 40 percent on up to 

1,000 contiguous acres. 

Alternative B proposes approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 acres 

of non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to remove MPB 

infested trees and associated trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. 

Commercial treatments would not be authorized in Non-motorized Backcountry (MA 3.32). 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning would generally occur on slopes less than 40 percent. 

Cable logging is proposed in areas with existing roads. This focused forest thinning serves to 

reduce MPB habitat and fuel loads. 

Adhering to project design criteria, all trees infested by MPB would be targeted for treatment. 

Some surrounding (non-infested) trees at risk of infestation may also be considered for treatment. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 36 

Prospective treatment and methods used at any specific locations would be reviewed prior to 

implementation by resource specialists to ensure compliance with the Decision(s) of this EIS. 

Most forest thinning would be accomplished using a variety of contracting methods (commercial 

timber harvest, service contracts, stewardship contracts) or Forest Service work crews or cooperators 

to a lesser extent would be used to thin trees and reduce fuels in areas where contracting is not 

feasible. The amounts of commercial and non-commercial acres are based on estimates at this time. 

The result, however, would be to maximize the economic efficiency of the overall operations through 

contracting and agreements. Sanitation harvest to remove infested pine trees may be conducted in 

areas near or adjacent to identified stands in order to limit the expansion of MPB population. 

Alternative B would utilize existing roads and routes. No new roads would be constructed. 

Reconstruction of existing NFSRs could include improvements, restoration or realignment. Some 

existing unauthorized routes may be converted to Level 1 System Roads and closed following 

management activities. Some System Trails may be temporarily changed to roads and then 

returned to trails after vegetation management activities are completed. 

See Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 at the end of this chapter for a comparison of alternatives. Appendix D 

contains maps that display the location of vegetation treatments activity and existing roads/routes. 

Design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring specific to this alternative are described in Appendix B. 

Integrated Pest Management methods and treatment activities in Alternative B would occur over an 

approximate five to seven year period and include: 

Commercial Harvest Treatments 

• 41,140 acres 

Non-commercial (POL) Treatments 

• 7,260 acres 

Total estimated area of mechanical harvest treatments: 

• 48,400 acres 

Total estimated volume of timber and other products removed 

• Volume of saw timber removed – up to 403,172 CCF over an approximate five year 

period 

• Volume of products other than logs removed – up to 14,520 CCF over an approximate 

five year period 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period. 

The alternative is a more proactive response to the purpose and need for action. Specifically, it 

responds to concerns about not treating more ‘high risk’ stands on a landscape basis, treating in 

advance of MPB, and addresses concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress). 

Alternative C includes all aspects of Alternative B (Proposed Action). Integrated Pest Management 

techniques would occur on portions of approximately 248,000 acres to reduce the spread of MPB 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 37 

across NFS lands to manage and protect ecosystem components. As stated for Alternative B, the 

following techniques could be used: 

• Cut and chunk, chipping, cut-hand pile-burn, and cut-equipment pile-burn would be scattered 

across the landscape. Generally chipping and cut-equipment pile-burn would be in areas

with good access adjacent to or along private property and roads. Cut and chunk and cuthand pile-burn would be scattered along roads, private property and hillsides to remove 

pockets of infested trees. 

• Insecticide spraying (i.e. carbaryl) would generally occur in developed campgrounds, FS 

facilities, and on scattered legacy trees and would use chemicals appropriate for forested 

environments. 

• Semiochemical use would be limited along the ‘leading edge’ of the BHNF MPB Strategy. 

Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may occur generally southwest of Custer, SD 

adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of Spearfish, SD towards the SD-WY State 

line; north of Sundance in cooperation and coordination with Forest Health entomologists 

and the States of SD and WY. 

• Helicopter logging would generally occur in high value areas on slopes greater than 40 

percent. 

• Commercial and non-commercial thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees 

would occur across the landscape on slopes generally less than 40 percent. 

Alternative C proposes approximately 105,400 acres of commercial and approximately 18,600 

acres of non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to remove 

MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. 

Alternative C includes three additional elements: 

• Landscape level thinning in advance of large beetle infestations to reduce stand densities 

and the risk of MPB infestation, thereby reducing the wildfire hazard, and creating 

landscape-scale fuel breaks. 

• Treatments in MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon 

• Up to 70 miles of new System and/or 180 miles temporary road construction 

Alternative C would utilize existing roads and construct new System and/or Temporary Roads. 

Reconstruction of existing NFSRs could include improvements, restoration or realignment. 

Construction of new temporary roads would not be converted to System Roads. Some existing 

unauthorized routes (approximately 46 miles) may be converted to Level 1 System Roads and 

closed following management activities. Some System Trails may be temporarily changed to 

roads and then returned to trails after vegetation management activities are completed. 

See Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 at the end of this chapter for a comparison of alternatives. Appendix D 

contains maps that display the location of vegetation treatments activity and new road construction. 

Design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring specific to this alternative are described in Appendix B. 

Integrated Pest Management methods and treatment activities in Alternative C would occur over an 

approximate five to seven year period and include: 

Commercial Harvest Treatments 

• 105,400 acres 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 38 

Non-commercial (POL) Treatments 

• 18,600 acres 

Total estimated area of mechanical harvest treatments: 

• 124,000 acres 

Total estimated volume of timber and other products removed 

• Volume of saw timber removed – up to 1,032,920 CCF over an approximate five year 

period 

• Volume of products other than logs removed – up to 37,200 CCF over an approximate 

five year period 

During analysis, the ID Team identified the need for a site-specific Forest Plan amendment to fully 

implement this alternative. Effects of implementing each alternative, including an amendment, are 

presented in Chapter 3. The following is a brief description that would require an amendment. 

Forest Plan Standard 3103 directs to manage colonies of sensitive species of snails and snail 

species of local concern to retain important habitat features, by avoiding burning and heavy 

equipment use and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and 

ground cover. A listed sensitive species, Cooper’s mountainsnail, Oreohelix strigosa cooperi, is 

known to occur on the Black Hills, and is protected by this standard. Numerous colonies of this

species are known to occur in Spearfish Canyon, Management Area 4.2A. Four snail Species of 

Local Concern (SOLC) - Callused vertigo (Vertigo arthuri), frigid ambersnail (Catinella gelida), 

mystery vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa) and striate disc (Discus shemekii) - also occur in Spearfish 

Canyon, though not as abundantly as Cooper’s mountainsnail. 

Alternative C proposes timber harvest via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders, as well as 

some road construction, in MA 4.2A. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountainsnail and 

SOLC snails in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a 

Forest Plan amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place 

within MA4.2A. This amendment would apply only to any actions approved under this project, 

and would not be an enduring amendment for other decisions, nor would it change the wording of 

Standard 3103 in the Forest Plan. 

ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Post-sale Activities: The Knutson Vandenburg (KV) Act authorizes the Forest Service to collect 

money from timber sales for resource enhancement, protection, and improvement work in the 

timber sale area. Actions proposed as KV activities for the MPBR Project area are listed below: 

• Vegetation monitoring: Post treatment data collection for use in monitoring and 

evaluation of activities. Follows standard stand exam protocols for complete condition 

evaluation. 

• Noxious weed treatment and monitoring: Spray and monitor noxious weeds following 

all ground disturbing activities. 

• Road closure: All new roads constructed or converted under the MPBR Project would be 

closed upon the completion of management activities. Closure methods would be 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 39 

determined at the time of closure depending on site conditions. Possible methods include: 

locked gates, boulders, dirt berms, downed trees, fences, and re-contouring. 

The following is a description of specific actions planned that are common to both action 

alternatives (with some exceptions as noted) both in terms of type of action, amount, or size. 

Fuels Management Collaboration and Cooperation

Under all Action Alternatives strong emphasis would be given to further current efforts at 

working collaboratively with the State Wildland Fire and Forestry Divisions, Volunteer Fire 

Departments, Crook, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, and Weston counties, 

landowners, and others regarding insect and fuels hazard reduction and management concerns 

including: 

• Implementing the management recommendations and guidance set forth in the 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans; 

• Working collaboratively with State, local jurisdictions, and private landowners to treat 

hazardous fuels in a coordinated effort along adjoining NFS/private land boundaries;

• Advocating the use of appropriate building materials, landscaping techniques, 

appropriate fuel break construction methods like those recommended by the “Firewise” 

program on adjoining lands; and 

DESIGN CRITERIA 

Design criteria include standard practices such as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), 

Best Management Practices, and others. They are actions that are applicable and expected to be 

implemented as a matter of standard operating procedures consistent with the theme of a given 

alternative. Design criteria are applied in order to protect resources and forest users, as well as 

minimize impacts resulting from implementing action alternatives (see Appendix B). 

MONITORING 

The MPB Response Project is an adaptive management project. As such, monitoring plays an 

important role in providing feedback on which design features were implemented, which were 

effective, and whether adaptations are needed to treatment design to make them more effective 

(Figure 2-1). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 40 

Figure 2-1 The Adaptive Management Cycle. 

Monitoring MPB Response Project activities would consist of two types of monitoring – 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring would 

measure whether applicable design criteria, BMPs and Forest Plan standard and guidelines are 

correctly implemented. This allows managers to adjust management if certain items are being 

missed during the implementation process. Effectiveness monitoring measures whether the 

treatments implemented with the design criteria, BMPs and Forest Plan standard and guidelines 

are achieving the desired out comes. Effectiveness monitoring would measure how implemented 

treatments are effective at protecting resources as well as reducing MPB risk. If monitoring 

finds resource protection objectives are not being achieved, then: 

• Reduce or modify vegetation treatment operations and/or 

• Increase resource protection measure 

• Increase monitoring to determine the source of impact and apply appropriate mitigation 

A sample of the each type of treatments in the MPB Response Project would be selected each 

year for monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring would occur through pre-field review and field 

visits. The pre-field review would include reviewing implementation notes and applicable 

standards, guidelines, design criteria and BMPs. Field visits would be accomplished in an 

interdisciplinary fashion to facilitate cross-sharing of effectiveness and identification of needed 

changes to project activities. The monitoring information collected would be evaluated and 

documented along with any recommended changes in an annual report. The annual report would 

be completed and provided to the Forest Supervisor within two months of the end of the fiscal 

year (January 31 of each year). 

Project and contract administrators would perform much of the project monitoring during project 

implementation. Other resource specialists would monitor specific progress including application 

of design criteria and mitigation measures related to their resource of concern. 

Selection of Integrated Pest Management Techniques 

Black Hills National Forest resource specialists use professional judgment along with 

collaborating with researchers and others to use the best available science to address the ongoing MPB epidemic. The Project is based on known methods to reduce MPB infested stands 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 41 

using an adaptive approach because it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of 

MPB activity, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, 

the expanding MPB brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large volume and 

wide distribution of high risk stands in the project area. 

The guide in figure 2-2 will help determine, which, if any, integrated pest management techique 

and design criterias would be utilized in the MPBR Project potential treatment areas. 

Figure 2-2 Selection of IPM 

Utilizing local wood products industries would be the most economical and normally the best 

choice in meeting the purpose and need: removing the infested tree(s) from the forest reduces 

MPB risk and the fire hazard. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED but ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY 

Additional alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered based on issues and concerns

expressed during the scoping period. Most scoping comments were supportive of the Proposed 

Action, but some had recommendations to consider alternative actions as part of the NEPA 

analysis. The HFRA Section 104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii) specifies consideration of additional alternative(s) 

meets the purpose and need of the project. Some of the comments recommended actions that were 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 42 

outside the scope of the purpose and need, some were actions that could be incorporated into design 

and mitigation measures included in the proposed action, and some were incorporated into an 

additional alternative (Alternative C) for detailed study. The following provides an overview of 

alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed study. 

District landscape Projects. Since 1997, the Black Hills has seen a noticeable increase in pine 

tree mortality due to MPB. The four ranger districts that comprise the Black Hills National 

Forest have also increased the scale and scope of District level projects to manage the Forest in 

response to the ongoing MPB epidemic. From the early 2000’s these landscape projects have 

thinned the Forest in areas most prone to MBP. 

However, many areas of the Forest are more continuous, uniform and denser than what has

historically occurred. The MPB epidemic is rapidly expanding across the Forest. The epidemic is 

changing vegetation structure and wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. The rate of infestation is 

increasing and the epidemic is likely to continue over the next three to five years (Allen, 2011). 

The potential treatment areas identified are ‘High Risk’ stands on National Forest System lands to 

reduce and slow the spread of MPB, and reduce wildfire hazard on the Forest. The current

approach is beyond the scale of District level projects to effectively respond to the ongoing MPB 

epidemic. Alternatives B and C propose to reduce MPB risk and fire hazard by treating recently 

infested MPB areas in a timely and effective manner. Alternative C proposes to thin in advance of 

MPB to lessen the susceptibility of MBP and reduce fire hazard across a larger landscape on the 

premise of anticipating MPB entering the potential treatment areas. None of these proposed 

treatments associated with the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project would occur within current 

or foreseeable District planning areas. District landscape projects, at this time, was considered but 

eliminated from detail study primarily because it does not provide the flexibility, timing, scale, and 

efficacy to respond to the MPB epidemic and associated fire hazard. 

An alternative was proposed that would limit commercial treatments to within one-quarter 

mile of structures. This proposal is intended to provide defensible space from wildfires around 

private property. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act encourages the development of Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans. Crook, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, and Weston 

counties have CWPP’s and define WUI buffers and treatments within one-half mile, one and onehalf mile, and three mile buffer zones. This project would help accomplish goals of those plans by 

developing an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations (Crook 

County); reduce the risk, and help restore, recover, and mitigate the damage caused by fire, insects, 

invasive species, and damaging weather (Meade, Lawrence County); and reduce fire and forest 

health risks within and around Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas and At-Risk Communities 

(ARC) (All Counties). The threat of wildfire is a major concern for those living, working, and 

recreating in this area, and for the communities that depend on the Forest watersheds for a portion 

of their domestic water supply. 

An alternative that only treats within one-quarter mile of structures was considered but 

eliminated from detail study for several reasons. First, limiting treatments to one-quarter mile 

does not address the need to treat stands that are infested with MPB. Second, wildfires in the 

Black Hills have been observed lofting embers and starting spot fires up to one-half mile in front 

of a fast moving fire front. Third, the potential treatment areas are rated as high or very high fire 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 43 

hazard rating. The potential for a fast moving stand replacing fire is relatively high. 

Furthermore, it does not address the threat to ecosystem components from large-scale wildfire 

over the larger project area. 

An alternative was proposed to exclude certain management areas from treatments (i.e. 

Backcountry Non-Motorized, Southern Hills, and Big Game Winter Range). The ID Team 

determined that excluding these MA’s from the project would not meet the purpose and need or 

Forest Plan direction. Both Alternatives A and B address a portion of this proposed alternative – 

Alternative B would not authorize commercial treatments in Backcountry Non-Motorized (MA 

3.32). Therefore, excluding certain management areas from treatments was considered but 

eliminated from detail study. 

An alternative was proposed to include ‘special areas’ for treatment (i.e. Inyan Kara Mountain 

and Sand Creek Inventoried Roadless Area, Crow Peak, Lookout Mountain). Inyan Kara and 

Sand Creek Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA’s) were not included in the MPBR Project due to 

agency policy on management of roadless areas and Forest Plan direction regarding management 

activities and opportunities. These ‘special’ Management Areas have specific Forest Plan direction 

on management activities and would require a time consuming amendment to the Forest Plan to be 

included in the MPBRP. Focusing on Management Areas with objectives to actively treat MPB, the 

MPBRP would provide for a more timely and effective response as well as allowing the Forest more 

flexibility in responding to MPB outbreaks by allowing the use of a suite of tools to reduce or blunt 

MPB. Other areas (i.e. Spearfish Canyon was incorporated into Alternative C) and Lookout Peak is 

on private property. For the reasons cited above, a separate alternative designed to include 

additional ‘special areas’ was considered but eliminated from detail study. 

An alternative was proposed that would not allow any new road construction or reconstruction 

or convert any ‘non-system’ roads. Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B address a portion 

of this proposed alternative – no new road construction. The Forest-wide Travel Management 

EIS/ROD designates motorized routes/areas within the project area. 

The Transportation System for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) proposes to convert up to 15 

miles of existing non-system roads and converts up to 46 miles in Alternative C. Alternatives B 

and C propose to reconstruct approximately 87 and 223 miles of system roads to improve drainage, 

protect road beds from damage, and ensure safe ingress/egress. An Alternative that does not treat 

MPB infested stands by precluding reconstruction would not meet the purpose and need for the 

project. 

Any impacts associated with road activities are likely to be minimal in intensity of effects. The 

new road construction proposed in Alternative C (70 miles System and 180 miles temporary) 

would be field reviewed prior to construction. All road work would comply with Region 2 

Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP). The HFRA, under which the project is proposed, is 

intended to streamline the NEPA process, limit the number of alternatives analyzed (see HFRA 

Sec. 104(c)(1) and (2)), and focus on meeting the purpose and need for the project (HFRA Sec. 

104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii)). Analyzing a separate alternative that constructs no new roads or converts no 

existing non-system roads is well within the range of alternatives considered in detail in this EIS. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 44 

Therefore, an alternative that does not allow new construction, conversion of existing nonsystem roads, or reconstruction of existing roads was considered and eliminated from detail 

study for the reasons cited above. 

An alternative was proposed that would reduce MPB effects through non-commercial 

treatments only, use prescribed fire, and convert stands to aspen or birch. The ID Team 

determined that the use of non-commercial thinning only would focus on limiting tree removal to 

those smaller than 9-inch diameter is neither warranted nor prudent relative to the on-going MPB 

epidemic and reducing hazardous fuels within the potential treatment areas. This proposed 

alternative would be very costly with little to no offsetting revenues. Promoting diversity in 

forest types is a Forest Plan objective that would continue under any alternative. 

Many of the stand boundaries identified in the project are mid-slope and do not lend to a safe and 

effective prescribe broadcast burn unit. There is abundant intermix of private land, 56 at risk 

communities, WUI, FRCC 3, and the potential treatment areas rated as high or very high fire 

hazard. This increases the burning complexity (in both igniting and holding) therefore, prescribed 

broadcast burning, utilizing only non-commercial treatments and converting stands was considered 

by eliminated from detail study. 

An alternative was proposed that would maximize commercial and non-commercial 

treatments and broad scale MPB baiting. The ID Team considered fully maximizing 

treatments on all possible acres needing treatment. Developing and analyzing such an alternative 

would certainly take the range of alternatives to the fullest extent being analyzed. This could 

entail amending the Forest Plan to permit treatment at the expense of other Forest Plan objectives, 

standards, or guidelines. 

This proposal, which is within the scope of the purpose and need, would most likely have the greatest 

positive impact on reducing MPB and hazardous fuels. The use of broad scale baiting has not been 

implemented and monitored for results across large landscapes (See Vegetation Section in Chapter 3). 

However, when balancing the needs of other resources relative to Forest Plan direction and HFRA, 

the ID Team determined that a maximal approach would not be practical primarily because of the 

costs associated. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

This section presents a brief comparative discussion of the three alternatives given detailed study in 

this EIS. The alternatives are described and compared in terms of the effects each alternative has on 

the key issues described in Chapter 1. A comparative overview of vegetation treatment activities is 

also provided. Table 2-1 and 2-2, display comparative summaries of the effects of each alternative 

and their respective treatment activities. The environmental consequences of the alternatives to the 

resources affected in the MPBR Project Area are more completely described in Chapter 3 of this EIS 

and information contained in the Project File. 

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Issue

Changes in vegetation and associated wildlife habitat would occur in the project area regardless 

of which alternative is selected, including the No Action Alternative. The ongoing MPB 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 45 

epidemic is expected to continue to greatly affect the vegetation and wildlife habitats in the 

project area. Open forest conditions are expected to increase in all alternatives while dense 

forest conditions are expected to decline due to MPB activities. Increased fuel loading caused by 

dead and dying pine trees would increase the potential for even more dramatic changes from 

potential wildfire, up to the complete removal of the existing forest over large portions of area. 

Stand-replacing fire would create Black-backed and Lewis’s woodpecker habitat while removing 

habitat for other sensitive species. 

In the short term, Alternative A is expected to favor wildlife species that prefer dense mature pine 

stands with large amounts of standing dead trees (snags). Many of these habitats are expected to 

change in the long term with the ongoing MPB epidemic and greater potential for large-scale 

wildfire. MPB activities are expected to reduce mature ponderosa pine trees. Some of the mature 

pine trees are large trees that serve as raptor roost trees, bat roosts, foraging habitat for brown 

creepers and pygmy nuthatches, and provide future large snags for woodpeckers and flying squirrels. 

Alternatives B and C are expected to directly reduce, but not eliminate the amount of dense pine 

habitat, and favor wildlife species that thrive in more open stands. Open forest conditions are used 

by peregrine falcons and goshawks for foraging, Lewis’s woodpeckers, and bighorn sheep. 

Habitat for other species (e.g., flammulated owls, Black-backed woodpeckers, broad-winged, 

sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks) that use dense, mature forest conditions is expected to decline. 

Some species use both dense and open forests (e.g., goshawks, northern flying squirrels, saw-whet 

owls, pygmy nuthatches and deer). These species may decline until the forest recovers from MPB 

and treatments. Forested stands with lower basal areas would improve growth and vigor and 

increase the size of the remaining trees. These conditions are expected to conserve habitat for 

woodpeckers, brown creepers, and pygmy nuthatch, and bats by promoting the development of 

larger-diameter trees, which may eventually provide large-diameter snags. These alternatives also 

would have a lower but sufficient amount of snags as compared to Alternative A. Alternatives B 

and C would reduce mountain pine beetle hazard and tree mortality. Some of stands would be 

treated thereby fuel loading would be managed and overall wildfire hazard reduced. 

The removal of the pine overstory in Alternatives B and C would release the established 

understory from competition for light, water, and nutrients. The effect would be an increase in 

early successional, younger structural stage pine directed at meeting Forest structural stage 

objectives. Species associated with early seral pine habitats would benefit from treatments 

proposed in Alternatives B and C. 

Deciduous trees such as aspen and oak may increase under all alternatives if MPB areas and 

treatment areas have a deciduous component. This could improve foraging habitat for ruffed grouse, 

redbelly snakes, broad-winged hawks, Cooper’s hawks, goshawks and other species that use 

hardwoods or prey on animals that use hardwood habitat. The potential for hardwood to increase is 

greatest in Alternative C, followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

2. Wildfire and Fuel Hazard Issue 

Forest vegetative and fuels conditions in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response project area would 

continue to deviate from their historic range under Alternative A (No Action). With the expanding 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 46 

MPB epidemic, large amounts of dead, dry fuels will be added to an already serious wildfire hazard. 

Currently 100% of the project area is rated at a high or very high wildfire hazard and this hazard will 

continue to increase if no action is taken to modify or treat the fuels. The end result could be high 

intensity wildfire over much of the project area that would remove much of the existing forest cover. 

This could cause significant negative effects to the ecosystem; area infrastructures, public and 

private lands, and threaten the lives of residents and firefighters. There are approximately 206,000 

acres of WUI, which would not be treated under the No Action Alternative. Alternative B contains 

200,000 acres and Alternative C 206,000 acres of WUI, which could potentially be treated. 

Treatments planned in Alternatives B and C would help reduce the potential for a severe wildfire by 

moving the forest closer to a Condition Class 1 or 2 - i.e., conditions more closely approaching the 

natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; wildfire 

frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. This would be accomplished by 

thinning the ponderosa pine forest, removing or treating some of the surface fuels by pile burning. 

Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, would have the greatest effect on reducing fire hazards. 

Both alternatives would treat the forest and manage the forest to a lower stand density. Treatments 

would be implemented on a landscape basis and designed so that they would complement existing or 

natural fuelbreak features such as hardwood stands, meadows, private land pastures, and moister 

habitats. 

Fire Hazard is expected to be reduced substantially with Alternatives B and C, but conditions 

change quickly in a Fire Regime I forest, and fire hazard will eventually escalate post-treatment as 

the vegetation grows and the detritus once again accumulates. However, the fire hazard in twenty 

years is expected to be much lower with Alternative C or B than the No Action Alternative. 

All action alternatives would meet the Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and maintaining a 

mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale fire, insect, and disease 

events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities, and Standard 

4103, utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. 

It is not possible to eliminate fire from a short interval fire regime based on past history of fire 

events in the Black Hills. Wildfires would continue to occur within or adjacent to the project 

area. Most of these fires are of low intensity and are too small to have a significant effect upon 

the environment. It is the large, severe wildfires that have the most impact upon the ecosystem, 

the public, and private lands conditions and values. The alternatives for the MPBR Project have 

been evaluated on their effectiveness in reducing the potential for large, severe wildfires. 

3. Social 

The ongoing MPB epidemic and subsequent wildfire hazard is of foremost concern in the project 

area. This epidemic is killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. 

There would be no direct costs associated with Alternative A. Although potential costs 

associated with No Action (Alternative A) is not integrated into the cost/benefit analysis, the 

actual cost of no action could potentially be much higher than the action alternatives in 

economic, social and environmental terms. Recent wildfires on the Black Hills and in the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 47 

western USA have experienced costs in the millions of dollars for suppression alone. For 

example suppression costs for the recent Battle Creek Fire are estimated at $6.5 million and the 

Jasper Fire around $11.5 million. Costs of rehabilitation, economic loss of resources and 

property values are significant additional costs of these wildfires. 

The financial analysis illustrates that commercial harvest revenues offset costs of alternative 

implementation in proportion to the value and amount of merchantable timber removed. Revenues

from Alternative B offset implementation costs to a lesser degree than Alternative C. Because of 

the greater revenues generated more activities critical to meeting the purpose and need can be 

accomplished under Alternative C relative to Alternative B. Costs associated with noncommercial thinning acres planned (7,260 acres in Alternative B and 18,600 acres in Alternative 

C) contribute to the high cost and revenue factors which influence the differences in the financial 

outcomes. 

Mountain Pine Beetle and wildfire hazard reduction is an indirect indicator of how effectively 

the alternatives contribute to safeguarding the health, values and lifestyles of local residents and 

Forest users by reducing insect and severe wildfire hazard. This is a qualitative indicator; 

however, this measure is supported by the effects to MBP and wildfire hazard resulting from the 

level of vegetative treatment to reduce potential for insects / disease and large-scale wildfire as 

disclosed in the analysis. The No Action alternative does nothing to address this issue and the 

potential for insect infestations and large-scale wildfire continues to increase. Alternative B has 

a moderately effective impact to address these social concerns. Alternative C, with its landscape 

approach to treat in advance of MPB is the most effective at reducing the potential for insect 

infestations and probability of large-scale wildfire. 

Table 2-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative 

1. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Alt A Alt B Alt C 

MPB Risk Rating – Low (acres) 0 48,400 124,000 

MPB Risk Rating – High (acres) 248,000 193,600 124,000 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Fire Hazard Rating (Low) Post Treatment 0 0 0 

Fire Hazard Rating (Moderate) Post Treatment 0 48,400 124,000 

Fire Hazard Rating (High / Very High) Post Treatment 248,000 199,600 124,000 

Wildland Urban Interface (acres) 206,000 200,000 206,000 

Level 3-5 System Roads - Ingress/Egress (miles) 177 162 177 

3. Social-Economical Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Cooperative Efforts with County, State, Other Groups and 

Individuals (poor to best) Poor Better Best 

Total Cost (million) N/A -$27.849 -$72.702 

Commercial Thinning Treatments (acres) 0 41,140 105,400 

Non-Commercial Thinning Treatment 0 7,260 18,600 

Volume (over five to seven years) 

Sawtimber CCF 0 403,140 1,032,920 

POL CCF 0 14,520 37,200 

Structural Stages: In the hardest hit areas, near complete mortality of the larger trees could occur 

on up to 50 percent of structural stage 4C. This mortality of 4C would result in a mix of structural 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 48 

stage 2 and 3A due to the prolific pine regeneration’ that occurs naturally in the Black Hills, thus 

avoiding the non-stocked structural stage 1. Structural stage 3A stands would result from the 

advance regeneration presently occurring within the stands. The other 50% of the 4C the mountain 

pine beetle attack area size could result in a variation of overstory stand densities resulting in mostly 

a 4A structure with some 4B. As the mountain pine beetle moves across the landscape there is the 

probability of complete landscapes being killed over time as evident of the on-going epidemic. 

Table 2-2 Treatments by Alternative 

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

 

Cut and Chunk* 0 All Acres (242,000) All Acres (248,000) 

Cut and Chip* 0 All Acres All Acres 

Cut-hand pile-Burn* 0 All Acres All Acres 

Cut-Equipment PileBurn* 0 Generally slopes less than 40 

percent 

Generally slopes less than 40 

percent 

Insecticide Spray 0 Campgrounds/Admin Sites/Legacy 

Trees 

Campgrounds/Admin 

Sites/Legacy Trees 

Semiochemical** 0 

Synthetic attractants would be 

used on a limited basis based on 

entomologist recommendations. 

Same as Alternative B 

 

Commercial/Noncommercial Timber 

Harvest*** 

0 48,400 acres over five to seven 

years 

124,000 acres over five to seven 

years 

Ground Based 0 Generally less than 40 % slopes Generally less than 40 % slopes 

Cable 0 

Cable Harvest utilize existing 

roads/routes; generally greater than 

40% slopes 

Cable Harvest; generally greater 

than 40% slopes 

Helicopter 0 Generally areas greater than40% 

slopes 

Generally areas greater than 40% 

slopes 

 

Construct New System 

Roads 0 0 70 Miles 

Construct Temporary 

Roads 0 0 180 Miles 

Convert to System 

Roads 0 15 Miles 46 Miles 

 

Volume CCF (over 

five years) 

Sawtimber 

Product other than 

Logs (POL) 

0 

0 

403,172 

14,520 

1,032,920 

37,200 

*MPB infested trees would be cut/chunked/chipped/burned in all areas based on the Forest MPB Strategy 

**Use of semiochemicals, such as Attractants, is a method which would be utilized in coordination with Forest Health and the States of SD 

and WY entomologists. 

***MPB infested trees removed using conventional harvest methods. Alternative B would remove infested trees as well as an adequate 

buffer surrounding the infested trees. Alternative C would focus more on the resiliency area of the Forest Strategy. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 49 

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the affected environment for each resource analyzed. Subsequently, the 

environmental consequences of the alternatives on the resource components of the physical, 

biological, and social environment in the MPBR Project Area are disclosed. Environmental 

consequences are described in terms of the beneficial/adverse, short and long-term direct/indirect 

and cumulative effects. Effects are quantified where possible, although qualitative discussion is 

often necessary. Elements that are not affected or minimally affected by the alternatives such as 

climate, noise, and topography are not discussed. This chapter provides the scientific and analytical 

basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives were analyzed over the 

planning period (10-15 years). Cumulative effects take into account past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities from actions other than the MPBR Project, in addition to direct 

and indirect effects of the MPBR Project. The area analyzed for cumulative effects is the project 

area for all resources unless otherwise noted. Cumulative effects are disclosed under each 

resource topic. 

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

action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the 

impacts of the past action. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all 

prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute 

to cumulative effects. 

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

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for taking this 

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and 

unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the

last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have 

residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an 

individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or 

alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at 

existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of 

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

century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past 

human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may 

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current 

conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed to those effects. Finally, the 

Council of Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, 

regarding analysis of past actions. The memorandum states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without 

delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 50 

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

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4 (f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, 

in part: 

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of 

past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the 

proposal for agency action or its alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The 

final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered 

(including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. 

With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, 

the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the 

required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require 

agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because 

information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean 

that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The resource components described in this chapter are arranged in three sections: 

Physical Environment 

Biological Environment 

Social Environment 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for each 

resource of the Physical Environment (Watershed, Soils; and Transportation). 

WATERSHED 

Affected Environment 

The 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Black Hills National Forest Land 

and Resources Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996b) and the 2005 Final EIS for the

Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a) disclosed 

information on water resources including groundwater, water yield, watershed condition class, 

stream flow regimes and wetlands. The 2010 Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2010d) disclosed information on the road network in relation 

to aquatic resources. This information is incorporated by reference and summarized for this 

analysis area. New information is also presented below. 

Watershed Condition Class 

The Black Hills National Forest reclassified watershed condition class as part of a 2011 national 

effort. The process is outlined in the Watershed Condition Framework and Technical Guide

(http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/). Watershed condition was based on a 12-indicator 

model that considered both aquatic and terrestrial physical and biological indicators. Specific 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 51 

indicators included; water quality, water quantity, aquatic habitat, aquatic biota, riparian/wetland 

vegetation, roads and trails, soils, fire regime, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, terrestrial 

invasive species and forest health. Indicators were individually rated, then summed based on a 

weighting factor to give a rating of Class 1 (functioning properly), Class 2 (functioning at risk) 

or Class 3 (impaired function) was assigned. A watershed that is rated between a score of 1.0 and 

1.6 is a Class 1 watershed. A watershed that is rated between a score of 1.7 and 2.2 is a Class 2 

watershed. A watershed that is rated between a 2.3 and 3.0; it is a Class 3 watershed (USDA 

Forest Service, 2011c). 

The Black Hills National Forest has 44 Class 1 

watersheds, 51 Class 2 watersheds and zero Class 3 

watersheds. The results can be viewed online at: 

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/WCFmapviewer/. Ten 

watersheds were excluded from this process because 

Forest Service activities were not likely to affect the 

condition class based on the small acreage (usually 

less than 10%), location or ownership pattern of 

National Forest System land in the watershed. 

Surface Water 

The Black Hill’s stream network is characterized by 

geology, climate, and constructed reservoirs that 

influence stream permanence, volume, temperature, 

etc. The Black Hills region traditionally has some of 

the best surface water quality in the state (SD DENR 

2010). This is due in a large part to a cooler climate, 

higher precipitation and less erosive bedrock than the 

surrounding plains. 

The geology of the Black Hills results in very little surface water on the Limestone Plateau and 

on the southwest portion of the Forest. These limestone formations also create a “loss zone” 

along some of the Forest periphery where stream flow goes into groundwater aquifers. During 

periods of base flow, some` streams lose their entire flow when crossing these outcrops. 

Approximately 50% of the annual precipitation occurs during May, June, and July, and almost 

75% during the 5-month period between April and August, in the form of rain associated with 

high-intensity, short-duration thunderstorms. The smallest amounts of precipitation typically 

occur during the winter months, November through February, as snow. Most of the total annual 

snow fall occurs in the late spring months of March and April. 

There are no natural lakes on the Forest (Stewart et al, 1964); all standing waters are manmade 

impoundments. Approximately 2,000 surface acres of reservoirs occur on the Black Hills 

National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 1996). The largest three reservoirs on the Forest include 

Pactola (785 acres), Deerfield (415 acres) and Sheridan (385 acres). The Forest Service has 

jurisdiction of water levels in and releases from Sheridan Reservoir whereas the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation has jurisdiction of Pactola and Deerfield reservoirs. Eleven other Forest Service 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 52 

impoundments, ranging in size from less than 1 acre (Strawberry Pond) up to 30 surface acres 

(Cook Lake), provide fishing and other water recreation activities. 

Beneficial Uses and Impaired waters 

The Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect the nation's 

waters. These standards define how much of a pollutant can be in a surface and/or groundwater 

while still allowing it to meet its designated uses, such as for drinking water, fisheries, 

swimming, irrigation or industrial purposes. Every two years States must publish an updated list 

of streams and lakes that are not meeting their designated uses (impaired waters) because of 

excess pollutants. 

South Dakota impaired streams are listed in the South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resource’s 2010 Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment (SD DENR 

2010). Impaired streams within the analysis area include Battle, Bear Butte, Elk, French, Grizzly 

Bear, North Fork Rapid, Spring, Strawberry, Victoria, West Strawberry and Whitewood creeks. 

Impaired lakes include Iron Creek, Deerfield, Horsethief and Sheridan lakes. No impaired waters 

are identified on the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills National Forest (WY DEQ 2010). 

Table 3-1 Beneficial Uses and Impaired Streams 

Waterbody Beneficial Use Impairment Source 

Battle Creek Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature Natural sources 

Bear Butte Creek Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature Natural sources 

Deerfield Lake Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature 

Elk Creek Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature

French Creek Coldwater Marginal Fish Life Dissolved oxygen 

temperature 

Natural sources 

Drought-related impacts 

Grizzly Bear Creek Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature 

Horsethief Lake Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Ph (high) 

temperature Natural sources 

Iron Creek Lake Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature 

North Fork Rapid Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature 

Sheridan Lake Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Dissolved oxygen 

temperature 

Spring Creek 

(↑Sheridan Lake) 

Coldwater Permanent Fish Life 

Immersion Recreation 

Temperature 

Fecal coliform 

Natural sources 

Urban runoff 

Livestock 

On-site treatment systems 

Wildlife 

Spring Creek 

(↓Sheridan Lake) Coldwater Marginal Fish Life Temperature Natural sources 

Strawberry Creek Fish/Wildlife Propagation, 

Recreation, Stockwater Cadmium Acid mine drainage Impacts from abandoned mines 

Victoria Creek Coldwater Permanent Fish Life Temperature Natural sources 

West Strawberry Creek Limited Contact Recreation Fecal coliform 

Whitewood Creek Immersion Recreation Escherichia coli 

Fecal coliform 

Wildlife other than waterfowl 

Grazing in riparian/shoreline zones 

Combined sewer overflows 

Source: SD DENR 2010 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 53 

Stream Connectivity and CDA’s 

Dams associated with manmade impoundments affect stream connectivity and aquatic organism 

passage. Other small dams on non-NFS land and instream structures, such as “perched” culverts 

at road-stream crossings, also exist and fragment the stream network and block fish passage. 

Unpaved road surfaces are a long-term source of sediment input into waterbodies, resulting in 

connected disturbed areas (CDA’s). The proximity of a road to a waterbody increases the potential 

for sediment input. Road-stream crossings are typically CDA’s. There are approximately 280 road 

crossings on perennial streams in the analysis area. This number includes all management 

jurisdictions (Forest Service, State, county, etc.) and roads both open and closed to motorized use. 

Water Yield 

Water yield is a concern for communities in and around the Black Hills. The water provided by 

streams that flow from the Black Hills is an important resource utilized for drinking water 

supplies, irrigation, stock watering, fisheries, and recreation in the surrounding area. 

Forested landscapes intercept rain and snow, evapo-transpiring the moisture back to the 

atmosphere. As a result, forests can lower the quantity of water that reaches the ground surface. 

In the Black Hills, over 92% of the total annual precipitation is lost to evapo-transpiration 

associated with the dense forests of the area (Driscoll et al, 2002). However, forests also help 

conserve moisture by providing shade and cooler temperatures which provide for less overall 

evaporation. The transpiration of moisture back to the atmosphere contributes to rain and snow 

development in the area. Thus, the annual water yield depends upon the density or coverage of 

the forest, the type of forest vegetation, as well as many other factors including climate, weather 

patterns, geology, slope, soils, stream channel conditions and riparian area conditions. 

Floodplains, Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Floodplains are natural inundation areas for floods that reduce flood stages and velocities. Every 

stream has a floodplain. Floodplains store water, serve as natural sponges to moderate the release 

of high waters and act as filters to trap sediment and pollutants. They are important because the 

loss of floodplain function can change the timing and peak of stream flows. There are 705 acres of 

mapped floodplains within the project area. 

Wetlands control runoff and water quality, recharge ground water and provide special habitats. 

Actions that may alter their ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, drainage patterns and 

long-term plant composition can impair these values. 

The wetlands classification system identified by Cowardin et al. (1979) is the national standard 

for mapping, monitoring and reporting on wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory completed 

by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service mapped wetlands. The type, number and acres of wetlands 

present in the potential treatment areas are shown in table 3-2. 

Table 3-2 Wetland within Potential Treatment Areas 

Wetland Type Number Present Acres 

Freshwater Emergent Wetland 44 31.1 

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 11 30.9 

Freshwater Pond 125 32.7 

Other 16 5.1 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 54 

Springs are defined as “place where ground water flows naturally from a rock or the soil onto 

the land surface or into a body of surface water.” (Glossary of Hydrology, 1998). Springs are 

managed as a subset of wetlands due their unique characteristics. Also, springs are a primary 

factor for determination of a groundwater dependent ecosystem (subset of wetlands) (USDA 

Forest Service, 2010f). Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook states “avoid any loss of 

rare wetland such as fens and springs,” (p. 14, USDA Forest Service, 2006c). For discussion of 

fens see the Botany Specialist Report (Vollmer, 2012). For this report, springs are discussed 

with wetlands. There are 134 springs within the affected environment. 

Riparian areas are those lands that interface between water and drier uplands. Riparian areas are 

some of the most ecologically diverse habitat types and provide bank stability, sediment filtering, 

streamside shading and nutrient input into streams and lakes. 

Watershed Effects 

The discussion of watershed effects addresses watershed condition class, hydrologic 

functionality, riparian areas, wetlands, springs, and floodplains present within the Pine Beetle 

Project Area. “Hydrologic functionality relates primarily to flow, sediment, and water-quality 

attributes,” (p. 3, USDA Forest Service, 2011). Direct and indirect effects for these topics are

discussed below. 

Methodology 

Indicators 

The following indicator measures will be used to measure the effect to the water resource across 

the range of alternatives: 

• Watershed Condition Class, change in classification 

• Acres of proposed treatment areas within watershed influence zones (WIZ) 

• Acres of proposed treatment areas within watershed 

Assumptions 

The analysis presented here is based on the following assumptions: 

• Implementation will be evenly distributed across the forest/watersheds for the two 

alternatives 

• Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (FPS&G) will be followed (USDA Forest Service, 

2006) 

• Watershed Conservation Practices (FSH2509.25) will be followed (USDA Forest

Service, 2006b) 

• Design criteria would be implemented and adequate funding would be provided for 

implementation and monitoring 

• Project will follow state and federal laws; especially regarding construction in or near 

waterways and wetlands to control erosion 

Cumulative Effects Bounds 

The spatial boundaries of the cumulative effects analysis are the HUC 12 watershed boundaries 

and the time frame for the cumulative effects discussion is from year 2002 through 2022, ten 

years before and ten years after. These dates include impacts from recent timber harvesting in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 55 

the past and extend forward to include the estimated completion of activities proposed in this 

project. A list documenting known past, present and planned future activities for this planning 

area is included in the project record. 

Design Criteria 

Design criteria are presented Appendix B and were developed to conserve and protect the 

hydrologic resources during the implementation of the Pine Beetle Response Project. Majority 

of the design criteria are from the FPS&G, WCP Handbook, and Best Management Practices 

developed by the states of South Dakota and Wyoming. 

Watershed Condition Class 

There are 12 indicators that are used to determining watershed condition class. Indicators that 

could potentially be altered within this project area are: riparian/wetland vegetation, fire regime 

or wildfire, forest cover, and forest health. Riparian areas and wetlands are discussed 

specifically below. Riparian and wetland vegetation only constitutes for 15% of the rating for 

the watershed condition class rating (USDA Forest Service, 2011k). Fire regime or wildfire, 

forest cover, and forest health all individually account for 2.5% of the ranking for the watershed 

condition class. Collectively, these three indicators account for 7.5% of the watershed condition. 

For more information about fire regime, see the Fire and Fuels report (Pechota, 2012), forest 

cover and forest health in the Silviculture report (Cook, 2012). 

Indicators that could have minor changes but not substantial are: water quality, water quantity, 

and soils. Water quality and water quantity (flow regimes) are discussed below. Soils are 

discussed more specifically under the Soils resource report (Reyher, 2012). 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Implementation of Alternative A should not change the Watershed Condition Class Rating for 

the 95 watersheds; because no treatments are proposed. 

There are 11 streams and 4 lakes that are listed as impaired within the State of South Dakota 

(SDDENR, 2010) and no listed streams within the State of Wyoming (WYDEQ, 2010). 

Alternative A would not cause these streams and lakes to improve or degrade their existing 

condition. This is because no activities are proposed under Alternative A. 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

There are no proposed activities under Alternative A; thus no change to Watershed Condition 

Class or impaired stream reaches. Therefore; no cumulative effects would be expected under 

this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There are 15 watersheds that are rated as a Class 1 watershed, but on the cusp of transitioning to 

a Class 2 watershed. Implementation of the design criteria, FPS&Gs, WCPs, and state BMPs 

would not cause these 15 watersheds to transition from a Class 1 watershed to a Class 2 

watershed. Implementing the PBR project should not cause these 15 watershed score to change 

due to the implementation of the design criteria, FPS&Gs, and WCPs. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 56 

There are 7 watersheds that are rated as a Class 2 watershed that are on the cusp of transitioning 

to a Class 1 watershed. Implementation of the PBR project should not move these watersheds 

down to a Class 1 watershed because this project does not have a watershed improvement

projects that could change the score and the changes in the forest would not be enough to change

the score because of their low ranking. 

Five watersheds have a score of 2.2 that have proposed treatments within the PBR project. Only 

Victoria Creek-Rapid Creek watershed, 101201100201, has a score of 2.2 and an impaired reach 

of Victoria Creek (SDDENR, 2010). Both action alternatives propose approximately 6,140 

acres, or 20% of the watershed, that could be treated; if all identified stands were thinned (Table 

3-3). Neither alternative should change the watershed condition class rating because of the small 

amount of the watershed that could be potentially be treated and the low percentage that forest 

cover and fire regime account to the rating of watershed condition class. 

Ten out of the 14 watersheds that are both Class 2 with an impaired waterbody, proposes less 

than 20% of the watershed that could be treated if all identified stands were thinned (Table 3-3). 

Due to the small amount of the watershed that is proposed for treatment, under Alternative B and 

C, there should be no change of watershed class from the implementation of either alternative. 

The reason is because of the small level of changes in forest health, forest cover, and fire 

regime/wildfire to adjust the actually rating of the watershed. Four watersheds have more than 

20% of the watershed that could be treated under both action alternatives (Table 3-3). Again, by 

following the design criteria, FPS&Gs, and WCPs there should not be a change in the watershed 

condition class to move these watersheds to a Class 3 watershed. 

Table 3-3 Watersheds with an Impaired Stream or Lake

Watershed Impaired stream or 

lake1

Watershed 

Condition Class Alternative B (acres) Alternative C (acres) 

Ruby Ck- French Ck 

101201090601 French Creek Class 2 Score= 1.8 518 (2%) 518 (2%) 

Grizzly Bear CkBattle Ck 

101201090801 

Battle Creek 

Grizzly Bear Creek 

Horsetheif Lake 

Class 2 

Score=2.0 3,641 (14%) 3,641 (14%) 

Deadman GulchBattle Creek 

101201090803 

Battle Creek Class 1 

Score=1.5 2,695 (9%) 2,695 (9%) 

Headwaters Spring 

Creek 

101201090901 

Spring Creek (above 

Sheridan Lake) 

Class 2 

Score=2.0 21 (<1%) 21 (<1%) 

Newton Fork – 

Spring Creek 

101201090903 

Spring Creek (above 

Sheridan Lake) 

Class 2 

Score=2.0 2,190 (9%) 2,190 (9%) 

Sheridan LakeSpring Creek 

101201090904 

Spring Creek 

Sheridan Lake 

Class 2 

Score= 2.1 1,384 (6%) 1,384 (6%) 

Johnson GulchSpring Creek 

101201090905 

Spring Creek (below 

Sheridan Lake) 

Class 2 

Score=2.0 4 (<1%) 4 (<1%) 

North Fork Rapid 

Creek 

101201100101 

North Fork Rapid 

Creek 

Class 2 

Score=2.0 6 (<1%) 6 (<1%) 

Deerfield Lake- Deerfield Lake Class 2 645 (8%) 645 (8%) 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 57 

Watershed Impaired stream or 

lake1

Watershed 

Condition Class Alternative B (acres) Alternative C (acres) 

Castle Creek 

101201100106 

Score=2.1 

Victoria Creek-Rapid 

Creek 

101201100201 

Victoria Creek Class 2 

Score=2.2 6,140 (20%) 6,140 (20%) 

Town of Roubaix-Elk 

Crk 

101201110601 

Elk Creek Class 2 

Score=2.0 6,040 (24%) 6,040 (24%) 

Little Elk Creek- Elk 

Creek 

101201110602 

Elk Creek Class 2 

Score=1.9 2,239 (9%) 2,239 (9%) 

Upper Whitewood 

Creek 

101202020207 

West Strawberry 

Creek 

Whitewood Creek2

Class 2 

Score=1.8 4,489 (10%) 4,489 (10%) 

Park Creek 

101202020701 

Bear Butte Creek 

Strawberry Creek 

Class 2 

Score=1.9 8,924 (44%) 8,924 (44%) 

Middle Spearfish 

Creek 

101202030302 

Iron Creek Lake Class 2 

Score=2.1 4,723 (15%) 7,732 (24%) 

1

Impaired streams are listed in more detail in The 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality 

Assessment (SDDENR 2010). 

2The impaired reach of Whitewood Creek is not on NFS lands. 

Under Alternatives B and C there is a potential for road conversion. Additionally Alternative C, 

there is potential for new temporary roads or system roads. All new system roads to be built or 

converted would be a Level 1 road (or closed after use for timber activities). These roads would 

not change the open road density and therefore; no change to roads and trails indicator for 

watershed condition class. 

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects 

Implementation of the two action alternatives should not change the Watershed Condition Class for 

the 95 assessed watersheds within the project area. Past projects area already assessed within the 

existing Watershed Condition Class score as one of the 12 indicators (USDA Forest Service, 

2011k). Current and foreseeable projects on NFS lands would not change the Watershed Condition 

Class. Only, if there is a project that was on both NFS and non-NFS lands would a Watershed 

Condition Class rating change. However; there are no areas where this is planned out in detail. 

Seven watersheds are analyzed in more detail for the cumulative effects for water quality: Upper 

Cold Brook, Upper Beaver Creek, Silver Creek-Rapid Creek, South Fork Castle Creek, Park Creek, 

Boulder Creek, and Little Spearfish Creek (Table 3-4). Out of the seven watersheds, Boulder Creek 

watershed is the watershed that has the most potential to change its class rating (Table 3-4). 

Currently, Boulder Creek watershed is ranked as 1.7 and only needs to decrease one-tenth to 

become a Class 1 watershed. Again, when accessing watershed condition class past projects were 

considered. Implementation of either Alternative B or C should not cause the Boulder Creek 

watershed change its watershed condition class in conjunction with future and foreseeable projects. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 58 

Table 3-4 Watersheds and Associated Watershed Condition Class 

Watershed Watershed Condition Class Alternative B (acres) Alternative C (acres) 

Upper Cold Brook, 

101201090101 Class 1, Score=1.5 8,385 (31%) 8,385 (31%) 

Upper Beaver Creek, 

101201090201 Class 2, Score= 1.8 11,420 (50%) 11,420 (50%) 

Silver Creek-Rapid Creek, 

1012011000103 Class 2, Score=2.0 9,960 (45%) 9,960 (45%) 

South Fork Castle Creek, 

1012011000105 Class 2, Score= 2.0 9,561 (36%) 9,561 (36%) 

Park Creek, 101202020701 Class 2, Score=1.9 8,924 (44%) 8,924 (44%) 

Boulder Creek, 

1010202020702 Class 2, Score=1.7 9,576 (34%) 9,576 (34%) 

Little Spearfish Creek, 

101202030303 Class 2, Score= 1.9 5,199 (28%) 5,245 (29%) 

No changes to watershed condition class and impaired streams or lakes are expected to these 

watersheds when considering the proposed actions in Alternatives B and C and any foreseeable 

projects. This is due to the adherence to the FPS&Gs and WCPs in upcoming Forest Service 

projects. Therefore; no cumulative effects would be expected under either action alternative. 

Water Quality: Sediment 

“Sediment deposits in stream beds results in a shift toward burrowing invertebrate taxa that are 

unavailable as prey (Suttle et al. 2004). Increased sedimentation alters the suitability of fish 

spawning and rearing reproduction. Implementation of these alternatives can be broken into 

timber activities and roads. 

The focus of the sediment assessment assumes the full implementation of appropriate best 

management practices (BMPs) and/or Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) to result in the no 

additional sedimentation or to limit sediment yields of the harvesting activities occurring within the 

project area. Increases in sediment yield themselves do not constitute an adverse impact. However; 

when they adversely impact the beneficial uses of a stream they would be considered a violation of 

the Forest Plan. Currently, there are no listed streams on the Forest that are listed due to sediment 

by the states of South Dakota or Wyoming (SDDENR, 2010 and WYDEQ, 2010). 

The land next to streams is referred to as the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ) or a streamside 

management zone (SMZ). These terms are used interchangeably often. The Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25, USDA Forest Service, 2006d) defines the WIZ 

as 100 feet minimum from each bank of perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands. 

South Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs) defines streamside management zones (SMZs) 

as a strip of at least 50 feet wide on each side of the stream (SD State University et al, 2003). 

Wyoming Forestry Best Management Practices defines SMZs as a strip at least 50 feet wide on 

each side of a stream, lake or other body of water, measured from the ordinary highwater mark, 

and extending beyond the high water mark to include wetlands and areas that provide additional 

protection in zones with steep slopes or erosive soils (p.12, WYDEQ, 2006). The width of the 

WIZ for the Pine Beetle Response project (PBR) is to follow the WCPH definition of 100 feet on 

either side of the stream or 200 feet total width. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 59 

Areas designated as no tracked or wheeled equipment zones would be 50 feet from the top of the 

stream bank. Some harvest activities could occur within the WIZ. Mainly this will be from line 

pulling or directional felling of trees. Activities that could occur within the WIZs are limited 

timber harvest activities (commercial and products other than logs [POL]), non-commercial 

thinning activities (ex. cut and chunk) and cut-equipment pile-burn. Skid trails would be no closer 

than 50 feet from intermittent and perennial streams, springs, and wetlands. Temporary roads 

could cross streams; however the goal is keep temporary roads outside of the WIZ if possible. 

Some proposed non-commercial activities are not of concern relating to sediment. Noncommercial vegetative treatment activities for PBR include cut and chunk, chipping, and cuthand pile-burn. Non-commercial activities could occur over all proposed treatment areas in both 

action alternatives. There is a higher likelihood that the non-commercial activities would occur 

on slopes greater than 40% than commercial activities. Non-commercial activities generally are 

done with limited or no mechanized equipment and results in no or minimal ground disturbance. 

Timber management was not considered as a major source of sediment into streams especially as 

compared to roads (USDA Forest Service, 1996c), especially with the implementation of SMZ 

buffers. EPA (2005) shows the effectiveness of a SMZ buffer for reducing sediment input to 

streams from timber harvesting. Libohova (2004) found that thinning treatments in ponderosa 

pine generated minimal to no sediment yield. 

Roads are considered the primary contributors of sediments to streams in managed watersheds 

(USDA Forest Service, 1996c and EPA, 2005). Roads can also impact the ecological integrity of 

a watershed in many ways. Roads built on soils with higher erosion potential and with an 

improperly planned road drainage network can impair the water quality in nearby streams 

(USDA Forest Service, 1996c and 2006d). Under-sized culverts or bridges can wash out, 

contributing to erosion and sedimentation to levels that can be detrimental to other aquatic 

resources (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). 

Roads continually used will continue to produce sediment, especially when use is allowed during 

wet weather (USDA Forest Service 1996c, p.III-88) or if roads are not maintained and able to 

degrade (EPA, 2005). Sedimentation from roads usually comes from large storm events during 

or just after road construction (EPA, 2005). If WCPs are followed with regularly scheduled 

maintenance then these sediment pulses should the minimized. Outsloping roads will also 

reduce the amount of sediment that could potentially reach the stream (EPA, 2005). Road 

construction is a major source of sediment that reaches streams (EPA, 2005). It is estimated that 

one-third to one-half of road erosion occurs during the first year after construction, dropping 

quickly to near background levels within 2 to 3 years if continued use is not allowed (EPA 1976, 

in USDA Forest Service 1996c, page III-88). Again, there are no listed streams within the Black 

Hills National Forest due to sediment (SDDENR, 2010 and WYDEQ, 2010). 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

The No Action Alternative would have no new activities associated within the project area 

although existing approved projects are expected to be completed. Sediment delivered to the 

streams will remain at current levels and would not increase as the result of this alternative. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 60 

Alternative A would not improve any of the culverts where there are direct sediment source into 

streams from past Forest improvements. Roads would continue to be a sediment source to 

streams at any of the existing CDAs within the project area. Sedimentation levels within streams 

would either stay at current levels or increase with the selection of Alternative A. 

Alternative A has a higher fire and fuel hazard rating (Pechota, 2012). If a wildfire were to 

occur, sediment will be delivered to the streams. Large amounts of sediment will occur the first 

year after the fire and will decrease over the next three to five (3-5) years as the vegetation and 

ground cover recovers. This was observed on the Jasper Fire area (Keyser et al, 2006). At first, 

there would be a large flush of sediment moving downstream. The large flush of sediment

would come from hillsides and roads. Sediment and ash would be deposited along floodplains 

and within streams. This could cause streams to change the majority size class of stream bed 

sediments. Usually, there is a layer of fine-sized sediment (2 mm or less) is deposited along 

point bars. If there is a large flow event post-fire, mid- channel bars could develop or

streambank erosion could occur. Sediment would choke the system for about three years and 

then start tapering off depending upon the precipitation events. 

Alternative A would have no direct effects to water quality due to sediment because there are no 

activities occurring with the proposed treatment areas. The potential indirect effect would be if a 

wildfire occurs, as discussed above. 

Alternative A- Cumulative Effects 

Sediment is naturally occurring in the environment. The stream systems have adapted and 

function at different levels and ranges. The introduction of sediment from human associated 

activity, if excessive, can impact water quality. 

Past and current activities have contributed sediment to the streams. Past activities include 

mining, homesteading, wildfires, and road building. Private lands continue to be developed at 

varying rates across the Forest. Current grazing activities would continue under existing 

allotment management plans, with activities including maintenance of water developments, cattle 

guards, and fences. Harvest and post-harvest activities would continue on active sales and 

recently closed sales. Timber harvest can add sediment if equipment crosses streams to get to 

units or if skidding occurs along or across streams. Mining can contribute point-source impacts 

adding sediment at specific locations. Mining areas are generally historic sites and any new 

mining activities would have BMPs implemented to minimize or eliminate sediment added to 

streams. Usually the road related activities are a major contributor. Any existing CDAs within 

the Forest are likely to continue contributing sediment to streams. 

Cumulative impacts from sediment produced by the effects of high intensity wildfires would be 

expected if a large, intense wildfire burned in the project area. Alternative A has a higher 

percentage of lands that are at very high and high fire risk as compared to the three action 

alternatives. Impacts from sediment could occur if a large wildfire were to occur. 

No new activities would commence under Alternative A and no direct effects. There is potential 

for cumulative effects from the indirect effects due to fire; as described above. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 61 

Alternative B - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Alternative B considers treatment over 242,000 acres of land with a variety of methods across the 

Forest. There are 131 miles of ephemeral streams within the proposed treatment areas that could be 

good sediment carriers during times of flow. Also, there are 410 miles of perennial and intermittent 

streams that cross the proposed treatment areas. Commercial vegetative treatments propose to 

mechanically treat only 20% of the total acres or up to 48,400 acres under Alternative B. 

Over the entire project area, 10,887 acres are located in the WIZ (Table 3-5). Harvest methods 

would be dependent on the terrain and include ground based and cable logging systems. 

Commercial and POL timber harvest would be utilized to modify stand structure and reduce 

stand density. With implementation of the FPS&G, which include WCPs and BMPs, the 

potential to generate sediment from commercial treatments is low for this alternative. 

Table 3-5 Acres of Treatment within WIZ 

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Total commercial, POL, cut-equipment pile-burn activities 0 acres 10,887 acres 11,390 acres 

Potentially treated 0 acres 2,177 acres1 5,695 acres2

1Alternative B proposes to only treat 20% of the entire project area (242,000 acres) with commercial or POL 

activities. 

2Alternative C proposes to treat 50% of the entire project area (248,000 acres) with commercial or POL activities. 

Commercial and POL timber harvest proposes to treat up to 2,177 acres within the WIZ under 

Alternative B (Table 3-5). Commercial, POL, and cut-equipment pile-burn activities will be 

limited within the WIZs. Limited mechanical entries would reduce the potential for sediment to 

reach streams. Activities that would occur within the WIZ are limited commercial and POL 

timber activities, and limited cut-equipment pile-burn. Minimal sediment may be generated from 

the commercial activities, but by implementing the FPS&G, which include WCPs and BMPs, 

very little to no sediment would be generated. 

The non-commercial non-removal activities could occur within the entire WIZ buffer. These 

activities include: cut and chunk, cut and chip, and cut-hand pile-burn. These activities could be 

within the 100-ft WIZ. With the full implementation of the FPS&G, which include the WCPs 

and BMPs, the amount of sediment from harvest, post-harvest (KV), and non-commercial nonremoval activities would not be expected to result in a significant impact on water quality. 

Timber activities would have little to no effect. 

Under both the action alternatives, temporary roads, road construction, reconstruction, and preuse maintenance could cross soil map units that may present a potentially severe erosion hazard 

associated with on-road/on-trail activities. According to the Engineering Design Guidelines, 

various measures can be used to protect highly erodible soils or road surface material, (Taglioli, 

2012). These practices and following the WCPs and BMPs would generally be expected to keep 

erosion on new and reconstructed roads to a minimum in the PBR project area. These measures, 

along with implementation of the maximum cross-drain spacing outlined in the Forestry Best 

Management Practices for South Dakota (SD State University et al, 2003) or the Wyoming 

Forestry BMPs (WYDEQ, 2006) and shown in Tables 1 and 2 above in the Design Criteria 

section, would be expected to further reduce concentration of surface runoff on highly erodible 

soils, thereby limiting erosion at those sites. Sediment entering the stream would be localized at 

the areas of construction and reconstruction activities. There would be a sediment pulse during 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 62 

the time of action, however; it would reduce under time and distance away from the site of road 

work. If the road construction activities occur in Wyoming, they would comply with the 

Wyoming Water Quality rules about turbidity (USDA Forest Service, 2012b). 

Maintenance and temporary use of roads within the WIZ and at stream crossings have the 

potential to increase sediment because the road surface is disturbed during operations and 

material on the road can be easily mobilized during precipitation events. With activities at 

stream crossings and roads in the WIZ there would be some sediment produced. With the 

implementation of the FPS&Gs, which include WCPs and BMPs, the amount of sediment from 

roads would be localized, in quantities that should not affect water quality. 

Alternative B proposes only reconstruction, relocation, and pre-use maintenance activities would 

occur. Approximately 5% of the existing routes (15 miles) on the ground could be converted into 

Level 1 FS system roads. There should be no new construction of system and temporary roads 

under Alternative B (see Chapter 2) and no new road-stream crossing of intermittent or perennial 

streams. These activities would be expected to contribute to varying degrees to erosion of the road 

itself and to a limited extent potential of erosion of soils located near the road. Roads can generate 

sediment and impact water quality due to sediment would be localized with this alternative would 

be a slight increase over Alternative A and there would be a direct effect from roads. 

There would be a slight increase in potential for sedimentation from Alternative B in the short 

term (<5 years) due to activities related to roads usually at existing stream crossings. In the long 

term (>5 years) sediment potential would be reduced by the action alternative as compared to 

existing conditions because of the repair or fixing of some of the CDAs during road 

improvement activities. Implementation of Alternative B should not impair streams within the 

PBR proposed treatment area. Therefore; streams should continue to meet their beneficial and 

designated uses as determined by the states of SD and WY. 

Alternative B - Cumulative Effects 

There would be cumulative effects on water quality due to sediment from Alternative B because 

there are direct and indirect effects. Implementation of Alternative B would not be during one 

year, but over five to seven years across the entire Forest. This allows the potential cumulative 

effect to be minimal due to the space and time extent of Alternative B because the effects would 

be localized and not affect the entire watershed. Therefore; beneficial and designated uses of 

streams, as determined by the states of SD and WY should not be affected by the sediment to 

affect water quality. 

Alternative C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Alternative C considers treatment over 248,000 acres of land with a variety of methods across the 

Forest. There are 131 miles of ephemeral streams within the proposed treatment areas that could be 

good sediment carriers during times of flow. Also, there are 430 miles of perennial and intermittent 

streams that cross the proposed treatment areas. Commercial vegetative treatments propose to 

mechanically treat only 50% of the total acres or up to 124,000 acres under Alternative C. 

Over the entire proposed treatment areas of Alternative C, 11,390 acres are located in the WIZ 

(Table 3-5). Harvest methods would be dependent on the terrain and include ground based and 

cable logging systems. Commercial and POL timber harvest would be utilized to modify stand 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 63 

structure and reduce stand density. Commercial and POL timber harvest proposes to treat up to 

5,695 acres within the WIZ under Alternative C (Table 3-5). With implementation of the FPS&G, 

which include WCPs and BMPs, the potential to generate sediment from commercial treatments 

would be low for this alternative and effects would be similar to what is described under Alternative 

B. Effects from noncommercial activities would also be similar as described under Alternative B. 

Alternative C proposes new system and temporary road construction. Up to 250 miles of new 

road construction and temporary roads would provide access to the harvest activities. There is an 

estimated 34 new road-stream (intermittent and perennial) crossings (Averaging one crossing for 

every three watersheds). Additionally, 15% of the existing routes (46 miles) could be converted 

into system roads. In addition the road reconstruction, relocation, and pre-use maintenance along 

existing routes, road activities would be expected to contribute to erosion of the road itself and to 

soils located near the road. With this amount of new road; it is likely of a new system or 

temporary road construction within a WIZ. Project design criteria and consultation with the 

hydrologist would help protect these localized areas where a road crosses a stream. 

As described above, under Alternative B, erosion would be limited to roads. However; due to 

the amount of roads to be built, Alternative C would have a higher sediment load entering 

streams from roads than in Alternative B. Road design would continue to follow Engineering 

Design Plans (Taglioli, 2012), BMPs, and WCPs to reduce sediment entering in the stream. By 

following the FPS&Gs, that include the WCPs, and design criteria, sediment entering into 

streams should be constrained during the times of road construction at stream crossings. There is 

a higher likelihood of sediment reaching streams under Alternative C as compared to Alternative 

B. However; the extent of the sediment reaching streams would be low and at localized areas. 

Overall; water quality would be expected to be at current levels. Therefore; there are no 

expected changes that could cause streams to no longer meet their beneficial or designated uses 

as defined by SD and WY. 

Alternative C - Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects would be similar, but greater under Alternative C than under Alternative B. 

This is due to the potential of 250 miles of system or temporary road building and 34 roadstream crossings. Implementation of Alternative C would not be during one year, but over five 

to seven years across the entire Forest. This allows the potential cumulative effect to be minimal 

due to the space and time extent of Alternative C because the effects would be localized and not 

affect the entire watershed. There would not be road-stream crossings in every watershed. With 

the estimated 34 road-stream crossings across the forest, on average, only one in three 

watersheds will have a road-stream crossing. 

Water Quality: - Chemical 

“Water purity can be degraded by placing concentrated pollutant sources near water bodies, 

applying harmful chemicals in or near water bodies, or intercepting hazardous rock strata by 

roads. Degrading water purity can impair or destroy use of the water by aquatic biota and 

humans,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Alternative A does not propose any new activities. There should not be any direct or indirect 

effects foreseeable that would affect water quality from the use of chemicals and/or pathogens 

from this project. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 64 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A has no cumulative effects related to water quality because there are no direct and 

indirect effects. 

Alternatives B and C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Both Alternatives B and C include activities that require the use of chemicals or pathogens. This 

includes insecticide spraying in campgrounds, administrative sites, and legacy trees. Also, the 

spraying of noxious weeds following ground disturbance (from both timber and road activities) 

would occur under both alternatives. None of these activities should involve the distribution of

concentrated pollutant sources near water bodies or applying harmful chemicals near water 

bodies due to following application instructions, State BMPs, WCPH, and National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (under the Clean Water Act). 

Application of pesticides for weed spraying post –harvest will follow the guidance in the WCPH 

Management Measure 17 for application within WIZs (USDA Forest Service, 2006b) and the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) guidance, so there should not be any 

degradation to water quality from weed spraying. 

Alternatives B and C include activities that require the use of chemicals, pathogens, or pesticides. 

As discussed earlier, all use of these hazardous substances would be compliant to NPDES, Forest 

Plan Standards, WCPs, and BMPS. Following these guidelines there would be a reduced risk to 

water quality from the use of these hazardous substances. The risk would be greater under 

Alternative C than under Alternative B because there are more lands to be treated under Alternative 

C than in Alternative B. The risk for impairing water quality from chemicals and pathogens is the 

greatest under Alternative C and the least under Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects 

Existing timber harvest activities, weed spraying, road dust reduction, highway snow removal, and 

grazing practices would continue on the Forest. These activities combined with proposed activities 

within Alternatives B and C should not cause water quality to decrease within streams from 

proposed use of chemicals and pathogens as long as NPDES guidance, the WCPs, and State BMPs 

are followed. 

Water Quality: Stream Temperature 

“Summer water temperature is increased, and winter water temperature is decreased, by 

removing shade...” (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). 

There are 14 watersheds that have streams or lakes that have impaired water bodies due to 

temperature according to SDENR (2010, Table 3-6). There are no waterbodies listed for 

temperature in the state of WY (WYDEQ, 2010). 

Table 3-6 Temperature Impaired Watersheds and WIZ Proposed Treatment Areas 

Watershed Temperature Impaired 

stream or lake1

Total 

WIZ 

Acres 

Alternative B 

(max WIZ acres, 

% of WIZ) 

(WIZ PTA acres, 

% of WIZ)3

Alternative C 

(max WIZ acres, 

% of WIZ) 

(WIZ PTA acres, 

% of WIZ)4

Ruby Ck- French Ck 

101201090601 French Creek 1,797 18 (1%) 

4 (<1%) 

18 (1%) 

9 (1%) 

Grizzly Bear Ck- Battle Ck Battle Creek 1,798 148 (8%) 148 (8%) 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 65 

Watershed Temperature Impaired 

stream or lake1

Total 

WIZ 

Acres 

Alternative B 

(max WIZ acres, 

% of WIZ) 

(WIZ PTA acres, 

% of WIZ)3

Alternative C 

(max WIZ acres, 

% of WIZ) 

(WIZ PTA acres, 

% of WIZ)4

101201090801 Grizzly Bear Ck 

Horsethief Lake 

30 (2%) 74 (4%) 

Deadman Gulch- Battle Ck 

101201090803 Battle Creek 1,075 74 (7%) 15 (1%) 

74 (7%) 

37 (3%) 

Headwaters Spring Creek 

101201090901 

Spring Ck (above 

Sheridan Lake) 1,347 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

Newton Fork – Spring 

Creek 

101201090903 

Spring Ck (above 

Sheridan Lake) 1,457 20 (1%) 4 (<1%) 

20 (1%) 

10 (1%) 

Sheridan Lake- Spring 

Creek 

101201090904 

Spring Creek 

Sheridan Lake 2,212 1 (<1%) 0 (0%) 

1 (<1%) 

0 (0%) 

Johnson Gulch-Spring 

Creek 

101201090905 

Spring Ck (below 

Sheridan Lake) 1,214 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

North Fork Rapid Creek 

101201100101 North Fork Rapid Creek 1,785 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

0 (0%) 

Deerfield Lake-Castle Ck 

101201100106 Deerfield Lake 774 2 (<1%) 0 (0%) 

2 (<1%) 

1 (<1%) 

Victoria Creek-Rapid Crk 

101201100201 Victoria Creek 1,809 75 (4%) 15 (1%) 

75 (4%) 

38 (2%) 

Town of Roubaix-Elk Ck 

101201110601 Elk Creek 1,896 400 (21%) 80 (4%) 

400 (21%) 

200(11%) 

Little Elk Ck- Elk Ck 

101201110602 Elk Creek 1,555 243 (16%) 49 (3%) 

243 (16%) 

122 (8%) 

Park Creek 

101202020701 Bear Butte Creek 1,667 814 (49%) 163 (10%) 

814 (49%) 

407 (24%) 

Middle Spearfish Creek 

101202030302 Iron Creek Lake 2,338 190 (8%) 38 (2%) 

518 (22%) 

259 (11%) 

1Temperature impaired streams are listed in more detail in The 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface 

Water Quality Assessment (SDDENR 2010). 

2There are no temperature impaired streams in the Black Hills National Forest in Wyoming. 

3This show the 20% that could potentially be treated by commercial harvest. All acres within the WIZ could be 

treated with non-commercial activities. 

4This shows the 50% that could be potentially treated by commercial harvest. All acres within the WIZ could be 

treated with non-commercial activities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives 

There would be an effect on stream temperature from MPB, fire loss, or timber harvest because 

they would remove trees. There would be less of an effect on temperature along streams within 

meadows. These areas usually have less ponderosa pine trees and if there are trees, they are 

riparian shrubs or spruce. However; usually these streams are dominated sedges and rushes for 

stream shading. Areas where the loss of ponderosa pine trees would affect shade are within 

streams that are in narrow and steep valleys and travel through rugged terrain. Here, the riparian 

corridor is extremely narrow, usually to the floodplain and ponderosa pine trees are the major 

source for stream shading. Stream temperature would be expected to increase in these sections 

from the loss of the ponderosa pine. However; these riparian areas also include riparian shrubs and 

spruce trees where the soil moisture is higher; that could be unaffected by the MPB and fire. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 66 

These areas would continue to provide shade to streams. Therefore; effects to stream temperature 

would be localized to the stream reaches where stream shading is primarily from ponderosa pine. 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects from this alternative because there would not be any new 

activities occurring across the National Forest and the watersheds to reduce shade. There would 

be no direct effects on any of the impaired waterbodies. 

With the loss of trees in the watershed due to either MPB or fire, there could an indirect effect. 

With the loss of biomass, there would be lower interception and evapotranspiration rates. More 

water would be available for groundwater recharge and streamflow; resulting in increased 

streamflows. More water in the streams could mean more stable water temperatures. 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to water temperature could occur from the potential indirect effects 

mentioned above. Neither positive nor negative cumulative effects on stream temperature are 

expected. This is because streams would stay at or around current and potential conditions as 

described under Alternative A. 

The 14 waterbodies listed as impaired for temperature (SDDENR, 2010) would continue to be

impaired and would not benefit from the potential indirect effects, as described above. Hence, 

there are no expected cumulative effects to occur on these 14 impaired waterbodies (SDDENR, 

2010) from the implementation of Alternative A. 

Alternative B - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There is potential for direct effects to water temperature from this alternative by removing shade 

in the WIZ from timber activities. Of the 14 temperature impaired watersheds, 10 would have no 

or minimal direct effects because less than five percent of WIZ acreage (75 acres) would have a 

proposed treatment (commercial or noncommercial, Table 3-6). The other four temperature 

impaired watersheds have PTA in the WIZ ranging from 100 acres to 400 acres (Table 3-6). 

Treatments within these watersheds could cause an increase of stream temperature with the loss 

of stream shading provided by ponderosa pines. However; in reaches where spruce and riparian 

shrubs are the dominant shade source, stream temperature should not be affected. Therefore; 

stream temperature should vary only along the stream reaches with ponderosa pines within and 

nearby its riparian corridor. 

Direct effects under Alternative B would be similar as indirect effects under Alternative A for 

stream temperature from timber activities. Treatments in the WIZ would remove bug trees and 

thin trees and leave some trees. These remaining trees would continue to shade streams but with 

a lower density and more solar radiation could reach stream; thereby potentially increasing 

stream temperature. There areas would only occur on short stream reaches and not continuous 

along the stream channel. Therefore; the increase of stream temperature would be localized in 

these areas of reduced tree density. These effects would be similar to what is discussed under 

Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 67 

The effects of the loss of biomass through the thinning of trees in conjunction with the loss from 

MPB would be similar as described under Alternative A with the potential of more water in 

streams. Again, more water would be available for groundwater recharge and streamflow; 

resulting in increased streamflows. More water in the streams could mean more stable water 

temperatures. 

Alternative B does not propose any new road (system or temporary) construction. Therefore; 

there would not be any new road-stream crossings constructed that could disrupt streamside 

vegetation. The effects of roads would be similar to Alternative A because only existing 

crossings would be used and there should already be a loss of streamside vegetation providing 

shade. The effects from the loss of streamside vegetation are also discussed more specifically in 

the Riparian Areas section, below. 

Alternative B - Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to water temperature can occur from the potential direct and indirect effects 

mentioned above. The streams and lakes listed as impaired (SDDENR, 2010) would continue to 

be impaired and would not benefit from the potential direct effects. Cumulative effects under 

Alternative B would be similar as what is described under Alternative A. 

Alternative C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Direct effects to stream temperature would be similar to what is described under Alternative B. 

The treatments in the watersheds with impaired waterbodies (SDDENR, 2010, Table 3-6) would 

continue to have increased stream temperature from the removal of shade trees from timber 

activities (commercial, POL, and noncommercial). 

The effects of the loss of biomass through the thinning of trees in conjunction with the loss from 

MPB would be similar as described under Alternative A with the potential of more water in 

streams. Again, more water would be available for groundwater recharge and streamflow; 

resulting in increased streamflows. More water in the streams could mean more stable water 

temperatures. 

However; Alternative C has the potential for the greatest short-term increase of stream 

temperature in localized areas because there are more lands within the WIZ that could be 

thinned. Again; the effects of losing stream shading with the loss of ponderosa pine trees would 

dissipate over time as there is regeneration providing shade. These effects would be localized 

and would not affect the watershed as a whole. 

Under Alternative C, there is a potential for new road (system or temporary) construction that 

could cross a perennial or intermittent stream. It is estimated that there would be 34 new roadstream crossings. Roads can affect stream temperature at newly constructed road crossings at 

localized sites by removing streamside vegetation. At the locations of new road-stream 

crossings; there could be a permanent loss of stream shading by riparian vegetation. Over time, 

some riparian vegetation could be established at the temporary road-stream crossings, but the 

timeframe could be very long (years). This is because of the soil compaction that occurs within a 

temporary road; it could take extra time for re-establishment of riparian shrubs. The effect of 

roads on stream temperature would be localized to the areas where there is a new road-stream 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 68 

crossing and immediately downstream until where the riparian vegetation is established. 

Because Alternative C proposes new roads; Alternative C could have a greater effect on stream 

temperature at new road-stream crossings as compared to either Alternatives A or B. 

Alternative C - Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to water temperature can occur from the potential direct and indirect effects 

mentioned above. The streams and lakes listed as impaired (SDDENR, 2010) would continue to 

be impaired and would not benefit from the potential direct effects. 

Cumulative effects would be similar as described under Alternative A because there still is a loss 

of stream shading from the loss of trees under all alternatives. 

Alternative C differs from the other alternatives due to road building. As a result, there is a 

potential for negative cumulative effects at localized areas at the locations of potential roadstream crossings from either a temporary or system road. These cumulative effects would be just 

downstream of the crossing and would not affect the watershed as a whole. With an estimated 34 

road-stream crossings, only one in three watersheds across the forest would be affected. 

Flow Regimes 

“Flow regimes can be altered by major changes in cover type or ground cover, dense road 

networks, or water projects. Water temperature and chemistry, sediment transport, aquatic 

habitats, and aquatic life cycles can be degraded,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). 

Flow regimes are discussed in detail in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1996). In general, 

flow regimes in the watersheds of the Black Hills are constantly changing and are never stagnant. 

Flow regimes are dependent upon precipitation and vegetation within a watershed. Precipitation is 

the main factor in flow regimes, the more precipitation that occurs, and the more water that is 

yielded from a watershed. Vegetation is the other factor. Water that is used by the vegetation would 

not be yielded from the watershed. The more vegetation, the less water yield that would be 

delivered from the watershed and watersheds with less vegetation would yield more water (USDA 

Forest Service, 1996c). The density of the vegetation in the Black Hills has generally been 

increasing over the decades with the onset of fire suppression in the Black Hills. The effects of fire 

suppression can reduce water yield slowly over time with the increase of vegetation across the 

watersheds. 

Roads in the Black Hills have a minimal effect on flow regime because of the semi-arid 

precipitation climate regime of the Black Hills. There is not enough precipitation for the roads to 

have much of an affect. There are a few water projects in the Northern Hills related to Homestake 

that have affected the flow regimes on a few streams. East Spearfish Creek, Elk Creek, Tillson 

Creek, and Spearfish Creek have flows diverted from the stream while Whitewood Creek gain 

flows. Also dams (Deerfield, Pactola and Sheridan) on streams affect the flow regimes 

downstream of the structures. There is no water projects proposed with this project. 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects to flow regimes from this alternative because there would not be 

any new activities (timber harvest or roads) occurring across the watersheds and National Forest 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 69 

as a result of this alternative. Indirect effects on flow regime (increase) can come from pine tree 

mortality from the Pine beetle by reducing the vegetation. This will be offset over time with 

growth of new trees. However the indirect changes to flow regimes would be minor because no 

major changes in cover type or ground cover is expected over large portions of the watersheds. 

If wildfire were to occur there could be an indirect effect on flow regime by yielding more water 

from the area that was burned. 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects from this alternative will occur from indirect effects since there are no direct 

effects. These effects (pine tree mortality from Pine beetle or wildfire) would be added to the 

ongoing activities such as the eight present/foreseeable projects that would likely be 

implemented over time. Most effects are minor while effects from wildfire could be major 

depending on the size of the area burned. 

Alternatives B and C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Minor direct effects to flow regimes (increase) may occur with implementation of either action 

alternative removing vegetation (timber harvest) from the watersheds. The effect would be minor 

because major changes within the watersheds would not occur. Reviewing the 112 watersheds 

across the Forest, 26 watersheds have no proposed treatments, 53 watersheds would have less 

than 10% of the area treated and 33 watersheds have greater than 10% of the area treated. This is 

assuming an even distribution of treatments across the Forest during implementation. Upper 

Beaver Creek watershed, 101201090201, has the most potential treatment. It could have up to 

25% of the watershed affected with commercial harvest activities, under Alternative C. This 

amount of treatment would not cause a major change to the cover type or ground cover within 

the watershed so there would only be a minor direct effect to flow regime (increase). 

New roads that cross streams (estimated 34 for Alternative C) have the potential to have a minor 

direct effect on flow regimes (increase). It is expected to be minor because the roads when 

constructed will be disconnected from the stream as much as possible, thereby limiting the 

amount of water being delivered unfiltered to the stream. 

Indirect effects with these alternatives would be the same as described under Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects 

Subtle changes to the flow regimes would occur with either action alternative creating a 

cumulative impact. However, changes to the flow regime would not be detectable if a gaging 

station was available and measuring stream flow and are expected to be minor because there 

would be no major changes to cover type and ground cover. 

Riparian Areas, Wetlands and Springs 

“Riparian ecosystems provide shade, bank stability, fish cover, and woody debris to aquatic 

ecosystems. (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). “Wetlands control runoff and water quality, 

recharges ground water, and provides special habitats. Actions that may alter their ground 

cover, soil structure, water budgets, drainage patterns, and long-term plant composition can 

impair these values,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996c). Springs are managed as a subset of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 70 

wetlands (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Management activities within the riparian area and 

wetlands can damage the vegetation and reduce the riparian areas. 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects to riparian areas, wetlands and springs from this alternative 

because there would not be any new activities occurring as a result of this alternative. 

If the pine beetle infestation kills pine tree within the riparian areas; there could be a positive 

indirect benefit. This would increase the sunlight to the riparian areas that are currently being 

shaded out by pine trees. Therefore; there is a potential for more riparian shrubs to be 

established due to the loss of pine trees. 

If there were a wildfire to occur; effects to the riparian areas, wetlands, and springs would be 

similar to existing conditions. This is due to the fact; that there areas are normally wetter than 

the surrounding areas and hillsides. It would be expected to lose some of the riparian shrubs; 

however riparian grasses (rushes and sedges) should re-establish quickly. 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects to riparian areas, wetlands, and springs from Alternative A 

because there are no direct effects. 

Indirect effects can have a positive a cumulative effect by increasing riparian vegetation. 

Alternatives B and C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Implementation of these alternatives can be broken into timber harvest and roads. 

Timber harvest should have no direct or indirect effects on riparian areas, wetlands and springs 

with the implementation of the design criteria, as described above. The design criteria would 

assure no impacts to riparian areas, wetlands and springs from timber harvest because equipment 

and disturbed areas will be kept at a distance. 

Roads would have no direct or indirect effects on wetlands and springs with the implementation 

of the design criteria, as listed above under the wetlands header. These more specific design 

criteria are established for wetlands to maintain compliance with Executive Order 11990 (EPA, 

2012c) and the Clean Water Act, Sections 401 and 404 (EPA, 2012a). The design criteria would 

assure no impacts to wetlands and springs from roads because roads would be kept at a distance. 

Roads (temporary or system) can have a direct effect on riparian areas when they cross 

intermittent and perennial streams. The design criteria would minimize the impacts to riparian 

areas from roads, but there would be some direct impacts to the riparian area. At the crossing, 

roads cannot avoid the riparian area; therefore a direct impact. For system roads the impact 

would be permanent. For a temporary road, the riparian vegetation should reestablish once the 

road is removed. However; it could take decades to recover from the disturbance. 

There is a difference between Alternative B and C. Generally Alternative C would have more 

potential to impact the riparian area because there could be up to 250 miles of road construction 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 71 

with this alternative and an estimated 34 new road-stream crossings. Where new roads cross 

riparian areas, there would be an adverse impact. 

Alternatives B and C - Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects to wetlands and springs from timber harvest and roads. 

There are no expected cumulative effects to riparian areas from timber harvest because there are 

no direct or indirect effects. There are cumulative effects to the riparian ecosystem. This will 

add to the impacts that has already occurred (roads, private land development, grazing) in the 

watersheds. Cumulative impacts to the riparian ecosystem would be adverse, but localized at the 

road crossings. With the estimated 34 road-stream crossings, only one in three watersheds across 

the forest would be affected. 

Floodplains 

Floodplains are important to stream systems as a way for high-water flows to escape the stream 

channel (USDA Forest Service 1996c). They allow water to spread out during floods and store 

water temporarily and when flows subside slowly release the stored water. Floodplains are 

protected by E.O. 11988 (EPA, 2012b) to reduce short and long term impacts to floodplains from 

modifications. 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Alternative A would have no new proposed activities. Roads that are currently affecting 

floodplains (encroaching or filling) will continue to do so. It is expected that floodplains would 

stay generally at existing conditions. Trees that are killed by the Pine beetle and fall in the 

floodplain would not affect the floodplain because water would still be able to spread out during 

a flood and would not be inhibited by the downed trees. 

This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on floodplains because there are no 

new activities. 

Alternative A -Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects to floodplains from Alternative A because there are no direct or 

indirect effects. The ability of streams to access their floodplains would not change. 

Alternatives B -Direct/Indirect Effects 

No direct or indirect effects are expected from timber activities (commercial and 

noncommercial) on floodplains, because there are no expected physical changes to floodplains. 

Some roads currently located in floodplains would be maintained or reconstructed. This would 

generally improve the condition of floodplains in the project area by improve road- stream 

crossings. Improvement to road-stream crossings that are currently a CDA or are fish impassible 

could also improve the access of the stream to the floodplains during high flow. 

By following the WCPs, BMPs, design criteria and State laws, impacts to floodplains would be 

minimal to none. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 72 

Alternative B -Cumulative Effects 

There will be continued road and trail construction that is proposed from other Forests projects 

and on private lands that could affect floodplains. These activities combined with the road 

activities proposed in Alternative B would have a minor long-term cumulative effect on 

floodplains within watersheds where road are being built. 

Alternatives C -Direct/Indirect Effects 

No direct or indirect effects are expected from timber activities (commercial and 

noncommercial) on floodplains, because there are no expected physical changes to floodplains. 

Some roads currently located in floodplains would be maintained or reconstructed. This would 

generally improve the condition of floodplains in the project area by improve road- stream 

crossings. Improvement to road-stream crossings that are currently a CDA or are fish impassible 

could also improve the access of the stream to the floodplains during high flow. 

Alternative C could have an estimated 34 road-stream crossings from either new system roads or 

temporary roads. It is not known how many new crossings could cross mapped 100-year 

floodplains during implementation. All new road-stream crossings would be installed to sustain 

bankfull dimensions and be consistent with the WCPs and BMPs. Protecting floodplains would 

be achieved by implementing the following the stated design criteria. 

There is a difference between Alternative B and C. Generally Alternative C would have more 

potential to impact the floodplain because there could be up to 250 miles of road construction 

with this alternative and 34 new road-stream crossing. Where new roads cross floodplains, there 

would be an adverse impact. By following the WCPs, BMPs, design criteria and State laws, 

impacts to floodplains would be localized at the site of the road-stream crossing. 

Alternative C -Cumulative Effects 

There will be continued road and trail construction that is proposed from other Forests projects 

and on private lands that could affect floodplains. These activities combined with the road 

activities proposed in Alternative C would have a long-term cumulative effect on floodplains 

within watersheds where road are being built. With the estimated 34 road-crossings, only one in 

three watersheds across the forest would be affected. 

Cumulative Effects on Target Watersheds 

Overall there were six watersheds that proposed activities under the PBR Project greater than 

30% of the watershed. These watersheds are: Upper Cold Brook Creek, Upper Beaver, Silver 

Creek-Rapid Creek, South Fork Castle Creek, Park Creek, and Boulder Creek. One watershed, 

Little Spearfish Creek, has proposed activities under PBR that was greater than 25%. 

Cumulative watershed effects were analyzed on these seven watersheds with greater than 25% 

proposed treatment areas under Alternatives B and C. These watersheds have the greatest 

potential for cumulative effects because there is more land proposed for treatment and road 

building. There could still be a cumulative effect on watersheds below 25%; however the risk is 

lower than the watersheds over 25%. Therefore; the focus of the cumulative watershed effects 

analysis will be on watersheds with greater than 25% PTAs. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 73 

Because no direct or indirect effects are expected on watersheds with less than 10% proposed 

treatment areas; no cumulative effects are expected within these watersheds. Again, the reasoning 

is due to the minimal amount of lands that are proposed for disturbance within these watersheds. 

Upper Cold Brook Watershed 

Table 3-7 Upper Cold Brook Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201090101 

Upper Cold Brook HUC 12 – 27,320 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period Acres Of Commercial Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 113 <1% 

2007-2011 2,764 10% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

1966 Ventling Draw 173 1% 

1991 Shirttail 468 2% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Watershed 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 

Community 4,712 4,712 100% 

Park 3,088 194 6% 

Pleasant Valley 24,802 7,376 30% 

Rifle Pit 5,757 923 16% 

South Custer 13,495 3,307 25% 

Total 16,512 60% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 11,099 41% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 29 70 

Open Forest Roads 70 171 

Closed Forest Roads 8 20 

Nonsystem Roads 8 20 

Total 50 120 1% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,677 6% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 4,193 15% 

 New Roads, 4.1 miles 10 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 1 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 8,386 30% 

Foreseeable Actions 

None 0% 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 74 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Bluebird, Echo Valley, Fossil, Henderson, 

Hopkins, Lime Kiln, Painter, Pleasant and Sydney POL. 

Full treatment means that all of the high-risk stands proposed under Alternatives B or C would 

be treated through commercial harvest instead of the a mix of commercial and non-commercial 

activities. Up to 30% of the watershed has proposed activities under either Alternative B or C. 

The proposed activities are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of 

the timber activities would not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment; especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. With the installation of one new culvert and other road reconstruction activities 

would introduce sediment into streams even with the use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with 

the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not be enough sediment to cause a longterm cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment pulse should be in short duration 

during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 

Upper Beaver Creek Watershed 

Table 3-8 Upper Beaver Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201090201 

Upper Beaver Creek HUC 12 – 22,753 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 688 3% 

2007-2011 3,200 14% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

1990 Cicero Peak 1,148 5% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Watershed 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 

Cicero 25,787 10,231 40% 

Rifle Pit 5,757 848 15% 

South Custer 13,495 5,659 42% 

Total 16,738 74% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 6,170 27% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 42 102 

Private Roads 1 3 

Open Forest Roads 50 122 

Closed Forest Roads 12 30 

Nonsystem Roads 32 78 

Total 138 336 1% 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 75 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201090201 

Upper Beaver Creek HUC 12 – 22,753 acres 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 2,284 10% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 5,710 25% 

 New Roads, 8.5 miles 11 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 1 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 11,420 50% 

Foreseeable Actions 

None 0% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Bluebird, Echo POL, Echo Valley, Fossil, 

Garsong, Noah Settlement, Painter, Silverstar, Sydney POL and Virginia Settlement TS. 

The Upper Beaver Creek watershed has the most potential for a cumulative watershed effect 

from the Pine Beetle Response project. This is because it has the most area proposed to be 

treated; up to 50% of the watershed under either Alternative B or C. Because there are more 

lands potentially up for treatment, there is a potential for a fair amount of new road construction. 

The proposed activities are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of 

the timber activities would not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. With the installation of one new culvert and other road reconstruction activities 

would introduce sediment into streams even with the use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with 

the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not be enough sediment to cause a longterm cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment pulse should be in short duration 

during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 

Silver Creek – Rapid Creek Watershed 

Table 3-9 Silver Creek-Rapid Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201100103 

Silver Creek – Rapid Creek HUC 12 – 22,289 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 1,964 9% 

2007-2011 2,565 12% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

1931 Rochford 78 <1% 

1934 Bloody Gulch 514 2% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 76 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201100103 

Silver Creek – Rapid Creek HUC 12 – 22,289 acres 

Watershed 

East Rapid 18,590 13,338 72% 

Reynolds Prairie 29,971 2,300 8% 

Wolff 17,051 4,831 28% 

Total 20,469 92% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 1,626 7% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 20 48 

Private Roads <1 1 

Open Forest Roads 58 140 

Closed Forest Roads 40 96 

Nonsystem Roads 26 62 

Total 143 346 2% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,992 9% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 4,980 22% 

 New Roads, 8.4 miles 21 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 0 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 9,960 45% 

Foreseeable Actions 

Pactola Commercial Harvest 1,957 9% 

Sota Trails 

connection ATV trails 3 <1% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Ant, BHEC 2010, Felis, Greenant, Hanna, Hop 

Creek, Honker POL, Lost Park, Mercedes, Merry-Go-Round, Minnesota Box, Minnex, Ring 

Around, Rochford, Sapa Bugs, Squid and Tissue Stewardship POL. There is approximately 

about 100 acres under active mining claims within this watershed that occur near streams. 

Sediment could enter streams from mining operations. The pulse of sediment should be shortterm and should not contribute to long-term sedimentation to the streams. 

Up to 45% of the watershed has proposed activities. The proposed activities are commercial and 

non-commercial vegetation management. Most of the timber activities would not have 

cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. Road reconstruction activities would introduce sediment into streams even with 

the use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there 

should not be enough sediment to cause a long-term cumulative effect. This is due to the fact 

that the sediment pulse should be in short duration during the time of construction or 

reconstruction activities. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 77 

South Fork Castle Creek Watershed

Table 3-10 South Fork Castle Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101201100105 

South Fork Castle Creek HUC 12 – 26,749 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 889 3% 

2007-2011 8,480 32% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

2000 Jasper 66 <1% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment 

within 

Watershed 

Percent of 

Allotment within 

Watershed % Of Watershed 

Crows Nest Upper Beaver 40,384 5,796 14% 

Deerfield 7,557 5,593 74% 

Ditch Creek 15,773 9,438 60% 

Gillette Prairie 4,024 225 6% 

Murphy 6,137 524 9% 

Sixmile 4,396 4,140 94% 

Total 25,716 96% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 1,526 6% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Open Forest Roads 58 139 

Closed Forest Roads 65 159 

Nonsystem Roads 19 47 

Total 142 345 1% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,912 7% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 4,780 18% 

 New Roads, 4.8 miles 12 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 3 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 9,560 36% 

Foreseeable Actions 

None 0% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Annebelle, Baseline Bugs, Coulsen, Coulsen 

Bugs, Crooked Uncle, Duck, Hat, Hughes, Mystic 07, Nichols, Odakota, Pole Creek, South Dee, 

South Fork and Thumb. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 78 

Up to 36% of the watershed has proposed activities under either Alternative B or C. The

proposed activities are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of the 

timber activities will not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. With the installation of three new culverts and other road reconstruction activities 

would introduce sediment into streams even with the use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with 

the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not be enough sediment to cause a longterm cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment pulse should be in short duration 

during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 

Park Creek Watershed 

Table 3-11 Park Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101202020701 

Upper Cold Brook HUC 12 – 20,453 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 1,472 7% 

2007-2011 1,670 8% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

1931 Lost Gulch 40 <1% 

2002 Grizzly Gulch 1,852 9% 

205 Camp Five 242 1% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Watershed 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 

Bear Butte 18,616 8,009 43% 

Upper Elk Creek 8,813 2,864 32% 

Total 10,873 53% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 6,090 30% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 19 45 

Private Roads 5 12 

Open Forest Roads 50 122 

Closed Forest Roads 21 51 

Nonsystem Roads 40 97 

Total 135 327 2% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,785 9% 

Alternative C 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 79 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101202020701 

Upper Cold Brook HUC 12 – 20,453 acres 

 Commercial Harvest 4,462 22% 

 New Roads, 5.3 miles 13 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 0 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 8,924 44% 

Foreseeable Actions 

None 0% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Boomer, Corral, Dano, Deadman, Elk Creek, 

Kirk, Legacy Mig, Lost, Meadow, Mineral, Redhill and Vanocker. 

Up to 44% of the watershed has proposed activities under either Alternative B or C. The

proposed activities are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of the 

timber activities would not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. Road reconstruction activities would introduce sediment into streams even with the 

use of WCPs and BMPs. However with the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not 

be enough sediment to cause a long-term cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment 

pulse should be in short duration during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 

Boulder Creek Watershed 

Table 3-12 Boulder Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101202020702 

Boulder Creek HUC 12 – 26,702 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 0 0% 

2007-2011 2,178 8% 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

1931 Lost Gulch 362 1% 

1959 Deadwood 382 1% 

2002 Grizzly Gulch 4,676 18% 

2005 Camp Five 533 2% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Watershed 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 

Bear Butte 18,616 2,135 11% 

Crook Mountain 5,109 1,317 26% 

Total 3,452 13% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 80 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101202020702 

Boulder Creek HUC 12 – 26,702 acres 

Private Land 15,036 56% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 34 83 

Private Roads 4 10 

Open Forest Roads 16 40 

Closed Forest Roads 24 58 

Nonsystem Roads 18 45 

Total 97 235 1% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,815 7% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 4,538 17% 

 New Roads, 10.9 miles 27 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 1 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 9,076 34% 

Foreseeable Actions 

None 0% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Alkali, Boomer, Boulder, Deadman, Elkbugs, 

Kirk, Mackey, Radio, Redhill, Sturgis Quarter Mile and 139 FB. There are two active mining 

claims along streams within this watershed for a total of 85 acres. When mining activities are 

being conducted; there is some sediment entering streams. 

Up to 34% of the watershed has proposed activities under either Alternative B or C. The

proposed activities are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of the 

timber activities would not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have cumulative impacts to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. With the installation of one new culvert and other road reconstruction activities 

would introduce sediment into streams even with the use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with 

the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not be enough sediment to cause a longterm cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment pulse should be in short duration 

during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 

 

Little Spearfish Creek Watershed 

Table 3-13 Little Spearfish Creek Watershed Cumulative Effects Summary 

Pine Beetle Response Effects Summary, HUC 101202030303 

Little Spearfish Creek HUC 12 – 18,288 acres 

Past Actions 

Timber Harvest 

Time Period 

Acres Of Commercial 

Activities % Of Watersheds 

2002-2006 3,984 22% 

2007-2011 2,221 12% 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 81 

Fire 

Year Fire Acres % Of Watershed 

None None 0 0% 

Past, Present and Future Actions 

Grazing – Federal 

Allotment 

Allotment 

Acres 

Acres of 

Allotment within 

Watershed 

Percent of Allotment 

within Watershed % Of Watershed 

Little Spearfish 9,181 6,668 73% 

Pettigrew 7,504 2,339 31% 

Plateau 16,494 4,303 26% 

Stearns Park 10,878 4,604 42% 

Total 17,914 98% 

Ownership 

Status Acres % Of Watershed 

Private Land 579 3% 

Roads and Trails 

 Miles Acres % Of Watershed 

Public Roads 1 3 

Open Forest Roads 56 135 

Closed Forest Roads 22 54 

Nonsystem Roads 21 51 

Total 100 243 1% 

Proposed Action 

 Activity Acres or Number % Of Watershed 

Alternative B 

 Commercial Harvest 1,040 6% 

Alternative C 

 Commercial Harvest 2,623 14% 

 New Roads, 4.1 miles 10 <1% 

 Road-stream Crossing 0 

Full treatment 

 Commercial Harvest 5,246 29% 

Foreseeable Actions 

Geranium Rx Prescribe Fire 2,752 15% 

Limestone Rx Prescribe Fire 1,208 7% 

Past sales harvested in the last 10 years include; Beartown, Breakneck, Central, Geranium, Hellox, 

Hellsgate, Obrian, Pit, Plateau, Purgatory, Raddick, Riffle, Riffle Pit, Rimrock and West Rim. 

Up to 29% of the watershed has proposed activities under Alternative C. The proposed activities 

are commercial and non-commercial vegetation management. Most of the timber activities 

would not have cumulative effects because there are no direct effects. 

Use of roads related to timber harvest would have a cumulative impact to water quality due to 

sediment. Especially under Alternative C where there is the potential for new road construction 

near streams. Road reconstruction activities would introduce sediment into streams even with the 

use of WCPs and BMPs. However; with the implementation of WCPs and BMPs there should not

be enough sediment to cause a long-term cumulative effect. This is due to the fact that the sediment 

pulse should be in short duration during the time of construction or reconstruction activities. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 82 

SOILS 

Introduction 

This section discusses the components of the Black Hills National Forest soil resources that could be 

affected by the proposed activities. They are soil productivity, soil erosion and mass failure. Effects 

to the watershed resource as a whole are discussed in the hydrology section. 

Soil Productivity 

Soil productivity is the ability of the soil to supply the water and nutrients needed to sustain plant 

growth. Variables that influence soil productivity include physical soil characteristics, organic 

matter and soil biological activity. 

Physical Soil Characteristics 

Physical soil characteristics include soil depth, pore space and bulk density. Changes in these 

occur when ground-based equipment make repeated passes over the soil. These activities 

compress or compact soils and, if soils are wet enough, can result in rutting and puddling of the 

soil resource. Clay and loam soils generally compact more than sandy soils (USDA Forest 

Service 2006c). These changes to the physical soil characteristics reduce the pore space volume 

and water holding capacity. These physical changes reduce infiltration rates, slow soil drainage, 

impede root growth and reduce plant-available water and nutrients. Physical soil disturbances 

also decrease gas exchange, affecting both plants and soil biota. 

Organic Matter 

Organic matter in its various forms contributes to soil productivity. Humus is decomposed 

organic matter. Duff and litter are partially decomposed leaves, needles and twigs on the surface 

of soils. Large woody debris consists of woody stems greater than three inches in diameter. 

Decomposed large woody debris can supply moisture to plants after the soils dry. Organic 

matter provides nutrients and can retain moisture for soil organisms and plants. 

Soil Biological Activity 

Soil organisms, including fungi and bacteria, are required by and drive the nutrient cycling process 

by decomposing organic matter components and releasing the nutrients for use by plants. Soil 

organisms depend on organic matter for the nutrients they need to carry out their life processes. 

Decomposed large woody debris provides important habitat for the survival of mycorrhizae fungi. 

These fungi form a symbiotic relationship with tree roots, increasing water and nutrient uptake by 

the trees and the fungi. 

Soil Erosion 

Soil erosion is the movement of soil particles by water, wind or ice. In forested sites on steep 

slopes, water is the generally the most common driver of erosion. Generally, depending on a 

variety of site characteristics, potential for the greatest erosion is on steeper slopes (above 30%) 

and potential decreases as the slope decreases. Erosion is generally infrequent on undisturbed 

forest soils for two primary reasons: (1) organic matter is generally at levels that provides a 

protective layer on the soil surface that limits the impact of raindrops and allows water to 

infiltrate; and (2) the surface soil below the organic layer is by nature generally porous, allowing 

water to infiltrate into and through the soil profile. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 83 

Soil erosion can occur when the surface soil is compacted or when the loose surface soil and its 

protective layer of organic material are changed or removed, such as by disturbances associated 

with management activities. Compaction, rutting and puddling can affect infiltration to the point 

that there can be a reduction in the movement of water into the soil and water can be channeled 

and concentrated. As a result, water runoff (overland surface flow) is increased and carries soil 

particles with it. Natural disturbance occurrences such as fire result in the removal of organic 

matter layers from the soil surface. When surface organic matter is removed, soil pores can 

become plugged by material (particles) impacted from precipitation events (raindrops) resulting 

in overland surface flow and increased rates of soil erosion. 

Mass Failure 

Mass failures (also known as mass movement, soil slippage or landslides) can be triggered by 

natural or man-made disturbances. Mass failures can be triggered from changed conditions 

resulting from sequences of natural events, such as wildfire followed by high intensity 

precipitation events. Some areas on the Forest have characteristics that contribute to a greater 

potential for instability and are considered to have a greater likelihood or susceptibility to mass 

failures based on those characteristics which can include soil or bedrock features. 

Management activities can contribute to changing soil moisture conditions such as contributing 

to saturated conditions in localized areas. Activities can create conditions that result in 

channeling water and concentrating it onto a limited area on hill slopes, for example, below a 

road culvert or a rutted skid trail. Mass failures triggered by human causes are classified as 

detrimental soil disturbance. These disturbances result in significant long-term changes in soil 

productivity that last centuries. Only mass failure information as it relates to potential effects to 

soil productivity is discussed in this section. 

Information Sources 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2550 (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and the USDA Forest 

Service Region 2 Watershed Conservation Handbook (WCPH) (USDA Forest Service 2006d) 

reference scientific literature and based on science identify direction to be implemented during 

project activities on Forest Service administered land for maintaining or improving soil 

productivity. The FSM and WCPH, along with the revised Forest Plan as amended (2005, the 1996 

EIS to the 1997 Forest Plan Revision, the Phase II Amendment EIS (2005g), Forest monitoring 

reports and direction and information contained within the R2 WCPH identify design criteria and 

document effectiveness to reduce anticipated detrimental soil disturbances associated with activities 

that may occur on potential treatment areas within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project on 

the Black Hills National Forest (BKF). Numerous bulk density samples have been collected on the 

Black Hills National Forest in various areas that have been managed for timber production (cutting 

units). Forest monitoring reports since 1998, with the most recent BKF Plan monitoring report 

being issued in 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2010b) have provided information regarding effects 

based on past activities. Since the activities proposed as part of this project can generally be 

expected to create varying levels of site and soil disturbances similar to activities that have occurred 

previously on the Forest and project activities are to implement Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, cumulative effects are generally expected to be within those that were described in the 

FEIS for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005g). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 84 

Analysis Area Description 

The analysis area forms the boundary for the direct, indirect and the cumulative effects soils 

analysis. It consists of the specific potential treatment areas (see Appendix D - Maps) and 

potential activities that would occur for the MPBR Project. This analysis area was selected 

because that is where the effects of implementing the proposed activities would occur. The 

specific effects on soils are localized in association with those areas that would receive 

treatments, the construction and rehabilitation of temporary roads that may be created to access 

the treatment areas, the construction and maintenance of new permanent roads, and where 

landings would be created. Effects generally would not extend beyond the proposed specific 

localized activity unit (i.e. cutting unit) for treatment (USDA Forest Service 2010e, 2006) or 

along the routes created to access the treatment unit. For the temporal range of effects please 

refer to “Duration of Effects” in the discussion that follows. 

Affected Environment 

This project is different from other recent Forest projects in that it is generally considered to be an 

anticipatory, flexible EIS process (USDA Forest Service 2012e) project to address continued 

expansion of mountain pine beetles and mortality issues associated with mountain pine beetle 

activity. While there is general soil information available for soils within the project area of potential 

treatment areas and potential road creation areas, this project specifies that it relies on required 

expedited resource reviews, site investigations and route reviews prior to project implementation 

activities and that site specific locational design criteria would be identified at that time and 

implemented during activities. This would occur after a Decision for the project has been issued. 

The MPBRP potential treatment areas and potential access routes are located throughout various 

portions of the Black Hills Ecoregion and located on various soils. Soils of the Black Hills National 

Forest (the analysis area) have generally been mapped and described at an Order 3 (USDA Forest 

Service 1991), which is the level of data generally mapped for various Forest uses, such as range 

planning (Additional information on soil survey can be accessed at 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual). Background soil resource information for the Forest is 

available in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Forest (USDA Forest Service 1996b), and in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Black Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005g). Information on various specific 

components for Forest soil map unit resources have been and are periodically updated (such as 

through the 2007 update to the Lawrence County Soil Survey) by the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) and have become available to the public through a NRCS website 

located at http://soils.usda.gov/. Hard copy issues of Black Hills county soil surveys have become 

out-of-date and generally should not be used; therefore they were not referenced for this project 

analysis. 

Potential treatment units identified in the proposed action are located within two Major Land 

Resource Areas (MLRA) of the Black Hills Ecoregion: MLRA 61 – Black Hills Footslopes and the 

majority of the treatment areas located in MLRA 62 – Black Hills (MLRA information can be 

accessed at http://www.cei.psu.edu/mlra/). The majority of the potential treatment areas are located 

in MLRA 62. NRCS recently (2011) released an updated electronic soil map for the Black Hills 

Ecoregion Major Land Resource Area 62 (MLRA) that includes updates to many map unit 

symbols, to soil series included within various map units and updates to various soil descriptions 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 85 

and interpretations. Black Hills soil resource information is publicly available for MLRA 61 and 

62 and can be accessed through various web information sites, such as Soil Data Mart, Soil Data 

Viewer, MLRA Explorer, Web Soil Survey and other links that are available at 

http://soils.usda.gov/. Any of that soil information that is posted to NRCS soil web links can be 

updated at any time as new information is gained about specific soils. Soil map units associated 

with the MPBRP action alternatives were identified through the use of Geographic Information 

System (GIS) capabilities. Based on that process soil map units are currently listed in this report 

for the action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) potential treatment areas. 

A map unit delineated polygon on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major 

kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the 

taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely 

defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural 

phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range 

of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Based 

on this variability, areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without 

including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils 

or miscellaneous areas (such as rock outcrops) for which it is named and some minor components 

that belong to taxonomic class other than those of the major soils (Soil Survey Staff 2012). 

Soil survey map unit symbols for units included in the new MLRA 62 soil survey legend begin 

with the letter Q (example: Q0828C). Soil survey map unit symbols in MLRA 61 vary by soil 

survey area (county) and do not currently begin with a Q (examples of map unit symbols in 

MLRA 61: BvD, RoF, 157).While the majority of the action alternative potential treatment areas 

are located in MLRA 62, general information for both of the MLRAs is provided. 

MLRA 61 – Black Hills Footslopes: The general geology of MLRA 61 is an area consists of 

marine sediments older than the Cretaceous Pierre Shale on the high plains surrounding this area. 

The older rocks were brought closer to the surface during the uplift that formed the Black Hills. 

The Lower Cretaceous Fall River and Lakota (Inyan Kara Group) sandstones occur on the 

outside boundary of the area and are referred to as the Dakota Hogback. Permian limestone and 

shale of the Minnekahta limestone form the inside boundary and occur in the mountains of the 

Black Hills (MLRA 62). The Triassic red beds of the Spearfish shale form a low valley, the “red 

valley,” surrounding the Black Hills between the two ridges formed by the Inyan Kara and 

Minnekahta Formations. The red beds have gypsum and anhydrous layers. Ground-water 

seepage can dissolve these layers, creating sinkholes on the surface. 

MLRA 62 – Black Hills: The core of the Black Hills is a mass of granite with steeply dipping 

metamorphic rocks, primarily slate and schist, directly surrounding it. A plateau of Mississippian 

limestone surrounds the igneous and metamorphic rock core. This Pahasapa (Madison) limestone 

is broken around the outer edges of the uplifted area. The Permian Minnekahta limestone forms 

the outermost boundary of the area. Many other tilted sandstone, shale, and limestone units are 

exposed like a bathtub ring inside the steeply dipping Pahasapa limestone. These older units are 

also exposed on the valley walls along the major drainages that cut through the rock layers. 

Potential Treatment Areas by Soil Map Unit Located in Each County 

Potential treatment areas are located within each county that the Forest is located within. Lawrence 

County is the only county with total potential treatment area variances between the action alternatives. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 86 

There is a lengthy list of soil survey map units included in the potential treatment area for each project 

action alternative. Due to the length, that list is not included here but is included in the project record. 

Environmental Consequences 

Introduction 

The analysis of effects for soils assumes that design criteria outlined in Appendix B would be 

implemented during project activities and site reviews prior to implementation would occur. This 

analysis discusses the expected disturbance resulting from the implementation of the action 

alternatives and describes potential risks of effects to the soil resource associated with various 

disturbances. Various similar harvest systems and design criteria have been implemented during 

past Forest projects and monitored for effectiveness. Soil monitoring has been included in Forest 

monitoring reports. The most recent Forest Plan monitoring report was issued in 2010 (USDA 

Forest Service 2010b). 

Cumulative effects for soil resources have generally been discussed in terms of the treatment 

activity areas. The Forest Service Manual (USDA Forest Service 2010f) defines an activity area 

as a land area affected by a management activity to which soil quality standards are applied. An 

example of an activity area is a harvest unit. Per manual direction, soil quality standards do not 

apply outside of an activity area. Effects to the watershed resource as a whole are discussed in 

the Hydrology section. 

The FSM defines soil quality guidelines in terms of detrimental soil disturbance which includes: 

compaction, rutting, displacement, severely-burned soil, surface erosion and soil mass movement 

(mass failures). It is important to consider and understand that not all site or soil disturbances are 

detrimental disturbance. For example, compaction of soil resources can occur, however soil bulk 

density increases associated with disturbances can occur to various levels which may not be at 

levels considered to be detrimental. 

Assumptions used discussing potential disturbance associated with various activities and used in 

this analysis: 

• That mountain pine beetle activity and associated ponderosa pine beetle mortality would 

continue to occur at similar levels as in recent previous years. 

• That based on a time period of five to seven years for project activities to be implemented 

following a decision, there is potential that some level of the potential treatment acres will 

have mountain pine beetle mortality and no ground disturbance activity would occur at those 

locations. 

• The Forest Plan will be followed. 

• Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil 

Management and Watershed Conservation Practices (FSH2509.25) will be followed. 

• Recent (2008f) WO Forest Service direction (FSM 2800) for geologic hazard expands beyond 

the soil guideline (FP Standard 1108 developed for the 1997 Plan) will be followed. 

• Design criteria identified to be in compliance with Forest Plan direction would be 

implemented and adequate funding would be provided for effective implementation; timely 

assessment or monitoring of soil resource components and conditions would occur. 

• The implementation of the wildlife standard for retaining large woody debris (Standard 

2308a) is expected to attain the Forest Plan Objective (212) of 5 to 10 tons per acre of large 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 87 

woody debris (greater than 3-inches in diameter) retained within activity areas to provide 

organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling. 

• If review of monitoring design criteria implementation indicated issues during

implementation, that implementation or design criteria would be altered or adapted to address 

issues. If a soil issue was identified after implementation that actions would be identified and 

funding would be available to implement any needed rehabilitation. 

• The areas with the greatest likelihood of experiencing the greatest amount of mechanized 

ground based harvest and cable timber harvest would be within 4B and 4C structural stage 

stands. 

• Harvest of timber through the use of helicopter or cable methods only remove boles and 

would retain well distributed slash on site of removal. 

• In general, the treatment activities of cut and chunk, cut and chip, cut-hand pile-burn, 

insecticide spray, helicopter timber harvest, would generally result in low or limited amounts 

of disturbance to the soil resource. If cable harvest is able to suspend boles, little ground 

disturbance would be expected on the slopes and slash would generally be expected to be

retained on site. Associated ground disturbance would be with road development for harvest 

equipment and landings to load trucks. In general, the most disturbance and greatest potential 

for site disturbance to occur to that defined as a detrimental level would be associated with the 

following activities: Cut-Equipment Pile-Burn, Ground Based Timber Harvest (and associated 

landings), and construction of roads. 

• Based on recent observations of MPB infested areas that have been treated or areas with 

extensive MPB mortality, potential treatment area post treatment basal areas are expected to 

be similar to that experienced during seed-tree harvest. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Alternative A provides a baseline to evaluate the effects of the action alternatives. The effects on 

soils are discussed as changes over time on soil productivity, soil erosion and mass failures. 

Soil Productivity 

Alternative A would not result in short-term effects on the soil resource over and above the 

existing condition. No additional road building, timber harvest, or non-commercial thinning or 

other activities described for the potential treatment areas would disrupt natural soil processes. 

Physical Soil Characteristics 

Alternative A would not result in soil compaction, rutting, puddling or soil displacement. In 

areas where past timber management may have resulted in compacted soil conditions, soil 

productivity would generally be expected to slowly improve as plant roots, soil organisms and 

freeze-thaw events loosen the soil. 

Organic Matter 

With implementation of Alternative A, standing dead trees would eventually fall over and 

contribute coarse woody debris. Needles and branches would remain on the site and fall to the 

ground. Soil organisms would decompose organic materials thus adding humus to the soil. Over

time, nutrients associated with this material would become available for plant growth. As the 

ponderosa pine tree canopies close in and shade the soil surface, soil organisms activity generally 

slows in association with cooler temperatures and decomposition rates would generally reduce to 

levels that allow organic matter and nutrients to accumulate on the soil surface. This process 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 88 

would continue until another major disturbance, such as fire or a windstorm, opens the tree 

canopy allowing sites to have increased temperatures and contribute to increase downed wood 

recycling processes again. 

Soil Organisms 

Microorganism populations would fluctuate with the changes in the microclimate and the organic 

matter on the soil surface. These changes would be in response to the changing vegetation as a 

result of natural events such as fire, wind throw of trees and other sources of natural vegetation 

mortality. 

Soil Erosion 

Alternative A would generally be expected to result in the continuance of any current soil 

erosion to decrease as vegetation returns to soil surfaces capable of supporting vegetation that 

currently lack plant cover. Any wildfires that may occur would generally be expected to result in 

a short-term localized (within the burned boundaries) increase in soil erosion (based on recent 

Burned Area Emergency Response assessment observations this generally occurs within the first 

year or two following the fire during favorable years and then generally recovers within three to 

five years areas have generally revegetated to the extent that erosion has returned to general 

background levels). Soil erosion rates would fluctuate with natural changes in vegetation cover. 

Mass Failures 

Alternative A would not change the natural site instability characteristics or the risk of mass 

failures within the project area. Various natural events (fire, precipitation) would still be 

expected to occur under this alternative and if they would occur at areas with instability 

characteristics, it is expected that localized mass failure could be triggered and continue to occur 

under this alternative. Mass failures would not be related to this project. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Action Alternatives – Alternatives B and C 

Soil Productivity 

The following paragraphs are based on the Forest intent to maintain soil productivity while 

addressing the purpose and need of the project. The project includes alternative design, treatment 

methods and design criteria that are expected to result in less disturbance to various soil 

resources with potential greater risks of productivity loss such as through operating during dry or 

frozen conditions, limiting the extent of temporary roads, skid trails and landings and 

rehabilitating those features so that detrimental soil conditions occupy less than 15 percent of 

each activity area. 

While not on a true scale, Figure 3-1 provides a general comparison of Mountain Pine Beetle 

Response Project potential activities and expected potential ground disturbance based on past 

activity field observations on the Black Hills National Forest. These observations are consistent 

with what has been documented in a recent publication by the USFS Rocky Mountain Research 

Station for the USFS Northern Region (Reeves et al. 2011). In that publication, it was stated that 

there was a significant difference in an areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance following 

timber harvest operations among ground based, skyline (cable logging) and helicopter systems; 

among harvest seasons; and among National Forests. The frequency of detrimental soil 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 89 

disturbance harvest operations in the Northern Region followed the general trend of groundbased>skyline (cable)>helicopter. Further information in that document, similar to what the 

Black Hills has documented with sampling bulk densities (USDA Forest Service 2010f), 

documented that winter ground-based harvest resulted in a significantly lower areal extent of 

DSD than summer ground-based harvest. On the Black Hills, the DSD extent (of soil bulk 

density increases) on sites sampled was also very low to not even detectable when sites were 

harvested during dry soil moisture conditions in the summer (USDA Forest Service 2010f). The 

visual feature provides a quick general overview of which activity would also likely have the 

greatest potential for detrimental soil disturbance. In association with that, the activities with the 

greatest potential for detrimental soil disturbance also would be expected to have the most design 

criteria implemented during implementation. 

Figure 3-1 Comparison of Potential Activities and Potential Ground Disturbance on Soils 

Physical Soil Characteristics 

There are soils within the potential treatment areas with greater potential to be compacted (increase 

in soil bulk density) to detrimental levels if activities occur when soils are wet. The following soil 

survey map units (listed by soil survey map unit symbols) in each of the counties have a least one of 

the dominant map unit components with a severe hazard rating for compaction. 

Lawrence County: Q0100C, Q0102E, Q0104G, Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, Q0114D, 

Q0114E, Q0206B, Q0209D, Q0216B, Q0217C, Q0225D, Q0226E, Q0227E, Q0239D, Q0400B, 

Q0401B, Q0403B, Q0407C, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0413C, Q0415D, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, 

Q0501B, Q0502C, Q0506D, Q0508C, Q0509C, Q0510E, Q0512C, Q0514C, Q0518B, Q0518C, 

Q0520C, Q0538A, Q0540C, Q0540F, Q0552D, Q0568B, Q0568E, Q0570F, Q0572D, Q0584E, 

Q0584F, Q0586E, Q0901B, Q0928C 

Custer County: BrB, GrD, GrF, PgC, Q0304D, Q0310D, Q0312E, Q0315E, Q0322D, Q0413C, 

Q0415D, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0422C, Q0502C, Q0514C, Q0520C, Q0552D, Q0584E, 

Q0587E, Q0608B, Q0609C, Q0620C, Q0675E, Q0676E, Q0680D, RpC, RrE 

Pennington County: Q0200C, Q0206B,Q 0209D, Q0211E, Q0216B, Q0226E, Q0239D, 

Q0307B, Q0310D, Q0312E, Q0315E, Q0322D, Q0400B, Q0401B, Q0405D, Q0408E, Q0409E, 

Q0411C, Q0413C, Q0415D, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0422C, Q0501B, Q0502C, Q0512C, 

Q0514C, Q0520C, Q0552D, Q0576C, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0586E, Q0587E, Q0608B, Q0609C, 

Q0611C, Q0619C, Q0620C, Q0632E, Q0675E, Q0676E 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 90 

Meade County: Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, Q0114D, Q0501B, Q0502C, Q0506D, Q0509C, 

Q0510E, Q0514C, Q0518B, Q0518C, Q0520C, Q0535C, Q0553E, Q0568B, Q0568E, Q0570F, 

Q0572D, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0586E, Q0611C,Q0675E, Q0676E, Q0901B 

Crook County: 125, 13, 156, 157, 164, 166, 170, 172, 179, 187, 198, 37, 38, 66, 67, 86, 93, 95, 

96, 98, Q0100C, Q0102E, Q0106E, Q0114D, Q0114F, Q0400B, Q0407C, Q0408E, Q0409E, 

Q0411C, Q0411E, Q0418E, Q0509C, Q0510E, Q0512C, Q0512E, Q0516C, Q0518B, Q0518C, 

Q0519B, Q0540C, Q0540F, Q0556C, Q0556F, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0801B, Q0803E, Q0808A, 

Q0811C, Q0815C, Q0815E, Q0817A, Q0826C, Q0826F, Q0827C, Q0827E, Q0828C, Q0828F, 

Q0834B, Q0834C, Q0836B, Q0838C, Q0840C, Q0841B, Q0842C, Q0848B, Q0852C, Q0852E, 

Q0854B, Q0854C, Q0854E, Q0922C 

Weston County: 15, 56, 57, 84, Q0400B, Q0401B, Q0405D, Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0411C, 

Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0512C, Q0512E, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0586E 

Fall River: BoB, BpB, BvD, CnD, MmE, MpE, NoB, NoC, Q0608B, Q0620C, Q0640B, 

Q0657D, ReD, RgF, TaC, TgC 

Ground-Based Harvest: Ground-based harvesting would generally result in localized direct and 

indirect effects on soil physical characteristics within the boundaries of proposed activity areas. 

Ground based systems would generally occur across the landscape on slopes generally less than 

40 percent slopes. The likelihood for the most potential detrimental effects, including that of 

compaction, would be concentrated on skid trails and temporary roads and landings within or 

associated with timber units that are treated. Minimizing the area occupied by landings or to 

reuse landings, skid trails or unauthorized roads are included in the project design criteria 

(Appendix B) to reduce potential extent of detrimental effects. Design criteria includes operating 

on dry or frozen conditions to prevent bulk density increases to a detrimental level on soils with 

characteristics that level may be more likely to occur (refer to the list of those units above). Dry 

conditions are generally when soils are at moisture levels lower than what is at a field capacity 

level, below what is known as the plastic limit (USDA Forest Service 2006). Rutting and 

puddling are most often associated with mechanical logging on soils that are wet, or above the 

plastic limit (generally when soil can be rolled into 3 millimeter threads without breaking or 

crumbling). By operating during low soil moisture conditions, there is the potential to limit the 

amount of detrimental soil disturbance on skid trails. 

Operating on slash is generally effective for buffering the effect of equipment operation on 

mineral soil. Thus if systems are used that significant slash is maintained on the skid trails, 

detrimental effects could be limited. 

Design criteria include rehabilitation implementation of the landings and skid trails. If in some 

cases where there would be opportunities to utilize designated Forest transportation system roads 

for helicopter log landing sites, then it is generally expected that there would be little to no effect 

on adjacent soil resource productivity. 

Cable Timber Harvest: This type of harvest operation on any of the potential treatment areas 

(generally on areas over 40% slope areas) would generally be expected to result in direct and 

indirect effects on soil physical characteristics within the localized areas that the method would 

be used. In the past on the Black Hills, it has been observed that areas of compaction associated 

with cable systems have generally been to be less than effects to soils associated with ground-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 91 

based operations, and very localized. As stated earlier, this is generally consistent with what has 

been recently documented by the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in the Northern 

Region Forests (Reeves et al. 2011). 

Design criteria include rehabilitation implementation of the landings. If in some cases where 

there would be opportunities to utilize designated Forest transportation system roads for 

helicopter log landing sites, then it is generally expected that there would be little to no effect on 

adjacent soil resource productivity. 

Helicopter Timber Harvest: Helicopter yarding, to generally be used on slopes greater than 

40% (USDA Forest Service 2012e) is generally expected to avoid impacts associated with 

ground-based equipment, including that of compaction, within a cutting unit. General 

observations of limited disturbances associated with recent (within the last two years) winter 

helicopter logging activities on the Black Hills (on Forest and State Park administered lands) 

indicate there is limited likelihood that impacts within the tree removal areas are detrimental. 

Helicopter logging is generally expected to use full suspension and slash (limbs, branches and 

cull material) is retained where the trees were dropped on hill slopes. Most impacts associated 

with helicopter logging were observed to be associated with the log landings and any temporary 

roads to access the landings. 

Design criteria include rehabilitation implementation of the landings. If in some cases where 

there would be opportunities to utilize designated Forest transportation system roads for 

helicopter log landing sites, then it is generally expected that there would be little to no effect on 

adjacent soil resource productivity. 

Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, Insecticide Spray, Cut-Handpile-Burn: These types of 

treatments result in little to no ground disturbance and organic matter is left distributed 

throughout the area. Very little to light ground based equipment are used with these activities 

therefore compaction is generally not expected. 

Summary: Generally, protection of the soil resource would be expected through the site specific 

or localized identified design criteria (Appendix B, MPBRP DEIS) to be selected prior to 

implementation (USDA Forest Service 2012e) and increases in bulk density would be expected 

to remain within the limits specified. Cable logging and helicopter logging would generally be 

expected to result in fewer localized impacts to soil resources than ground-based equipment 

when used on the appropriate slopes. Temporary roads, skid trails and landings associated with 

any of the commercial timber removal activities are to be rehabilitated (Appendix B, MPBRP 

DEIS). Very limited to no increases in soil bulk density is expected within the areas that have the 

activities of Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, Insecticide Spray, Cut-Handpile-Burn. 

Organic Matter 

As identified in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, there are several different potential project treatments 

and activities. These treatments would leave varying localized amounts of organic matter on the 

site. Reduced organic matter can be associated with potential for reduced soil nutrient levels. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 92 

The total amount of nutrients on a site would likely be reduced where soil organic matter would be 

removed or displaced. If a non-commercial vegetation management treatment, such as dead fall 

treatments of cut and chunk would be used, then soil productivity issues with nutrient removal 

would generally not be expected since organic material is not physically removed from the site. 

Commercial vegetation management with ground based equipment often removes whole trees 

(including limbs and branches) from sites in order to also target the reduction of fuels in the stand 

in order to aid in fire suppression should a fire occur. Commercial harvest activities that utilizes 

helicopter logging or cable logging systems generally removes the larger bole stem of the tree and 

retains non-commercial bole material and other tree components (branches and limbs) on site. In 

fuel break areas, this material may be hand-piled and burned (refer to Fire and Fuels section). 

There are some soil resources with limited natural nutrient holding capacity capabilities and have 

a limited ability to naturally buffer potential productivity losses associated with nutrient cycling. 

These are generally soils with naturally limited organic matter levels in the soil profile, have little 

to no topsoil or are restricted in depth (shallow soil layers above bedrock). Not all soils have been 

sampled for lab characterization and the NRCS has extrapolated lab results information to similar 

soils within the MLRAs. Generally, some areas where soils with the features identified above are 

located are along rocky ridge tops or in the central crystalline core area. These soils may occur as 

inclusions or minor components (approximately 10% or less of the map unit) within a number of 

soil survey map units within the project area, but are dominant soil survey map unit components 

in a number map units. Forest Plan Standard 1102 (Guideline a.) and WCPH Management 

Measure 14 (14.2 Design Criteria a.) specify amounts of organic material to be left during timber 

production treatment activities on those managed as suitable timber lands. Both directional 

documents recognize that when there are fuels loading concerns that the amount of slash to be 

retained for suitable timber land long term productivity may be adjusted (refer to the Fire and 

Fuels section for slash retention on those lands where there are fuel concerns and DEIS maps 

identifying areas of the project with fuel loading concerns). Soils identified per Forest service 

direction for slash retention on those lands suitable to be managed for timber production: Limited 

organic matter levels (less than 2% organic material in the topsoil), topsoil layer less than 1 inch 

in depth, or effective rooting depth (total soil depth) of less than 15”. 

Soil Survey Map Units with at least one of the dominant components that has soils with topsoil 

thinner than one inch, topsoil (A horizon) organic matter less than two percent or an effective 

rooting depth less than 15 inches (Forest Plan Standard 1102; WCPH Management Measure 14) 

Lawrence County: Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0112G, Q0114D, 

Q0114E, Q0202E, Q0203D, Q0221F, Q0231G, Q0407C, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0416C, Q0418E, 

Q0420G, Q0551C, Q0552D, Q0553E, Q0554F, Q0571E, Q0588D, Q0906D, Q0918C 

Custer County: Q0001E, Q0003C, Q0004E, Q0005G, Q0302E, Q0304D, Q0317G, Q0319G, 

Q0414E, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0552D, Q0571E, Q0588D, Q0590E, Q0622F, Q0653D, 

Q0658D, Q0659E, Q0664E, Q0665E, Q0672C, Q0677D, RfE, RhD 

Pennington County: Q0001E, Q0003C, Q0005G, Q0202E, Q0203D, Q0231G, Q0302E, 

Q0304D, Q0317G, Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G 

Meade County: NaD, Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0112G, Q0114D, 

Q0514C, Q0551C, Q0552D, Q0553E, Q0554F, Q0571E, Q0588D, Q0658D, Q0659E, Q0664E, 

Q0665E 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 93 

Crook County: 156, 157, 164, 166, 170, Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0114D, Q0114F, Q0202E, Q0407C, 

Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0411E, Q0412D, Q0418E, Q0516C, Q0556C, Q0556F, Q0852C, 

Q0852E, Q0918C 

Weston County: 57, Q0412D, Q0521E, Q0621E, Q0664E 

Fall River County: Q0657D, Q0659E, Q0660F, Q0665E, Q0668F, SpF 

Ground-Based, Cable and Helicopter Timber Harvest, Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, 

Insecticide Spray, Cut-Handpile-Burn: Design criteria is identified for post treatment slash 

retention on potential treatment areas with soils with specific characteristics (limited organic 

matter, limited topsoil, and/or limited depth) to address Forest Standard 1102 (Guideline a.) and 

WCPH Management Measure (14) (USDA Forest Service 2006d) during clearcut and seed tree 

harvest. Leaving dead trees, implementing the design criteria or implementing the activities that 

leave the organic material on site (cut and chunk, lop and scatter, etc.) would generally be expected 

to maintain nutrient cycling capabilities of those localized areas that are classified as suitable 

timber lands and to be managed to continue to produce a sustained productivity of timber into the

future. Several of the potential treatment units included within this project are located within soil 

survey map units on soils that formed under grassland vegetation. It is expected that pine has 

encroached into those grassland areas and removal of the trees in those areas would be in areas that 

are have not been classified as suitable for timber production management or to be managed for 

timber production. Therefore, Forest Standard 1102 and WCPH Management Measure 14 for the 

retention of material to aid with site regeneration and seedling establishment would not apply from 

the standpoint of maintaining nutrient cycling for a sustained level of long term timber production. 

Therefore, those soil survey map units were not included in the list above. Direction in the Forest 

Plan recognized the need to remove material along roads and trails that serve as fuel breaks and 

provided for that need in the second portion of Forest Standard 1102 (Guideline b). In areas with 

fuel loading concerns result in a selection to implement Guideline b. (FP Standard 1102) over 

Guideline a. coincide with map units listed above, there may be some long term effects to nutrient 

cycling in the localized areas where those actions occur. 

The ground based harvest has the most potential for removing material from the site. A whole 

tree harvest system, removing the tree bole as well as the tree canopy (tops, branches, needles) 

generally removes all of that material from the site and is often used when there is a fuel loading 

concern. Some stumps and the below ground roots would still be on site and provide some 

material for nutrient cycling in those areas. Cable and helicopter harvest generally retain slash on 

site and the material would provide for nutrient cycling and would meet Forest Plan and WCPH 

direction for slash retention. 

The activities of Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip and Insecticide Spray would generally not be

expected to remove much if any woody material from any site where they are used. Implementation 

of Cut-Handpile-Burn would alter distribution of some woody material into piles and some would 

be burned, however, burning releases some of the nutrients back into the soil where the piles are 

located. This type of activity usually occurs within the areas identified as fuel breaks or around high 

value/high risk areas where fuel reduction has been determined to be needed to address safety. 

Summary: Generally, while effects are expected to occur, protection of the soil resource would 

be expected through the site specific or localized identified design criteria (Appendix B, MPBRP 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 94 

DEIS) to be selected prior to implementation (USDA Forest Service 2012e) and nutrient cycling 

material on sites to be managed as suitable timber land to provide a sustained yield of timber 

volume through time would be expected to remain within the limits specified. Cable logging and 

helicopter logging would generally be expected to result in fewer potential localized impacts to 

retention of woody material on the soil survey map units specified than ground-based equipment. 

Very limited removal of woody material is expected within the areas that have the activities of 

Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, Insecticide Spray, Cut-Handpile-Burn. 

Soil Microorganisms 

A variety of organic matter left on the potential treatment areas would generally be expected to 

benefit soil microorganisms by providing substrate and habitat. While uncertain, an assumption 

is that during the implementation of activities and design criteria there would generally be some 

component of both dead and live trees that are distributed across the landscape. In addition, the 

potential treatments would be implemented so that less than 15 percent of the area would be

detrimentally disturbed. There are areas that would generally be expected to be undisturbed by 

equipment. Cut and chunk, cut and chip and cut-handpile- burn would generally be expected to 

have the least surface disturbance. While a treatment is to cut-handpile-burn, there are design 

criteria in Appendix B applicable to all areas to be treated and include coarse woody debris 

retention, snag retention and retention of a specific number of small unburned handpiles to 

support prey. Implementation of those design criteria as well as stumps left at the surface and 

roots from trees that were removed would continue to provide material for micro-organisms. 

Soil compaction, puddling, rutting and displacement reduce the ability of soils to exchange 

oxygen and carbon dioxide thus affecting soil microorganism survival. Favorable habitat for soil 

organisms would generally be maintained because the potential treatment areas would be 

designed to reduce soil disturbance to meet Regional and Forest direction. 

Summary: Because the amount of detrimental physical soil changes are to be minimized through 

implementation design criteria and because organic matter in various forms are to remain on the 

potential treatment units, the effects to soil microorganisms would generally be expected to be 

limited. Implementation would retain a variety of organic matter components to remain on sites, 

including living trees and other forest vegetation. In addition, activities would implement actions 

so that the organic layer on the soil surface would be retained on the majority of the area, 

providing habitat and nutrients for soil microorganisms. 

Soil Erosion 

Where there is greater than a low risk of soil erosion there are design criteria specified for project 

implementation. Project required review of site conditions prior to treatment is to result in 

identification of design applicable to the specific sites. Effective implementation of those design 

criteria is generally expected to limit erosion to acceptable limits. See the project design criteria 

and monitoring to determine effectiveness identified in Appendix B. 

Sediment from the designated permanent transportation system (with associated cut and fill and 

adjacent parking or pull out features, etc.) can have direct and indirect effects on water quality 

through sedimentation, but is not a component of the soil quality assessment process. These

effects are identified in the Hydrology section. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 95 

As can be expected, the erosion hazard rating for soils is strongly influenced by slope steepness. 

The erosion hazard ratings for soils within potential treatment areas were obtained by accessing 

the NRCS Soil Data Mart site and selecting FOR – Potential Erosion Hazard (OFF-Road/Off 

Trail) accessed at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. The ratings in this interpretation indicate 

the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the 

soil surface. The ratings are based on slope and soil erosion factor K. The soil loss is caused by 

sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been 

exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. The hazard is described as 

"slight," "moderate," "severe," or "very severe." A rating of "slight" indicates that erosion is 

unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; "moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely and 

that erosion-control measures may be needed; "severe" indicates that erosion is very likely and 

that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised; and "very 

severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site 

damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical (Soil 

Survey Staff 2012a, 2012b). There are potential treatment units located in areas with severe and 

very severe hazard rating for soils. The following soil survey map units in each of the various 

county potential treatment areas were identified to have a least one of the dominant map unit 

components with a severe or very severe hazard rating for erosion: 

Lawrence County: Q0104G, Q0108G, Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0231G, Q0232G, Q0420G, Q0530G, 

Q0554F, Q0566F, Q0570F, Q0584F, Q0585G, Q0589G 

Custer County: BwE, CdF, GrF, HtG, NcE, NfE, Q0005G, Q0317G, Q0319G, Q0420G, Q0530G, 

Q0589G,Q0591G, Q0613F, Q0634G, Q0655G, Q0678G, RsF 

Pennington County: Q0005G, Q0231G, Q0232G, Q0317G, Q0319G, Q0420G, Q0584F, 

Q0585G, Q0589G, Q0591G, Q0634G, Q0655G, Q0678G 

Meade County: Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0112G, Q0530G, Q0554F, Q0566F, Q0570F, Q0584F, 

Q0585G, Q0589G, Q0591G, Q0678G 

Crook County: 155, Q0114F, Q0556F, Q0563G, Q0584F, Q0585G, Q0826F, Q0926G 

Weston County: 92, Q0420G, Q0584F, Q0585G, Q0589G 

Fall River County: MnF, Q0660F, Q0668F, Q0678G, RoF, RrF, SpF 

Most of those map units identified with a severe erosion hazard rating are located on slopes over 

40% and the alternatives have already been designed to avoid or limit activities that are to occur 

on those slopes. Alternative design includes that generally no ground based mechanized harvest 

equipment would occur on areas over 40% (see Chapter 2). Cable and helicopter harvest, as well 

as the other activities with relatively low potential for disturbance (such as cut and chunk) may 

occur on slopes over 40%. 

Rather than include a list of all of the soil map units with a dominant map unit component with a 

moderate erosion hazard as compared to those with slight hazards for erosion, a generalization is 

provided here. In general, dominant soil survey map unit components on slopes of 15 to 40% are 

identified as having a moderate hazard rating for potential erosion. Soils on slopes below 15% 

are generally identified to have a slight hazard for potential erosion. Examples of site 

characteristics that can influence those slope percentage breaks can include the amount of 

surface rock a site has or if there may be a significant amount of mica in the soil. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 96 

Ground-Based Harvest: Ground-based harvesting would generally result in localized direct and 

indirect of soil erosion effects within the boundaries of potential treatment activity areas. Ground 

based systems would generally occur across the landscape on slopes generally less than 40 

percent slopes as part of the design of the alternatives referred to earlier. Soils on slopes over 

between 15% and 40% have greater potential for erosion (moderate erosion hazard) to occur to a 

level that could be detrimental than soils on slopes below 15% (generally an erosion hazard of 

slight). The likelihood for the most potential detrimental effects would be concentrated on skid 

trails and temporary roads associated with timber units where trees are removed. Minimizing the 

area occupied by skid trails or to use unauthorized roads are included in the project design 

criteria (Appendix B) to reduce potential extent of detrimental effects, including creating 

conditions that can contribute to increased erosion potential. Design criteria includes operating 

on dry or frozen conditions on areas with a greater likelihood for compaction to prevent bulk 

density increases to a detrimental level on soils with characteristics that level may be more likely 

to occur (refer to the list of those units above). This design criteria is also beneficial from the 

standpoint of soil erosion. Operating the winter when the ground is frozen or there is snow pack 

limits ground disturbance potential. 

Operating on slash is generally effective for buffering the effect of equipment operation on mineral 

soil. Thus if systems are used that significant slash is maintained on the skid trails, detrimental 

effects could be limited. 

Management activities that implement project design criteria for retention or placement of 

organic matter on the soil surface would be expected to keep soil erosion to levels not considered 

to be detrimental. 

Cable and Helicopter Timber Harvest: Cable and helicopter harvest generally results in 

limited potential for erosion. Ground disturbance, except at landings and roads, generally does 

not occur with this type of harvest. Potential areas of erosion associated with this type of harvest 

is generally expected to be very limited and expected to be localized in association with 

temporary roads and landings. 

Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, Cut-Hand Pile-Burn, Spray: Soil erosion would generally be 

expected to be limited if any as a result of these types of treatments since there is very limited 

ground disturbance expected. Thinned or chunked woody material would generally add cover to 

the soil surface, reducing the potential risk of erosion. Insecticidal spray operations would 

generally not be expected to remove ground cover material. Hand piling activities would generally 

not be expected to increase risk of soil erosion. Handpiles for burning are generally small 

(generally less than 20 feet in diameter) and scattered across units with expanses of vegetated areas 

in between. Because of their size, small piles generally have limited to no issues with soil heating 

and have been observed to generally revegetate within two years of when they were burned. 

Summary: Generally, protection of the soil resource would be expected through the site specific 

or localized identified design criteria (Appendix B, MPBRP DEIS) to be selected prior to 

implementation (USDA Forest Service 2012a) and increases in erosion to levels defined as 

detrimental would be expected to remain within the limits specified in the WCPH. Cable logging 

and helicopter logging would be expected to result in fewer localized impacts to soil resources as 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 97 

compared to the use of ground-based equipment when used on the appropriate slopes. Temporary 

roads, skid trails and landings associated with any of the commercial timber removal activities 

are to be rehabilitated and monitored (Appendix B, MPBRP DEIS), including providing proper 

drainage to limit potential for erosion. Very limited to no increases in erosion to a level 

considered to be detrimental is expected within the areas that have the generally low ground 

disturbance activities of Cut and Chunk, Cut and Chip, Insecticide Spray, Cut-Handpile-Burn. 

Mass Failures 

Mass failures are generally located in areas with slope stability concerns. As identified earlier, 

there are slope instability areas in the Black Hills. Proposed project ground-based mechanized 

treatments are planned for areas with slopes that are generally less than 40 percent. Operating on 

slopes less than 40% is a project design to limit the likelihood for the risk of mass failures. Other 

project design (design criteria in Appendix B) includes avoiding the use ground based equipment 

for timber removal or the creation of roads on slopes above 30% on specific soil survey map 

units (identified below) unless potential treatment sites or access routes (temporary roads, 

permanent roads) proposed to be located on slopes over 30% are reviewed for stability. Design 

criteria also specifies that on sites that are reviewed over 30% on those specific soil survey map 

units, and on any other potential treatment sites or proposed access routes on slopes greater than 

55%, that have visual characteristics of instability, cable logging or helicopter logging is also to 

be avoided. Implementation of the site reviews and route reviews prior to potential treatment 

activity or access route creation along with implementation of design criteria (Appendix B) for 

proposed activities on slopes over 30%, would generally expected to limit the extent of potential 

detrimental soil disturbance associated with mass failures. 

Recent (2011) published soil survey and soil information updates have taken place for MLRA 62 – 

Black Hills by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Personal communication has 

occurred with Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Scientists who were primary 

investigators for mapping and gathering data for soils within MLRA 62. Various sites were 

observed to have mass failures or slides or characteristics that indicate a greater likelihood for 

instability issues. Electronic communication has also occured regarding soils with potential 

stability issues (Westerman pers. comm. 2012; Brady pers. comm. 2011). Forest Plan Guideline 

1108(a) addresses stability as related to soil productivity. Updated NRCS soil information and 

revised soil series were used to develop a list of soil survey map units applicable to the guideline 

(guideline was developed for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan; not changed for the Phase II 

Amendment 2006g). Design criteria to address slope stability investigations and potential activity 

avoidance on uninvestigated sites or unstable features applies for the following soil survey map 

units (by map unit symbol) included in MPBRP potential treatment areas and along any routes 

(temporary roads and permanent roads) to be created to access potential treatment areas: 

MLRA 62 Soil Survey Map Units - Q0001E, Q0006E, Q104G, Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, 

Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0112G, Q0114E, Q0114F, Q0202E, Q0211E, Q0213G, Q0214E, Q0221F, 

Q0226E, Q0227E, Q0231G, Q0232G, Q0239D,Q0302E, Q0315E, Q0317G, Q0319G, 

Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0510E, Q0512E, Q0530G, Q0536F, Q0540F, Q553E, Q0565E, Q0566F, 

Q0568E, Q0570F, Q0571E, Q0572D, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0585G, Q0586E, Q0587E, Q0589G, 

Q0590E, Q0634G, Q0655G, Q0659E, Q0664E, Q0665E, Q0675E, Q0676E, Q0678G, Q0826F, 

Q0827E, Q0828F, Q0910E, Q0926G. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 98 

MLRA 61 Soil Survey Map Units – 57, 93, 96 and 98. 

Temporary Road Construction: Temporary roads constructed for this project that utilize 

existing road templates would be rehabilitated by any site-appropriate combination of the design 

criteria in Appendix B. These would include such actions as removing any installed culverts or 

temporary bridges, installing erosion control features, placing large woody material on the 

template and/or seeding or planting with the native plants as specified by the assigned project 

implementation botanist. 

In addition, the project specifies that newly constructed temporary roads would be rehabilitated 

after use. Rehabilitation of new temporary roads would be done utilizing the design criteria 

identified in Appendix B and based on site review of individual site conditions. Appendix B also 

specifies that implementation and effectiveness monitoring. If monitoring indicated that design 

are not accomplishing resource objectives that additional design activities would be identified for 

implementation. Implemented restoration activities would not ameliorate the detrimental soil 

impacts immediately, but they would generally be expected to improve soil conditions compared 

to no actions to rehabilitate temporary road conditions. The establishment of vegetation and 

associated additions of organic matter would contribute to the recovery of production of the

features. Any actions taken to recontour the temporary road features would generally be expected 

to be to the level to provide a suitable seed bed for native forest vegetation. These conditions 

would generally be expected to accelerate the recovery of the soil effects related to temporary 

roads as discussed in the first part of this document. 

As identified in the earlier section on erosion, some level of erosion is expected from temporary 

road construction and re-construction where native surfaces are exposed to rainfall impact and 

overland flow. These areas are expected to have short-term increases of soil erosion (above two 

to five tons per acre). As has been observed elsewhere, effects would be expected to decrease as 

roads are obliterated immediately following use. 

 

Cumulative Effects 

Comparison of Action Alternatives – Alternatives B and C 

The Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Activity Table in Chapter 2 displays the total acres of 

potential treatments and the types of activities by alternative. Anticipated miles of various types of 

access route construction and reconstruction are also displayed. At this point, while it is unknown or 

cannot be predicted where and how intensive activities may be because it is unknown what activity 

tool would be used in anticipation of potential treatment sites, Chapters 1 and 2 documents that

Alternative C has far more extensive levels and acres of treatment activities, both harvest and access 

route creation, as compared to Alternative B. It is stated that project implementation of activities 

would have pre-site reviews and implementations of activities are to be in compliance with Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, WCPH direction and project design criteria. In addition, it is stated in 

Appendix B in the monitoring section, that monitoring is to occur for implementation and 

effectiveness. And that if design that was implemented did not achieve resource objectives that design 

would be adjusted. It is expected that a far greater extent of areas could have site disturbance under 

Alternative C, and likely more areas of soil disturbance achieving the level of detrimental soil 

disturbance as compared to Alternative B. Alternative B has 6,000 less acres available for treatment 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 99 

(does not include Spearfish Canyon treatment areas that are included in Alternative C) and has 

significantly less commercial harvest (Alt. B - 48,000 acres vs. Alt. C -124,000 acres). Cable harvest 

in Alternative B is to only utilize existing roads/routes and has far less pending roads. There is an 

estimated 304 miles in Alternative B of conversion and temporary roads versus an estimated 857 

miles of new, converted and temporary roads in Alternative C. In estimating where roads might 

potentially be created to access some of the larger groupings of potential treatment areas (watersheds 

generally having greater than 10% of their area with potential treatment areas) and then comparing to 

soil map units with at least one of the dominant soils having a road suitability limiting feature value 

of greater than 0.1 for landslides, it is estimated that Alternative C could have approximately 95 miles 

of various types of new roads within soil map units with slope stability concerns. In addition, 

Alternative C removes well over double the volume of commercial sawtimber therefore it is expected 

that there would be well over double the amount of general disturbance effects expected to surface 

site components (including soils) in Alternative C. The assumption, not knowing where a potential 

treatment is to be used, the precipitation patterns and soil moisture conditions present at the time, etc. 

is that the level of soil disturbance impacts are attributable to the implementation of project designs, 

amount of temporary road construction, how designated helicopter landing sites are created and how 

well and successfully effective the rehabilitation of those project activity features occur. Simply based 

on potential, Alternative B would be the action alternative with far fewer effects to soils to a 

detrimental level associated with project activities as compared to Alternative C (greater acres of 

disturbance in general and greater number of acres on steep slopes with more potential for erosion 

and instability concerns; access route creation). Since actions are similar to those described in the 

FEIS documents, effects to soils would be similar to those described in the FEIS as identified for the 

1997 Forest Plan EIS (1996) and Phase II Amendment EIS (2005). Acknowledging that there is far 

greater potential for effects to the soil resources and to a detrimental level in Alternative C, design 

criteria to be implemented were included in Appendix B to protect the soil resource. Implementing 

the alternatives as designed as described in Chapter 2, utilizing the design criteria listed in Appendix 

B (including avoidance of sites with stability concerns and road route reviews), monitoring and taking 

action to immediately adjust design criteria to achieve resource protection objectives as specified in 

Appendix B would generally be expected to comply with soil direction in the R2 WCPH and the

Black Hills NF Forest Plan through implementation of either action alternative. 

Contrasting Effects of Proposed Action with Past Actions 

Generally, the estimated level of detrimental disturbance from this proposed project is expected 

to be similar to past Forest activities since there are similar implementation activities and similar 

design criteria to be implemented during project activities to protect soil resources. While the 

purpose and need for this project is for addressing pine beetle mortality and expansion, the 

direction for maintaining or improving soil productivity continues to be National, Region 2 and 

Forest direction. Project differences to similar recent past projects: 

Site reviews for treatment and to specify design criteria is to occur following the decision. 

• Potential for greater levels of helicopter and cable logging. 

• Potential for greater levels of cut and chunk activities. 

• Focus of the treatment is only four ponderosa pine structural stages (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C).

• No hardwood, spruce or pine encroachment treatments. 

• No broadcast prescribed burning. 

• Use of insecticides and semiochemical spray. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 100 

• No regeneration harvests. 

• No site preparation activities. 

• All project activities to be completed within 5-7 years as compared to approximately 10 years. 

In addition, timber sale units and roads in both Wyoming and South Dakota have been audited 

for compliance with BMPs. Project activities and timber harvest units have been monitored per 

project NEPA decisions. Some activities have the potential to contribute to making the end result 

better than some had been in the past such as eliminating unauthorized routes that may currently 

be contributing to erosion issues (see the MPBRP Engineering Section). 

Duration of Effects 

Displacement and erosion, the loss of topsoil, is a long-term effect and can be a permanent loss of 

soil productivity. However, alternative design, such as restricting various activities on slopes 

greater than 40%, avoiding road construction or treatments on slopes with stability issues, etc. and 

design criteria implementation specific to reduce the occurrence erosion and rehabilitation of 

roads would be expected to areas against topsoil losses. Revegetation of sites following harvest 

activities in the Black Hills have generally been observed or documented to occur within two to 

three years. Timber activity sites or post sale activity sites that have not generally revegetated in 

that time frame have generally had some other disturbance (such as OHV activity). The recent 

Forest Travel Management Decision has not authorized that use on areas other than designated 

routes. Therefore, it is generally expected that disturbed sites with this project would generally 

revegetate within the two to three year timeframe that has been observed and documented during 

site reviews, BMP monitoring and BMP Audit reviews. Temporary roads and landings take longer 

to revegetate in association with increases in bulk densities and greater amounts and multiple 

disturbances. Design criteria are included placement of drainage features, slash placement and 

rehabilitation to limit erosion. Revegetation can occur as early as the two to three year time frame 

as for other disturbance areas, but may take up to five years on sites with less potential. 

Rehabilitation and timeframes are within those identified national and regional direction. 

Uncertainties exist as to how long compaction may last in the Black Hills. As has been 

documented in several Forest monitoring reports since 1998, soil bulk density sampling has

occurred on areas of various levels of harvest activities at various locations within the Black 

Hills area. Although a limited number of sites are available to base conclusions on, there is 

evidence to support (USDA Forest Service 2010b): 

That sampling results are generally consistent with statements made in the Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook, Chapter 10 – Management Measures and Design Criteria, 

Amendment 2509.25-2600-2 (effective 4/20/2006) regarding soil compaction. The handbook 

describes that soil compaction is caused by the weight of vehicles and animals on the ground and 

soils compact when soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit. Consistent with the Handbook, there 

is evidence that soils in the Black Hills can compact when some level of timber harvest (or post 

sale activity) equipment activity occurs when some degree of moist to wet soil conditions exist. 

Also consistent with the same Forest Service Handbook, the data generally collected for sites that 

were harvested during the below average precipitation years (2000 through 2008) provided 

evidence that operating timber harvest equipment (not specific to various volumes removed or 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 101 

silviculture prescription applied) during dry soil moisture conditions can be expected to prevent or 

limit increases in soil bulk densities, or limit the likelihood for increases in soil bulk density effects. 

While uncertain that soil bulk density levels would decrease or decrease as fast on every soil 

within the Black Hills, there is evidence that conditions were such that within one geographic 

area, on one type of soil, and to the depth sampled, that the mean soil bulk density decreased 

from levels above the threshold classified as “detrimental compaction” to levels below the 

threshold within the time period of one year. It is unknown what factors may have contributed to 

this level of decrease, but potentially the decrease may have been associated with soil moisture 

and temperature conditions that favored active freezing and thawing conditions at the site during 

that specific year, that the flush of herbaceous growth (and the associated increased root activity) 

that was observed on site may have contributed to the decline in soil bulk density levels, that 

water movement on the cutting unit slope may have influenced site conditions within the upper 

10 cm (approx. upper 7 inches) of the soil profile, or some other unknown site characteristics. 

Sites that experience reductions in organic matter content are generally expected to reverse as 

vegetation establishes and growth occurs. Organic debris accumulates on the soil surface and 

plant roots establish and are decomposed in the soil. These organic materials break down and 

release nutrients and improve the quality of the soil by improving soil structure and contribute to 

reducing compacted conditions and other detrimental soil disturbances. Organic matter 

accumulation is often associated with the revegetation timelines. General disturbance of wood 

removal sites would be expected to accumulate organic debris within the two to three year 

timeframe. Some of those sites would have beetle killed trees that would not be removed and 

would accumulate material immediately as needles and branches drop, and eventually larger 

material accumulate as the trees drop over time. Temporary roads and landings will take longer 

and unless slash is placed on those sites it is expected that it could take up to five years to 

develop organic debris to levels to contribute to reducing to improved soil structure. 

Changes in soil microorganisms are generally not expected to be permanent. Stumps and below 

ground roots would remain in all activity areas. Slash or chunked material would remain at other 

locations. Landings and temporary roads are to be rehabilitated and recovery would generally be 

expected to begin as soon as various organic matter components begin increasing again in the 

soil, which are expected to begin soon (within 2-5 years) after site activities have occurred. 

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 

Most ongoing and foreseeable activities would not overlap with either action alternative in both 

time and space. Specifically, their effects do not overlap in space as they occur outside of the 

potential treatment areas. 

Combined Effects from Past, Proposed, Ongoing and Foreseeable Activities 

Several potential treatment areas in the action alternatives would have localized cumulative 

effects from the combination of past and proposed activities. Some would have very few 

cumulative effects because some MPBRP potential treatment areas have not had, or had limited 

similar activities in the past. Examples of these types of areas are locations with slopes over 40% 

such as those in the very southern Black Hills, or areas within Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway 

Management Area. Appendix B identifies that post-implementation monitoring would be 

performed to identify implementation effectiveness and if adjustment to design criteria to occur 

as treatment activities continue to meet resource protection objectives. This monitoring would 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 102 

also demonstrate compliance with Forest Plan and Regional direction. For the commercial 

activities, the Sale Administrator would monitor all units during management activities to assure 

that harvest activities would occur during operating conditions specified in the design criteria 

and are adequate to minimize effects to the soil resource. 

If monitoring results document an area where detrimental soil disturbance may be in excess of 15 

percent within an activity area, design is to be adjusted and rehabilitation and restoration 

activities would be identified and would occur to move the activity units back towards improved 

soil conditions. Additional units that were treated in a similar fashion would be expected to be 

reviewed at this time as well. 

The Project design criteria, restoration activities to improve soil conditions would also include 

scarification or ripping of temporary roads, some of the more intensively used skid trails and 

landing areas with the intent to reduce soil compaction. A basic intent is to improve the potential 

for tree seedling establishment, survival and growth through restoring site conditions that support 

biological processes, improved root penetration and soil drainage. Soil restoration at these sites is 

not the immediate result of ripping, planting or any other activity. The goal of soil restoration 

activities is to create favorable conditions for impaired soils to begin the recovery process. 

TRANSPORTATION 

Existing Transportation System 

For the purposes of this EIS, the term “Existing Transportation System” is comprised of (1) the 

full implementation of the Travel Management ROD, (2) National Forest System Roads 

(Maintenance Level (ML) 1 through 5 roads) that are currently on the ground, and (3) 

unauthorized routes that are also currently on the ground. An unauthorized route is a road or trail 

that exists on the ground but is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and it is not a 

National Forest System Road. 

The transportation system that is intended for public travel was established by the Travel 

Management Plan Record of Decision (ROD) signed on May 7, 2010. Implementation began 

with publication of the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) effective December 1, 2010. The 

ROD designates certain roads and trails as open to motorized vehicle traffic on lands 

administered by the Forest and also assigns a class of vehicle and season of use to these 

designated roads or trails. Trail designations in the ROD were the result of either changing an 

existing National Forest System Road (NFSR) to a Forest System Trail, or converting an 

unauthorized route to a system trail. Some NFSR’s were also changed from the status of 

“highway legal only” to “mixed use” (also referred to as roads open to all motorized uses). 

Most, but not all of, the designated roads and trails included in the Travel Management ROD have 

been implemented on the ground. Implementation of the full Travel Management ROD is ongoing 

and expected to be completed in the near future. 

The Travel Management Plan ROD designated approximately 3,864 miles of open roads and trails 

within the Forest boundary. The Travel Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement 

indicated that there are approximately 1,316 miles of ML 1 roads and approximately 4,109 miles of 

unauthorized routes. As a comparison, there are approximately 605 miles of designated open roads 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 103 

and trails, 236 miles of ML 1 roads, and 301 miles of unauthorized routes within the MPBR PTAs. 

Table 3-14 illustrates miles of routes within the MPBR Project Area. 

Table 3-14 Miles of Roads/Routes 

Designation ALTERNATIVE A - Length in Miles 

Open Yearlong Seasonal Total 

Highway Legal Only 1,836 773 2,609 

Roads Open to All 328 220 548 

Trails Open to All 81 67 148 

Trails Open to Vehicles <50” (Wyoming) 0 72 72 

Trails Open to Vehicles <62” (South Dakota) 245 152 397 

Trails Open to Motorcycles 52 38 90 

Totals 2,542 1,322 3,864 

ML 1 NFSRs are approximately 1,316 miles and unauthorized routes are approximately 4,109 miles. 

Designation ALTERNATIVE B - Length in Miles 

Open Yearlong Seasonal Total 

Highway Legal Only 255 118 373 

Roads Open to All 51 41 92 

Trails Open to All 21 17 38 

Trails Open to Vehicles <50” (Wyoming) 0 8 8 

Trails Open to Vehicles <62” (South Dakota) 54 17 71 

Trails Open to Motorcycles 12 11 23 

Totals 393 212 605 

ML 1 NFSRs are approximately 236 miles and unauthorized routes are approximately 301 miles. 

Designation ALTERNATIVE C - Length in Miles 

Open Yearlong Seasonal Total 

Highway Legal Only 255 119 374 

Roads Open to All 51 41 92 

Trails Open to All 21 17 38 

Trails Open to Vehicles <50” (Wyoming) 0 8 8 

Trails Open to Vehicles <62” (South Dakota) 54 17 71 

Trails Open to Motorcycles 12 11 23 

Totals 393 213 606 

ML 1 NFSRs are approximately 240 miles and unauthorized routes are approximately 305 miles. 

Table 3-15 displays road and trail densities within the MPBR PTAs. Alternative B encompasses 

242,000 acres and Alternative C encompasses 248,000 acres. This does not include State, County, 

Private or unauthorized routes; nor does it include Private land. 

Table 3-15 Open Road/Trail Density in the MPBR PTAs for Alternatives B and C. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

(242,000 acres or 378 square miles) 

Road/Trail Density Length (Miles) Miles/Square Mile

Seasonally Open 

(May 15 to Dec 15) 212 0.6 

Open Yearlong 393 1.0 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(248,000 acres or 388 square miles) 

Road/Trail Density Length (Miles) Miles/Square Mile

Seasonally Open 

(May 15 to Dec 15) 213 0.5 

Open Yearlong 393 1.0 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 104 

Road (excluding unauthorized routes) and trail mileages within the MPBR PTAs total 

approximately 919 miles for Alternative B and 938 miles for Alternative C. These miles are a 

combination of state, county, and forest system roads. State and county roads provide access to 

and through the area. Roads within the MPBR PTAs provide access to a variety of resources. In 

Alternative B, 78 miles of road are maintained by other public entities such as Counties and the 

Department of Transportation. Alternative C contains 92 miles of roads maintained by other 

public entities. The Forest Service typically maintains ML 3, 4 and 5 roads annually. The 

remaining system roads (ML 1 and 2) are reviewed for maintenance needs every five years or 

sooner if identified for other management needs or if they are causing resource damage. 

As with any planning area, road conditions vary throughout the area. In areas of active and 

recent timber sales, the roads meet maintenance standards due to the ongoing or recent 

maintenance activities by the timber purchaser. Other maintenance level 1 and 2 roads, which 

may have not had grid maintenance recently, may not meet maintenance standards. Segments of 

roads may be located in or cross drainage bottoms, meadows or other wet areas. These road 

segments may not drain properly and may be contributing to sediment movement. Some road 

sections that cross drainages may not have a hardened surface or a proper design through the 

crossing and portions may have steep grades, which will show evidence of road rutting and 

surface material loss. Numerous roads may have small diameter trees growing within the 

roadway limits, restricting sight distance and road width. 

Unauthorized routes are present throughout the project area. These unauthorized or “user 

defined” routes may have been created by repeated use or with previous management activities. 

Additionally, these roads may or may not have been designed to prevent sediment movement and 

provide adequate flow capacity at stream crossings. 

The following issues and concerns are common throughout the Black Hills National Forest: 

• Although much of the Black Hills has had treatment in the past, the road system may not 

be adequate to provide access to all areas.

• Steep terrain and private property may block access and make it difficult for resource 

management. 

• Portions of roads may be located in or near drainage bottoms, creating drainage problems, 

soil erosion, soil movement and sediment deposits.

• Roads that cross streams and drainage bottoms may be contributing sediment because they 

may not have a hardened surface or proper design through the crossing.

• Existing roads that may not have adequate drainage may be causing rutting, water 

ponding, washouts, and aggregate and native surface material loss. 

• Unauthorized routes are located throughout the MPBR PTAs. Roads may not have 

drainage structures or road templates and may be located in wet areas, meadows, and 

drainage bottoms. 

• Fire suppression activities may be obstructed or slowed by poor or no road access to areas.

• Temporary bridges or other designed crossing may be needed to cross drainages.

• Some existing road closures may be ineffective.

• As tree mortality increases and they fall across roads, there is an increased likelihood 

roads would be inaccessible for periods of time.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 105 

Proposed Transportation System 

The proposed transportation system would meet existing and anticipated future transportation 

needs. It would address the existing resource concerns. Access for resource management must 

take into consideration soil and water resources, public safety, economics, wildlife, visual 

aesthetics and other resource needs. 

The proposed transportation system would be accomplished by utilizing existing NFSRs, 

reconstructing existing NFSRs, reclassifying unauthorized routes to NFSRs (herein called 

convert or conversion), utilizing/reconstructing trails, and constructing additional system roads. 

It should be noted that NFSRs, State, County and unauthorized routes would be utilized to access 

the PTAs. The proposed road activities discussed in each alternative would include routes in the 

PTAs and routes outside of the PTA. Road reconstruction would include betterments, restoration 

or realignment. Some existing unauthorized routes would be reclassified to system roads and 

reconstructed if they are converted to NFSRs. Some trails would be temporarily changed to roads 

and then returned to trails after management activities are completed. Some existing 

unauthorized routes would be used as temporary roads and then reclaimed and closed when 

management activities are completed. Remaining unauthorized routes not used for the proposed 

activities and not identified as a route in the travel management plan would be addressed in 

future decisions or decommissioned in the future when funds become available. Construction of 

new roads would provide access to areas not previously accessed due to private land ownership 

patterns and/or steep terrain. 

NFSRs, State, County and unauthorized routes would be utilized to connect with routes within the 

PTAs. NFSRs, State, County and unauthorized routes may be used to access proposed 

transportation system would vary somewhat between the action alternatives. Reconstruction 

activity would bring road standards up to the minimum necessary to accommodate commercial 

timber haul while protecting soil and water resources. New NFSR construction would be classified 

as ML 1 road construction, and therefore closed and put into storage for future use. Temporary 

roads utilize existing unauthorized routes or are constructed in locations approved by the Forest 

Service. Table 3-16 summarizes estimated mileages and estimated costs for the Alternatives. 

Table 3-16 Activity in Miles and Estimated Cost for Alternatives B and C 

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Maintenance 0 666 1,707 

Reconstruct (including Convert Unauthorized 

Route to NFSR, 15 miles-Alt B, 46 miles-Alt C) 0 102 269 

New Construction 0 0 70 

Existing Temporary 0 202 338 

New Temporary 0 0 180 

Estimated Cost* $0 $2,046,000 $6,355,000 

*For the estimate above, the following average cost per mile was used: Maintenance $300/mi, Reconstruct/Convert = $8,000/mi, New 

Construction = $15,000/mi, and Temporary = $5,100/mi 

Miles of road work in Table 3-16 are approximate lengths. A significant storm event or the 

extent of time between project planning and project implementation may trigger changes in road 

conditions. If road conditions worsen before project implementation, additional reconstruction 

may be necessary. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 106 

The average road density for the Black Hills National Forest, including system and unauthorized 

road miles, is 4.4 miles per square mile as shown in the Forest Plan (Phase II Amendment). Total 

road densities (open and closed road densities) would remain the same from those shown in 

Table 2 under Alternative B. The total road density would increase from those shown in Table 2 

under Alternative C because of new NFSR and temporary road construction. All new roads 

constructed as a result of the MPBR project would be closed after harvest operations; therefore, 

the open road densities would not change. 

Closed system roads would include strategies such as Prohibit, Eliminate and Decommission. 

Definitions for these management strategies are listed in Chapter 5, Glossary. Unauthorized 

routes are considered closed under the travel management plan. 

Maintenance on system roads used for timber harvest is the responsibility of the Purchaser/Contractor 

for the life of the Timber Sale Contract. Maintenance includes cleaning out silt from sediment 

collecting ponds and depositing it in upland locations, keeping erosion control measures functioning 

by cleaning out any sediment collected in the structure and depositing it in upland locations, keeping 

all drainage structures and ditches clear and functional, eliminating erosion of cut and fill slope and 

roadway soils, removing roadway vegetation and blading road surfaces. 

Maintenance of the roads after the proposed activity would be the responsibility of the Forest 

Service and would be performed when needed or with grid maintenance every five years, 

whichever comes first. 

Opportunities: 

There may be opportunities to improve the transportation system within the MPBR PTAs and to 

obtain the minimum road system needed for response to the Pine Beetle Epidemic. These 

opportunities are: 

• Relocate roads sufficiently far from streams or wetlands to minimize sediment discharge 

and use vegetative buffer strips or barriers to reduce sediment. 

• Locate and design crossings to prevent restriction of expected flood flows and minimize 

sediment movement. 

• Reconstruct/realign existing roads to add and improve drainage structures, improve 

alignment and stabilize the roadbed. 

• Secure closures to protect the resource.

• Construct roads or obtain Rights of Way to access areas restricted by steep terrain or 

private property. 

• Use of unauthorized routes for temporary access would allow access to remote sites. When 

access is no longer needed these temporary roads would be closed and the roadbed would 

be stabilized. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A there would be no direct effects to the existing transportation system from 

the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project. There would be no change in the transportation 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 107 

system, the travel management, or the road densities due to this Alternative. Scheduled annual 

and grid maintenance would continue as it has in the past. 

The beneficial effects of taking no action are that there would be no additional ground disturbing 

activities, no increased dust and noise, no tree removal, etc. as would occur with Alternatives B 

and C (see direct effects under Alternative B and C). 

 

The adverse indirect effects of taking no action are that we would forego the opportunity to 

provide additional maintenance, reconstruction, reclassification of unauthorized routes, and road 

closings associated with and funded by timber harvesting. With budgets continuing to decline, 

fewer miles of roads within the area may be maintained to the current standard in the future. Since 

the system roads within the MPBR PTAs are on different grid maintenance schedules, some of the 

roads would not receive grid maintenance for up to five years. 

Roads located through meadows and in flatter terrains may create undesirable changes to the 

topography. These roads are difficult to maintain. The location of these roads does not provide 

for surface water relief or drainage structure effectiveness. Continued use, especially during wet 

periods, result in the roadbed being lower than the surrounding ground elevation. This would 

increase maintenance costs and ineffectiveness. 

Roads located on steeper grades and roads without an adequate number of drainage structures would 

continue to lose roadbed surface material. Ruts would deepen as material washes off the road. More 

substantial maintenance would be required as road conditions deteriorate. Positive driving 

experiences for some users would be affected as these roads become more difficult to navigate. 

Unauthorized routes would remain on the landscape until future projects and funding is secured. 

Unauthorized routes, in many cases, have no drainage structures, have poor alignment and are located 

in drainage bottoms, on steep slopes and in meadows, resulting in vegetation compaction and loss. 

Current road closures in the project area range from effective to ineffective. The ineffective closures 

would not be secured to prevent motor vehicle travel. Additional funding would be needed to 

reinforce these existing closures. This would have the effect of continued use in areas that are meant 

to be closed to motorized travel to protect the roads and other resources. 

Although Alternative A proposes no action, there are effects in the area that would result from 

ongoing and future activities which include: 

• Private road easement requests and construction of these roads. 

• Subdivision development access needs. 

• Roads needed for transmission line construction. 

• The ongoing Black Hills National Forest Travel Management implementation. 

• Recreational traffic to and from campgrounds, day use areas and off-road trails. 

• Unchecked mountain pine beetle infestation and wildfire could cause the death of trees 

which would increase water runoff onto the roads and cause surface erosion. 

• On-going land resource management activities. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are eight District Landscape projects that have been proposed or approved. The following 

is a narrative describing the transportation components that would take place in each project. A 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 108 

summary of the road miles discussed in each of the narratives is shown in Table 3-17. 

Transportation data for the Buttes and Calumet projects was not available at the time of analysis. 

Implementation of these two projects may increase the numbers shown in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17 Summary of proposed transportation miles for the existing District Landscape projects. 

Project Area Maintenance Reconstruction Conversion New 

Construction Temporary 

Briggs Spring 77.3 35.3 0.8 0 unknown 

Vestal 91 34 0.6 0 unknown 

Cold Springs 48 reconstruction/ 

maintenance 2.0 4 8 

Pactola 72 29 1.5 17 12 

Steamboat 75 reconstruction/ 

maintenance 5 20 unknown 

Herman 21.5 39.4 4.5 1.7 9.1 

Buttes No information available at this time. 

Calumet No information available at this time. 

TOTAL* 354 169 14 43 29 

* Totals were rounded to the nearest whole number 

The above mentioned activities have the potential for the following cumulative effects on the 

transportation system: 

1. Increased mixed traffic from: log haul, communities and subdivisions, implementation of 

the BHNF Travel Management Plan, recreational activities, mining activities, private 

landowner treatment of MPB, firewood and Christmas tree cutting, livestock grazing, 

road/utility right-of-way clearing, and treatments of noxious weeds and invasive species. 

2. Additional roads may be expected due to private easement requests, subdivision access 

needs and transmission line construction. 

3. Roads may require more frequently placed drainage structures, longer culverts, surface 

material replacement and more frequent maintenance as a result of increased mixed traffic. 

4. Tree mortality due to mountain pine beetles and the consequential increase in wildfire 

hazard may result in increased water runoff onto the roads and increased erosion, loss of 

surface material and culvert and drainage failures. 

5. All of the above would increase the cost of road repair and maintenance needs in the future. 

6. Log hauling with timber sales combined with the associated road 

reconstruction/construction activities would increase dust, noise, and loss of fines on 

surfaced roads during project implementation. The normal operating season for road work is 

from June 1 through November 1, which is extended if weather and ground conditions are 

favorable. Road maintenance activities would continue for the duration of any timber 

harvest activities. Shared maintenance responsibilities would have to be coordinated. 

7. Road maintenance, reconstruction, and new construction with the District Landscape

projects combined with subdivision access private road easements and transmission line 

construction would have cumulative effects on ground disturbance, vegetation loss, 

dust/noise increases and sediment movement. 

8. There would be a change in the travel management of roads over the next few years as the 

Forest implements the Travel Management Plan for the Black Hills. The change has the 

potential to affect travel patterns and may increase mixed traffic on the Forest System roads 

and trails. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 109 

9. System roads would be maintained, thereby reducing the future programmatic

maintenance costs and providing an overall a more efficient transportation system. 

10. As tree mortality increases and they fall across roads, there is an increased likelihood 

roads would be inaccessible for periods of time. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The action alternatives propose additional maintenance, reconstruction, new construction and road 

closure activities. Direct adverse effects from these proposed activities are short term vegetation 

loss, vegetation removal, soil disturbance and compaction, an increase of mixed traffic and traffic 

delays during project implementation. Short term increases of noise and dust would occur. 

Recreational road and trail use associated with the Travel Management ROD may be temporarily 

affected by transportation needs associated with timber hauling, equipment access, and 

harvesting activities. Recreational users might not be able to use some of the roads and trails at 

times during implementation of either action alternative. 

Direct and indirect beneficial effects include improvements to existing roads and trails that 

would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria. Safety issues would be 

addressed in the road design. Existing roads located in meadows would be relocated and/or

armored with aggregate material to prevent road indentation, rutting and sediment movement. 

Existing roads would be realigned and relocated to reduce grades if needed. 

Once road improvements are completed, long term maintenance and deferred maintenance costs 

would decrease. As vegetation is reestablished, the effects on soil erosion would be reduced. The 

vegetation would aid in stabilizing the roadway and the cut and fill slopes. Positive driving 

experiences would improve from proper road design and repair of the travel way. The road use 

pattern in the area would change as unauthorized route, used as temporary roads, are closed and 

closure devices are secured. 

Roads utilized under the action alternatives would be reconstructed, constructed and maintained 

in accordance to the Best Management Practices and Engineering Design Guidelines (see 

Appendix A and B). Existing roads with soil and water problems would be designed using the 

proposed corrective action. The direct and indirect effects of sediment contribution would 

diminish as these actions are taken. 

EFFECTS UNIQUE TO ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative B 

The transportation system under Alternative B proposes to construct no new NSFRs and no new 

temporary road construction. It is estimated that 666 miles of roads would be maintained, 102 

miles of roads would be reconstructed/converted (87 miles of reconstruction and 15 miles of 

conversion), 202 miles of temporary roads would be utilized. This alternative would utilize 

existing on-the-ground NFSRs and unauthorized routes to perform management objectives. The 

above mentioned road activities would include routes in the PTAs and routes outside of the PTAs. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 110 

Reconstruction and maintenance activities would take place as needed on NFSRs. Existing 

unauthorized routes utilized in this Alternative would be used as temporary roads for management 

activities and then closed after use; except for approximately 5% of unauthorized routes (15 miles) 

that would be converted to NFSRs. Unauthorized routes that are converted to NFSRs would be 

closed and put into storage until future activities require utilization of the road. Additionally, this 

Alternative proposes to conduct cable logging activities where existing NFSRs and unauthorized 

routes would support such activities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed transportation plan for Alternative B would maintain, reconstruct and construct 

fewer miles than Alternative C. Direct effects of cost and ground disturbance are less under this 

Alternative when compared to Alternative C. Alternative B would improve and repair fewer 

miles of road than Alternative C but would still reduce adverse indirect effects, such as soil 

erosion and sedimentation. Future maintenance cost would likely be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to the cumulative effects common to all action alternatives, Alternative B would have 

an increase in traffic as compared to Alternative A, but less than Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Although it is preferable to utilize existing on-the-ground NFSRs and unauthorized routes to perform 

management objectives, new roads may be constructed under this Alternative. The transportation 

system under Alternative C proposes to construct up to 70 miles of new NFSRs. Seventy miles was 

determined by calculating an average number of road miles per acre based on 24 recent timber sales. 

The average miles per acre were multiplied by the number of acres in the PTAs for this Alternative. 

The result was approximately 35 miles of new NFSRs would be needed to accomplish management 

activities. A majority of the timber sales used to calculate the average miles per acre did not include 

cable logging activities. In order to account for additional transportation needs, a conservative factor 

of two was used to estimate the total number of new NFSR road miles needed. 

In addition to the new NFSRs, there may be a need for up to 518 miles of temporary roads to 

access the PTAs. Of the 518 miles, approximately 180 miles may be new temporary roads. Also, 

it is estimated that Alternative C would maintain 1,707 miles of road and reconstruct/convert 269 

miles of roads (this includes 223 miles of reconstruction and 46 miles of conversion). 

Reconstruction and maintenance activities would take place as needed on NFSRs. Similar to 

Alternative B, the above mentioned road activities would include routes in the PTAs and routes 

outside of the PTAs. Existing unauthorized routes utilized in this Alternative would be used as 

temporary roads for management activities and then closed after use; except for approximately 

15% of the temporary roads (46 miles) that would be converted to NFSRs. Temporary roads that 

are converted to NFSRs would be closed and put into storage until future activities require 

utilization of the road. See Table 6 for a summary of the activities described above. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed transportation plan for Alternative C would maintain, reconstruct and construct 

more miles of road than Alternative B. Direct effects of cost and ground disturbance would be 

greater under this alternative due to more road construction, more treated acres, and cable 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 111 

logging units. These newly constructed roads would be closed and seeded once treatment 

operations have been completed. This Alternative proposes to conduct cable logging activities 

which would require additional NFSRs when compared to other alternatives. However, miles of 

new road construction may decrease if helicopter logging is implemented as a tool to treat some 

of these areas. 

More miles of existing roads would be maintained with Alternative C, thus reducing adverse indirect 

effects, such as soil erosion and sedimentation. Future maintenance cost would likely be reduced. 

More miles of unauthorized routes would be used as temporary roads than other alternatives and 

would increase the potential for closure and decommissioning of these roads with timber 

operations, thus decreasing future decommissioning costs. 

Cumulative Effects

In addition to the cumulative effects common to all action alternatives, Alternative C would have 

the greatest increase in traffic as compared to Alternative A and B. 

Table 3-18 Summary of Road Miles 

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Acres 48,400 124,000 

Maintenance 0 666 1,707 

Reconstruct (including Convert 

Unauthorized Route to NFSR) 0 102 269 

New Construction (NFSR) 0 0 70 

Existing Temporary 0 202 338 

New Temporary 0 0 180 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for each 

alternative to the Biological Environment (Vegetation, Fire and Fuels, Range, Noxious and Invasive 

Weeds, Wildlife Habitat, Fisheries, and Botany). 

VEGETATION 

The overall goal of silviculture is to manage the forest environment to achieve desired 

management goals and objectives. This involves not only the timber resource but also all of the 

resources that can be found in a forested ecosystem as well as the needs of the forest users. This 

input is designed to only address the timber resource however, and does so realizing that all of 

the resources in the entire forested ecosystem are interrelated and interactive. It is the intent of 

this input to add only information, issues and concerns with regards to the timber resource using 

the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan standards, guidelines and 

Phase II Amendment as a desired future condition. In addition, this report is intended to 

supplement the analysis in the Black Hills LRMP and Phase II Amendment. This is tiered to the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 112 

aforementioned documents and applicable silviculture sections. Treatments would be formulated 

to address the purpose and need of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response project. 

Affected Environment 

Mountain Pine Beetle 

Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is the number one killer of pines throughout 

the western United States. The beetle is a native species to the West and attacks most pine 

species including ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. Mountain pine beetles (MPB) have always 

been a part of the Black Hills Forest ecosystem, with outbreaks occurring periodically. The 

largest recorded outbreak occurred from the late 1890’s through the early 1900’s, and killed an 

estimated 1.5 billion board feet of timber (USDA, Forest Service. 2010b). 

Mountain pine beetles prefer dense stands of mature pine trees greater than seven inches in 

diameter. Adult flight typically occurs in July and August, with the peak flight around the first 

week of August. During this flight, adult beetles leave previously infested trees and attack and kill 

new host trees. The adults attack green trees, chew through the bark and construct galleries along 

which eggs are laid. Larvae hatch from the eggs and begin feeding on the phloem of the tree in late 

summer to early fall. Larvae, pupae or callow adults over-winter under the bark of the infested tree. 

During the mid-1990s, beetle mortality was light and scattered throughout the Black Hills. In 

1997, there was a noticeable increase in mortality detected. The 1999 survey showed another 

sharp increase from 1998, with much of the heaviest damage concentrated into a few areas. The 

aerial survey from 1999 detected a total of 25,562 trees killed throughout the Black Hills. This is 

an increase from the 10,726 trees killed on National Forest System lands in 1998. In 2000, the

amount of mortality increased again to 38,262 trees. In all cases, much of the damage was 

concentrated in groups of 25 trees or more in a few areas. More than 60% of the total tree

mortality recorded in the 1999 and 2000 aerial surveys was found in the Beaver Park area. Other 

areas sustaining concentrated pockets of tree mortality included Bear Mountain, Steamboat Rock 

and areas west and south of Deerfield Lake. In 2001 there was a tremendous increase in the 

number of trees killed. From 2002 through 2005 an increase in beetle mortality was beginning to 

concentrate in the central Hills, with smaller spots elsewhere. From 2006 through 2010 epidemics 

intensified and continued on about 25,000-40,000 acres per year in the central Hills and intensified 

with new areas beginning to appear in the northern and southern Hills. In 2011 the acres affected 

with new attacks was approximately 67,000 acres. Since 1996, approximately 405,000 acres of 

NFS lands have been affected by MPB. These “Acres affected” do not indicate the intensity or 

frequency of mortality due to MPB infestation, which can range from one tree per acre to more 

than 100 trees per acre and which can occur on a specific acre in more than one year.

Stand density is the primary driver of MPB infestation, which is abundant and continuous throughout 

the potential treatment areas. The overall hazard (risk) of MPB infestation can be considered high in 

the project area. The rating refers to the potential for losses within a stand if an infestation occurs and 

not the probability of an infestation. If an infestation occurs within stands with a high risk rating, 

then one can expect higher overall losses than those stands with lower hazard ratings. The potential 

treatment areas are rated at high hazard for MPB, with an overall infestation hazard rating of high. 

The probability - or risk - of infestation is also high due to the ongoing epidemic across the Forest. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 113 

The Black Hills forest ecosystem is shaped by infrequent stand-replacing fire and insect outbreaks 

along with frequent surface fire and is characterized as having a mixed fire regime. Standreplacing fire has been a major component of the landscape since 2000, burning 14 percent of the 

Forest. Ecologically this pattern may be consistent with what might be expected from large but 

infrequent events under the historic disturbance regime. However, stand-replacing fire is generally 

considered to be socially undesirable from the standpoint of human safety, effects to private and 

public property, and to the alteration of the flow of goods and services from the Forest. Fire of any 

type has been suppressed and continues to be suppressed when possible for social reasons, and has 

contributed to altering the function of the mixed-severity fire ecological system. Current dense 

conifer forest conditions can be expected to contribute to the likelihood of additional large standreplacing fires within the Black Hills ecosystem. Also, a variety of factors including that of fire 

suppression and associated alterations to ecological systems has contributed to changes in the 

function of or the reduced extent of other Black Hills ecosystem components, including early 

successional ecological communities, such as grassland and meadow communities, hardwood 

communities, beaver dominated riparian communities, and areas of relatively open ponderosa pine 

with generally higher levels of understory diversity. 

Past Actions affecting Existing Condition of Silviculture/Timber

Records indicate that harvesting within the National Forest (project area) has occurred as far back 

as the 1880s. Prior to settlement of the Black Hills traditionally thought of as the 1870s, the forest 

structure was influenced by American Indian use of fire and natural disturbances such as lightning 

creating wildfires, windthrow and insects. Settlement of the Black Hills triggered logging to 

support mining and railroads. The early logging days caused concern for wise use of the lands 

which precipitated the National Forest Reserve and transition to the National Forest. The mission 

of the U.S. Forest Service identified today as “caring for the land and serving people”. 

Silvicultural treatments were designed to address management’s purpose for action. Essentially the 

forest stands were treated to lower the basal area to promote increased growth and vigor and 

regenerate stands of timber (See Appendix C). 

Stand Structure 

The potential treatment areas, focusing on high density, high risk stands of pine were selected 

and stand data information was extracted from the vegetation database on November 3, 2011. 

The Forest has identified and labeled timber stands using the variable of “structural stage” as the 

vegetation database landscape unit of measure to identify, monitor and improve upon through forest 

management practices. The structural stage attribute is the crosswalk measure from describing the 

forest structure to addressing habitat requirements for the wide range of wildlife and birds. 

Timber sales with NEPA decisions signed which have harvest units completed (logged) were 

included in the existing forest-wide structural stage numbers. Harvest units completed show the 

new existing structural stage. Units that have not been logged do not indicate the post-harvest 

resulting structural stage change. The following is the structural stage characteristics as defined 

by the Forest Plan. 

Structural Stage 1 (Grass/Forb): An early forest successional stage during which grasses and 

forbs are the dominant vegetation. At the site level, Structural Stage 1 is defined as nonstocked, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 114 

with an average maximum density (AMD) less than 10 percent. Small-scale Structural Stage 1 

within sites are at least one acre in size, do not meet the seedling stocking criteria, and contain no 

saplings, poles, or mature trees. 

Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by tree seedlings (less 

than one inch dbh) and shrub species. 

Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young trees 1 to 7 inches 

dbh, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. This stage is subdivided into three 

canopy closure classes: A (less than 40 percent); B (40 to 70 percent); and C (greater than 70 

percent). 

Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than structural stage 3. Also 

classified by the same canopy closure categories as structural stage 3. 

Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This structural stage is characterized by very large trees 

(16+ inches DBH) 160 years of age and older. (Mehl 1992). 

Table 3-19 displays the distribution of structural stages within each management area across the 

Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service. 2010b). 

Table 3-19 Forest-wide Structural Stages and Management Areas 

All Management Areas 

Structural 

Stage 

Existing 

Forest Percent 

1 84,359 7.6% 

2 37,033 3.3% 

3A 56,933 5.1% 

3B 76,509 6.9% 

3C 41,383 3.7% 

4A 301,892 27.2% 

4B 346,128 31.2% 

4C 159,268 14.4% 

5 5,480 0.5% 

 

Total 1,108,985 100.0% 

The Black Hills Land and Management Plan Phase II Amendment specifies that certain management 

areas (MA’s) should be managed to provide a distribution of structural stages in a variety of sizes 

and shapes. It further specifies the structural stage objectives (percentage) for each MA. Within the 

MPBR Project there are five such MA’s: 4.1, Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis; 

MA 5.1, Resource Production Emphasis; MA 5.4, Big Game Winter Range Emphasis; MA 5.43, Big 

Game and Resource Production; MA 5.6, Forest Products, Recreation Big Game Emphasis. 

Table 3-20 Structural Stage Distribution 

Management Areas: 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, 5.6 

Structural Stage Existing MPBR Percent 

1 0 0.0% 

2 0 0.0% 

3A 0 0.0% 

3B 19,172 9.1% 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 115 

3C 14,731 7.0% 

4A 0 0.0% 

4B 118,868 56.2% 

4C 58,797 27.8% 

5 0 0.0% 

 

211,568 100.0% 

The above management areas (Table 3-20) are the Forest’s primary treatment areas for forest 

management and are generally labeled as suitable timberlands. The other MA’s (MA 3.31, 

Backcountry Motorized MA 3.32, Backcountry Non-Motorized; MA 4.2A, Spearfish Canyon 

(Alternative C only); MA 5.1A, Southern Hills; MA 5.2A, Fort Meade VA Hospital Watershed; 

and MA 8.2, Developed Recreation Complexes are classified as non-suitable timberlands where 

integrated forest pest management activities would occur to reduce MPB risk and fuel hazard. 

Desired Future Conditions (DFC) 

Insect and Disease: The Forest Plan direction is to “consider preventive vegetation 

management practices, including silvicultural treatments, to protect forest stands from insect and 

disease epidemics” (Phase II Amendment, Page II-47). Also, Phase II Goal 10, Objective 10-07 

states “Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management objectives 

for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are in medium or high risk for 

infestation” (Phase II, I-36). Goal 11, “Enhance or maintain the natural rate of recovery after 

significant fire and other natural events while maintaining a mosaic of fuel-loading conditions to 

facilitate future fire suppression activities” (Phase II, I-38). 

Silvicultural Prescriptions: Silvicultural systems used would be dependent on the structure 

desired to meet the purpose and need of this project. Guidelines for commercial and noncommercial thinning would be followed as specified in Chapter II of the Phase II Amendment to 

the Forest Plan and stocking charts in Appendix H of the Forest Plan. Generally, stands would 

be treated to achieve lower stocking levels for a reduction of crown fire hazard and mountain 

pine beetle hazard. For further detailed discussion of these methods refer to Chapter II-24 of the 

Phase II Amendment and Appendix H of the Forest Plan. 

Very Large Tree Size: Objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 5.4-206, 5.43-204 and 5.6-204 in the 

Phase II Amendment call for 10% of the 4 ponderosa pine structural stage (sawtimber nine 

inches and larger) have an average tree size of “very large,” where the average size pine is 

greater than 16 inches diameter breast height (dbh). 

 

Wildfire: Goal 10: Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences 

of high intensity fire, insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and 

firefighting capability. Objective 10-01 states that stands will be managed for 50% to 75% 

moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity 

of structures to current NFPA standards. Additional guidance has also been provided from the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and other National level policy and directives. 

Alternative A – No Action 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the proposed 

action or other action alternative would take place within the MPBR Project Area. This 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 116 

alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action, the 

issues, or concerns identified during scoping for this project. There would be no effort to modify 

existing vegetation and related fuels conditions in the project area. Vegetation structure would 

change over time through natural growth and mortality and events such as wildfires, storms, and 

insect and disease outbreaks. None of the actions associated with this EIS would occur. 

Actions such as ongoing Forest protection efforts, fire suppression, noxious weed treatment, and 

recurring road maintenance on system roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. 

Vegetative management would not take place unless authorized by other decisions. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Mountain Pine Beetle Based on current stand conditions, research and field observations, the 

overstocked stands of pine pose a high hazard for mountain pine beetle infestation. This hazard 

would likely increase over time as stands grow and stocking levels increase. The potential 

treatment areas have a high risk rating. Coupling with the high beetle populations in the area, the 

likelihood of a continuous, widespread, epidemic-level infestation of mountain pine beetle is 

high. If no action is taken, many currently forested areas could lose most or all of their mature 

pine overstory. This loss of mature pine trees would add greatly to fuel loads and wildfire hazard 

on a long-term basis (see Fire and Fuels Report), and cause substantial changes to wildlife 

habitat (see Wildlife Report). 

If pine stands are left untreated, the mountain pine beetle hazard would remain high in the

majority of the project area until stocking levels decrease due to mortality from insect activity or 

wildfire. It is not possible to determine when stands would become infested and the precise level 

of beetle-caused mortality, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of 

the epidemic, the expanding pine beetle brood populations available to infest new trees, and the 

large volume and wide distribution of high hazard stands in the project area. What is apparent is 

that there would be considerable changes in the landscape in the Project Area (USDA Forest 

Service. 2012a). 

At this time, beetle activity and mortality is generally still heaviest in the central Hills. However, 

the northern and southern Hills are the areas experiencing the largest growth and expansion of 

beetle mortality over the past 2-3 years. Beetle activity has been relatively light in the Bearlodge 

Mountains and in the far southern Hills (generally south and west of Jewel Cave), both of which 

have portions of MPBR Project. 

In the hardest hit areas, near complete mortality of the larger trees could occur on up to 50 

percent of structural stage 4C. This mortality of 4C would result in a mix of structural stage 2 

and 3A due to the prolific pine regeneration’ that occurs naturally in the Black Hills, thus 

avoiding the non-stocked structural stage 1. Structural stage 3A stands would result from the 

advance regeneration presently occurring within the stands. The other 50% of the 4C the 

mountain pine beetle attack area size could result in a variation of overstory stand densities 

resulting in mostly a 4A structure with some 4B. As the mountain pine beetle moves across the 

landscape there is the probability of complete landscapes being killed over time as evident of the 

sequential aerial detection survey maps specific to the present mountain pine beetle cycle. 

In structural stage 4B, which is a slightly more open tree canopy than 4C but still classified as 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 117 

high risk, the mortality of larger trees is similar to structural stage 4C resulting in mostly 4A, 

some would remain as 4B and a mix of 2 and 3A. Like 4C, there is the probability of complete

landscapes being killed overtime if untreated. 

In structural stage 3C, the pine overstory generally ranges between 5-9 inch DBH. Overstory 

mortality of 90% would leave remnants in the 3B and 3C stand densities of varying patch sizes. 

This mortality results in mostly structural stage 2 and 3A depending on advanced regeneration 

similar to the changes in 4B and 4C. 

In structural stage 3B which is similar to 3C, but a slightly more open tree canopy, mortality of 

90% would leave smaller remnants in 3B of varying patch sizes. This mortality results in mostly 

structural stage 2 and 3A depending on advanced regeneration similar to the changes in 4B and 4C. 

In other structural stages, such as structural stages 3A and 4A that have a lower probability of 

mountain pine infestation, individual trees or small groups of trees, may become infested due to 

the on-going epidemic. 

There is a probability of mountain pine beetle infestation in structural stage 5 that are denser in 

structure. Likewise, there is probability of some 3B or 3C or 4B or 4C stands would transition 

into structural stage 5. 

Stands in high mortality areas would revert to younger age structural stages. Adding younger 

structural stage stands would increase vegetation diversity in the area, which is dominated by 

mature pines. However, the large volume of dead and down trees would significantly increase 

fuel loads and wildfire hazard in the wild-land urban interface areas. This increases the 

probability for large, intense wildfires resistant to control that threaten natural resources, private 

property, and human life. 

The areas of lower infestation levels would also have lower overall mortality rates. This may not 

be the actual case, as the current epidemic could easily overwhelm forested landscapes. In these 

areas, structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 stands are expected to have substantial beetle-caused 

mortality, with a high percentage being changed to structural stage 4A, and lesser amounts to 

younger structural stages 2 and 3 as in the higher infestation level areas. 

The large tree mortality across the project area would greatly increase the amount of largediameter snags within MPBR project area. These new snags would be well distributed across the 

project area. However, snags created by mountain pine beetle are not expected to remain at high 

levels for longer than five years following death (Schmid et. al., 2009). 

Alternative A (No Action) should result in the most large trees per acre due to the thinning 

treatment of alternatives B and C (see Figure 3-2). However, if the MPB populations increase 

substantially, Alternative A could have the lowest amount of stands in the very large tree size 

class (see Figure 3-3). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 118 

Figure 3-2 Alternative A Structural Stages 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5

Alternative A

acres 

Figure 3-3 Alternative A Structural Stages in Five Years: 

Other Effects: The effects of deferring treatment in the project area would be increased 

mortality and the resulting decrease in growth and yield due to the continuation of the MPB 

epidemic; reduction of diameter growth due to age and overstocking in stands not impacted by 

MPB activity; and an increase in the hazard for high intensity wildfire. Age class distribution 

would dramatically change in those infested areas as the older mature pine is replaced by 

younger pine due to the unpredictable natural processes such as insect infestations and wildfire. 

Structural stage imbalances would persist and be exacerbated by the lack of regenerated stands. 

Long-term effects in stands not heavily impacted by MPB infestation would be an increase in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 119 

mortality due to competition between pine and an increase in merchantable defect due to disease. 

Long-term sustainability of the timber resource would be in jeopardy since much of the mature 

forest would be killed by the MPB and relatively few acres are currently young and available to 

grow into the next generation of mature forest. 

Some timber harvesting is occurring on private land within the project area, mostly in conjunction 

with mountain pine beetles, fuels reduction and development. Activities on private land are

proportional to the percent of private lands in relation to the National Forest boundary. The amount 

of timber harvesting during any one decade however has been small and its effects on National 

Forest timberland should be minimal. 

The hazard of a stand replacing wildfire would be higher without treatment. High intensity wildfires, 

such as Jasper (2000) and Battle Creek fire (2002) would cause many of the stands to be completely 

killed. The effect of such a high intensity fire to the timber resource would be a loss of timber value, 

a large reduction of age class distribution, a disruption of an even flow of timber to local mills, an 

increase in insects, and a disruption of the natural regeneration process. Solarization would reduce 

the success of both natural and artificial regeneration. Soil sterilization would reduce productivity for 

many years, as the process of rebuilding soil horizons in this relatively dry climate is slow. 

Cumulative Effects 

The effect of past treatments has been an increase of merchantable volume growth, increase in 

the quality of timber and until recently, a minimal amount of insect and disease infestations. The 

commercial thinning has reduced the stocking levels in overstocked stands. The effect has been 

an increase in the quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly 

formed trees. There has been increase in individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees 

from competition for light, water, and nutrients. Trees have developed larger diameters due to a 

reduction of competition. A reduction of the MPB hazard to the pine stands due to the reduction 

of basal area to lower the level of susceptibility to pine beetle attack has also occurred for stands 

which have recently been treated. 

Some timber harvesting is occurring on private land, mostly in conjunction with mountain pine 

beetles, fuels reduction and development. Since private land comprises approximately 30% of the 

project area and approximately 25% of that is timberland, the effects of timber harvesting 

practices could affect the project area. The amount of timber harvesting during any one decade 

however has been small and its effects on National Forest timberland should be minimal. 

Present and foreseeable projects would continue such as: 

Briggs 28,916 Acres 

Cold Springs 13,969 Acres 

Steamboat 24,596 Acres 

Herman 21,572 Acres 

Pactola 26,017 Acres 

Buttes 11,441 Acres 

Calumet 31,781 Acres 

Vestal 43,516 Acres 

Fire suppression, firewood gathering and Christmas tree cutting by permit would continue to 

occur within the area. Continuing development of adjacent private land and actions taken on 

private land to protect property from wildfire and mountain pine beetle would result in additional 

scattered openings and lower basal areas, but would have no major effect on the forested 

landscape within the project area. 

With an increasing interest from landowners to manage their forested land, protect their property 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 120 

from fire and mountain pine beetle infestation, and clear land for home sites, an additional 400 

acres may be treated within the next decade. Since the amount of silvicultural activities not 

connected to this analysis would be minimal, the cumulative effects of these activities under any 

of the alternatives would also be minimal. Treatments on private land for fire hazard reduction 

or mountain pine beetles would contribute to both a reduction of hazard from high intensity 

wildfire and mountain pine beetle. 

Alternative A, by not taking any action to address the purpose and need outlined for the MPBR 

Project, would result in significant changes on the landscape and adverse cumulative effects to 

the timber resource. These effects would include further movement away from Forest Plan goals 

and objectives for vegetative diversity, wildfire hazard, mountain pine beetle risk, and timber 

production. Past and present forest improvements would be negatively affected by ongoing pine 

beetle infestations and could be completely eliminated where wildfires occur. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B proposes approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 

acres of non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to 

remove mountain pine beetle infested trees and associated trees to lower mountain pine beetle 

risk and wildfire hazard. Commercial treatments would not be authorized in the Non-motorized 

Backcountry emphasis area (MA 3.32). Commercial and non-commercial thinning would 

generally occur on slopes less than 40 percent. Cable logging is proposed in areas with existing 

roads. This focused forest thinning serves to reduce mountain pine beetle habitat and fuel loads. 

Alternative B would utilize existing roads and routes. No new roads would be constructed. 

Reconstruction of existing NFSRs could include improvements, restoration or realignment. 

Some existing unauthorized routes may be converted to Level 1 System Roads and closed 

following management activities. Some System Trails may be temporarily changed to roads and 

then returned to trails after vegetation management activities are completed. 

Integrated Pest Management methods and treatment activities in Alternative B would occur over 

an approximate five to seven year period. Table 3-21 displays potential treatment acres by 

Management Area for Alternative B. 

Table 3-21 Alternative B Management Areas 

Management 

Area Acres Percent 

3.31 4,411 2% 

3.32 3,120 1% 

4.1 4,184 2% 

5.1 102,562 42% 

5.1A 21,360 9% 

5.2A 2,604 1% 

5.4 91,691 38% 

5.43 4,642 2% 

5.6 7,085 3% 

8.2 339 0% 

Total 242,000 100% 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 121 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Mountain pine beetle in the untreated treatment areas: See Alternative A Direct/Indirect Effects. 

Integrated Pest Management Techniques: 

Commercial Timber Harvest: Commercial thinning would occur on approximately 48,400 

acres of the area. Commercial thinning would generally consist of thinning from below, 

removing suppressed and intermediate pine from the stand, and the overmature pine when 

necessary from the overstory, leaving the non-infected mature pine. Generally, basal areas for 

commercial thinning would be from 40 to 80 BA. In areas where there are ongoing beetle 

outbreaks, lowering stand densities even further, such as to 40 BA would be advised. Leave

trees in commercial harvest units may generally not be uniformly spaced to create a more natural 

appearing stand. Treatments adjacent to developed private property may serve as fuel breaks and 

may be treated differently. Whole tree skidding would be the preferred logging method to 

remove as much slash as possible during harvest activities to reduce fire hazard. 

Sanitation harvest to remove mountain pine beetle infested pine trees may be conducted in areas 

near or adjacent to stands identified for treatment in order to limit the expansion of mountain 

pine beetle populations. Large trees would generally be retained and removed only where 

infested with mountain pine beetle or necessary to meet density objectives, other resource needs, 

and for landings and other clearings to facilitate timber harvesting activities. 

Products Other Than Logs (POL) - products such as posts, poles and fiber from trees or parts of 

trees less than sawlog size is proposed for7,260 acres. Spacing of leave trees may vary from 12 to 

24 feet to create a more natural appearing stand. A reduction of MPB hazard would occur due to 

the reduction of stocking to lower the level of susceptibility to MPB attack. Slash buildup from 

non-commercial thinning, if not treated properly, could encourage Ips beetle (Ips pini) buildup and 

mortality in residual stands of pine. Past practices of lopping, scattering, and burning of slash piles 

within a year of treatment has reduced Ips beetle infestation to less than a few trees per acre. 

Scattering slash facilitates the rapid drying of fuels, which reduces conditions favorable for Ips 

beetle buildup. Additional fuel treatments for fire hazard reduction would also reduce the 

probability of insect infestations. No major adverse effects are anticipated to the timber resource. 

Advanced Logging Systems – Helicopter and Skyline: Approximately 32% of the potential 

treatment areas have slopes greater than 40%. Skyline treatments would generally thin from 

above, for economic efficiency, would remove the larger overstory trees and leave a more open 

stand that is less susceptible to MPB infestation. Alternative B would use existing roads/routes 

for potential skyline units. Helicopter logging would generally include hand fallers cutting 

green, infested trees, removing the non-merchantable parts of the trees, and then attaching the 

logs to a cable suspended from a hovering helicopter. The helicopter would then fly the logs to a 

landing located adjacent to a road. Logs would then be transported via trucks to a mill. Since 

ground-based equipment would not be used, the impacts to the resources would be less than 

cable or ground-based logging. All logging slash left at the site would be treated to a maximum 

of 18 inches in depth. 

Cut and chunk, chipping, cut-hand pile-burn, and cut-equipment pile-burn: These activities 

have been implemented on the Forest in areas to minimize mountain pine beetle spread. These 

activities involve the cutting down of infested trees and then bucking/chipping the tree bole and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 122 

treating the residual slash by lop and scatter chipping, piling and/or burning. 

The cut and chunk activity does not result in a 100% mortality of the mountain pine beetle. 

Entomologists predict around 80% mortality of mountain pine beetles using the cut and chunk 

method. Cutting and chunking works best at a smaller, local scale, where all of the infested trees 

can be treated in one year. However, there is a good chance of annually repeating the cut and 

chunk activity in the same areas because some of the infested trees may be missed or not all of 

the beetles in the chunks die. The effects of these activities are usually on a small scale that 

results in no changes to the stand structural stage forest conditions. 

Rights-of-Way: There are state and county rights-of -way throughout the planning area. Many 

of these have both commercial and non-commercial timber in them. Hazard trees and timber 

within these rights-of-way would be removed to reduce the risk to motorists and “daylight” the 

roads to reduce icing. Where timber harvest units are adjacent to these areas the rights-of-way 

would be included in the timber sale. The effects of removing this timber would be minimal to 

the timber resource. Public safety would be increased by the removal of hazard trees that could 

fall on the roads. Removing trees in some areas would increase melting of ice and snowpack and 

speed the drying of roads. Visibility around curves would be improved. 

Roadside Treatments: Primary ingress/egress roads associated with the Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) access are addressed in the Fire and Fuels specialist report and in the CWPP for 

each county within the Black Hills National Forest. Approximately 162 miles of maintenance 

level 3, 4, and 5 roads could be treated for ingress/egress. 

Treatments would include thinning from below to approximately 20 to 40 square feet of basal 

area to raise crown base height and increase crown separation of the overstory, and thinning the 

understory and treating the slash to reduce ladder fuels. Leaving small groups of two to three 

trees and variable spacing may be desirable to create a more diverse appearance to these 

treatments. Whole tree harvesting would be used in these areas where possible, and all slash 

would be removed or piled and burned. Also, conifers would be removed from hardwood stands 

and inclusions along these routes to reduce the fire hazard. 

Semiochemicals - are insect-produced compounds that serve as a chemical communication 

system for the insect. These are also referred as pheromones. These are available to serve as 

attractants that are used to monitor populations or to cause attacks on trees to which they are 

attached (baited hereafter); or as anti-aggregation compounds that attempt to prevent attacks on 

treated trees. Attractant chemical has been used on a very small or experimental scale. 

Repellant chemical has been used on the Forest in campgrounds and selected trees on a small 

scale. At this point, the anti-aggregation pheromone has not been shown to be effective in the 

Black Hills. According to entomology experts the use of pheromones in conjunction with 

insecticides has not been proven to be operationally feasible against the mountain pine beetle, 

let alone been implemented on a landscape-level. 

Attractant pheromones in ‘tree baits’ (small packets) attached to the tree bole prior to the 

summer beetle flight draw the mountain pine beetle into the baited trees to cause an attack. After 

the beetle flight has subsided then tree harvesting and removal of the green hit trees (tree baited 

trees plus surrounding green hit trees) is a necessity so as to not further promote landscape tree 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 123 

mortality from mountain pine beetles. Tree harvesting must be completed prior to the following 

spring or beginning of the next mountain pine beetle flight. The purpose to implement tree 

baiting is to concentrate the mountain pine beetle population. Tree baiting would be in 

cooperation with the State of South Dakota, State of Wyoming, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Services, Wyoming county governments, South 

Dakota county governments and local timber industry. Entomology experts representing 

cooperating interested parties would participate with the Black Hills National Forest in treatment 

design and evaluation for a statistically sound scientific process and review. This technique is not 

considered as a major management tactic that would be used on a landscape scale, more an 

infrequently used tactic that is available under certain circumstances and conditions. 

There are efforts being initiated by Lawrence County cooperating with local timber industry and 

private land owners west of Lead, South Dakota to place tree baits on about 10 areas which is 

approximately 276 acres in total. Tree baits would be placed on selected trees. Selected trees 

would be on an approximate 50 yard grid across the landscape. Trees in between the baited trees 

would be treated with repellant to discourage beetle attack. Green hit trees are planned to be 

harvested and removed before the next mountain pine beetle flight. 

Insecticide Spraying: Chemical spraying of selected trees would use chemicals appropriate for a

forested environment. Strict adherence to the application instructions of the chemical as specified 

is important to environmental compliance. This activity is usually specific to high visible and/or 

important areas that are small in scale in relation to landscapes where the logistical and economic 

feasibility may be restrictive. Tree spraying is estimated as incidental in size compared to the tree 

cutting treatment acres. There is no structural stage transition for stands based on tree spraying. 

Summary of Integrated Pest Management on Structural Stages: 

Similar to Alternative A, it is not possible to determine when or the precise level of MPB activity 

to then be treated, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the 

epidemic, the expanding MPB brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large

volume and wide distribution of high hazard stands in the project area (Allen2011). 

Structural stage 1 would remain the same throughout the five to seven years of the MPBR project. 

Even stands experiencing complete overstory tree mortality from mountain pine beetle infestation 

would likely be converted to structural stage 2 or 3A due to the prolific Ponderosa pine regeneration. 

Structural stage 2 increases due to the dense stands that are not treated that is anticipated to result 

in the dense stands of 3B/3C/4B/4C converting to structural stage 2 on 20-30% of the stands. 

The treated acres do not predict conversion of 3B/3C/4B/4C to structural stage 2. 

Structural stage 3A increases due to thinning treatment acres. However, the unpredictable nature 

of mountain pine beetle attack on dense stands that are not treated is anticipated to result in the 

stands of 3B/3C/4B/4C converting to structural stage 3A on 20-60% of the dense stands of MPBR. 

Structural stage 3B decreases from existing inventory and for alternative B due to thinning 

treatment acres on 3B converting to 3A. Also, due to the unpredictable nature of mountain pine

beetle attack on dense 3B stands that are not treated the anticipated result is conversion to 

structural stage 3A on 60% of the stands, converting to structural stage 2 on 30% of the stands 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 124 

and 10% remaining in 3B. 

Structural stage 3C decreases from existing inventory and for alternative B due to thinning 

treatment acres on 3C converting to 3A. Also, due to the unpredictable nature of mountain pine 

beetle attack on dense 3C stands that are not treated the anticipated result is conversion to 

structural stage 3A on 60% of the stands, converting to structural stage 2 on 30% of the stands, 

converting to structural stage 3B on 5% of the stands and 5% remaining in 3C. 

Structural stage 4A increases from treated thinning acres in 4B and 4C stands converting to 

structural stage 4A. Also, on the untreated stands due to the unpredictable nature of mountain 

pine beetle attack that half of the 4B and 4C stands convert to structural stage 4A. 

Structural stage 4B acres are anticipated to convert to structural stage 3A on 20% of the stands, 

converting to structural stage 2 on 20% of the stands, converting to 4A on 50% of the stands and 

10% remaining in 4B. The treated 4B stands convert to structural stage 4A for 90% of the stands 

and to structural stage 2 for 10% of the stands where the overstory of stands is removed leaving 

seedling/saplings. 

Structural stage 4C acres are predicted to decrease on the treated stands. On the treated 4B 

stands convert to structural stage 4A for 90% of the stands and to structural stage 2 for 10% of 

the stands where the overstory of stands is removed leaving seedling/saplings. It’s an 

opinionated prediction of when the attack comes. 

Structural stage 5 has a probability of mountain pine beetle infestation in structural stage 5 stands 

that are denser. Likewise there is probability of some 3C, 4B or 4C stands transition into 

structural stage 5 based on professional determination. 

Figure 3-4 Alternative A Predicted Changes vs. Alternative B Post Treatment 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 125 

Very Large Tree Size 

Objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 5.4-206, 5.43-204 and 5.6-204 of the Phase II Amendment call for 

10% of the 4 ponderosa pine structural stage have an average tree size of “very large,” where the 

average size pine is greater than 16 inches DBH. In areas not treated and heavily infested with 

MPB, the amount of very large tree size class would go down. 

Late Successional Stands 

There are currently stands within the project area (Forest) classified as late successional, 

Structural Stage 5 (SS5). The action alternatives do not propose treating in SS5. Tree mortality 

from mountain pine beetle may occur in structural stage 5. Small scale occurrence of insects 

may enhance the characteristics of late successional stands. 

Snags 

There would be no cutting snags in either action alternative except for safety reasons. The large 

tree mortality across the project area would greatly increase the amount of large-diameter snags 

within MPBR project area. These new snags would be well distributed across the project area. 

However, snags created by mountain pine beetle are not expected to remain at high levels for 

longer than five years following death (Schmid et. al., 2009). 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period. 

The alternative is a more proactive response to the purpose and need for action. Specifically, it 

responds to concerns about not treating more ‘high risk’ stands on a landscape basis, treating in 

advance of MPB, and addresses concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress). 

Alternative C includes all aspects of Alternative B (Proposed Action). Integrated Pest 

Management techniques would occur on portions of approximately 248,000 acres to reduce the 

spread of MPB across NFS lands to manage and protect ecosystem components. 

Alternative C proposes approximately 105,400 acres of commercial and approximately 18,600 

acres of non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to 

remove MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. Alternative 

C includes three additional elements: 

• Landscape level thinning in advance of large beetle infestations to reduce stand densities 

and the risk of MPB infestation, thereby reducing the wildfire hazard, and creating 

landscape-scale fuel breaks. 

• Treatments in MA 4.2A Spearfish Canyon 

• Up to 250 miles of new System (70 miles) and/or temporary (180 miles) road construction 

Alternative C would utilize existing roads and construct new System and/or Temporary Roads. 

Reconstruction of existing NFSRs could include improvements, restoration or realignment. 

Construction of new temporary roads would not be converted to System Roads. Some existing 

unauthorized routes (approximately 46 miles) may be converted to Level 1 System Roads and 

closed following management activities. Some System Trails may be temporarily changed to 

roads and then returned to trails after vegetation management activities are completed. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 126 

Table 3-22 Alternative C Structural Stages Distribution Post Treatment 

Management Area Acres Percent 

3.31 4,411 2% 

3.32 3,120 1% 

4.1 4,184 2% 

4.2A 5,583 2% 

5.1 102,979 41% 

5.1A 21,360 9% 

5.2A 2,604 1% 

5.4 91,691 37% 

5.43 4,642 2% 

5.6 7,085 3% 

8.2 339 0% 

248,000 100% 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Commercial Timber Harvest: Commercial thinning would occur on approximately 105,400 

acres. Effects would be the similar as described under Alternative B. Treating an additional 

64,000 acres would reduce the MPB risk and fire hazard compared to Alternative B. 

Alternative C proposes to thin areas that are currently at endemic to incipient levels of MPB. 

According to Schmid et al, 2007, the most important aspect of managing mature ponderosa pine

stands in the Black Hills is minimizing MPB-caused mortality. The only effective long-range 

strategy to minimize MPB-caused mortality is controlling stand conditions through silvicultural 

means over large landscapes and monitoring for areas of MPB buildup (USDA Forest Service. 

2007a.). These are forest management actions that increase tree vigor and reduce stand 

susceptibility to MPB attack through reducing stocking levels. They are preventive treatments that 

should be completed prior to stands experiencing beetle outbreaks. Sanitation harvest (removal of 

infested trees) can also provide protection to surrounding uninfested trees and stands by removing a 

large source of attacking MPB. Creating diverse stand conditions across the landscape would result 

in an overall forest that is less susceptible long term to MPB. (Fettig et al, 2007). 

Products Other Than Logs (POL) - products such as posts, poles and fiber from trees or parts 

of trees less than sawlog size is proposed for 18,600 acres. Effects would be the same as 

described in Alterative B. 

Advanced Logging Systems – Helicopter and Skyline: Approximately 33% of the potential 

treatment areas have slopes greater than 40%. Skyline treatments would generally thin from 

above, for economic efficiency, removing the larger overstory trees and leaving a more open 

stand that is less susceptible to MPB infestation. Additional new road construction would be 

necessary to access the cable units. See the Transportation section for information. Helicopter 

logging would occur as described under Alternative B. 

Cut and chunk, chipping, cut-hand pile-burn, and cut-equipment pile-burn: These activities 

would occur as described under Alternative B. 

Rights-of-Way: There are state and county rights-of -way throughout the planning area. See 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 127 

Alternative B. 

Roadside Treatments: Primary ingress/egress roads associated with the Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) access are addressed in the Fire and Fuels specialist report and in the CWPP for 

each county within the Black Hills National Forest. With the addition of Spearfish Canyon, 

additional ingress/egress treatments would occur along 15 miles of ML 3, 4, and 5 roads.

Insecticide Spraying and Semiochemicals - Insecticide spraying and aggregation pheromones 

for mountain pine beetles would occur as described in Alternative B. 

Summary of Integrated Pest Management on Structural Stages 

Similar to Alternatives A and B, it is not possible to determine when or and the precise level of 

MPB to then be treated, but reasonable estimates can be made based on the current extent of the 

epidemic, the expanding MPB brood populations available to infest new trees, and the large

volume and wide distribution of high hazard stands in the project area (Allen, 2011). 

Structural stage 1 remains the same within the five to seven year timeframe of the MPBR 

project. Even stands experiencing complete overstory tree mortality from mountain pine beetle 

attack would likely be structural stage 2 or 3A due to the prolific ponderosa pine regeneration in 

the near future or presence of advanced regeneration. 

Structural stage 2 increases from existing by 20% due to treating 4B and 4C stands. 

Structural stage 3A increases from existing due to thinning treatment acres in 3C. 

Structural stage 3B decreases from existing due to thinning treatment acres. Structural stage 3B 

would convert to 3A. 

Structural stage 3C decreases from existing due to thinning treatment acres on 3C would convert to 3A. 

Structural stage 4A increases from treating acres in 4B and 4C stands converting to structural 

stage 4A. Also, on the untreated stands due to the unpredictable nature of mountain pine beetle 

attack that half of the 4B and 4C stands convert to structural stage 4A. 

Structural stage 4B acres are predicted to decrease on the treated areas. The 4B stands would 

convert to structural stage 4A for 90% and to structural stage 2 for 10% of the stands where the 

overstory of stands is removed leaving seedling/saplings. 

Structural stage 4C acres are predicted to decrease on the treated areas. The treated 4B stands 

would convert to structural stage 4A for 90% of the stands and to structural stage 2 for 10% of 

the stands where the overstory of stands is removed leaving seedling/saplings. 

Structural stage 5 - There are no treatments proposed in structural stage 5. There is a probability 

of mountain pine beetle attack in the structural stage 5 stands that are denser in forest structure. 

Likewise there is probability of some 3C, 4B or 4C stands transition into structural stage 5. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 128 

Figure 3-5 Alternative A Predicted Changes vs. Alternative C Post Treatment 

Very Large Tree Size 

Objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 5.4-206, 5.43-204 and 5.6-204 of the Phase II Amendment call for 

10% of the 4 ponderosa pine structural stage have an average tree size of “very large,” where the 

average size pine is greater than 16 inches DBH. See Alternative B. 

Late Successional Stands 

There are currently stands within the project area (Forest) classified as late successional, 

Structural Stage 5 (SS5). Reference structural stage charts above. Tree mortality from 

mountain pine beetle may occur in structural stage 5. Small scale occurrence of insects may 

enhance the characteristics of late successional stands. 

Snags 

There would be no cutting of snags in any action alternative except for safety reasons. For 

additional information on snags, refer to the Black Hills National Forest Monitoring Report. 

Cumulative Effects for both Action Alternatives 

Past activities are listed under Alternative A. Cumulative effects of past treatments and 

treatments proposed in this alternative would generally be positive in view of lower mountain 

pine beetle risk and fire hazard. Thinning of stands created with harvests would bring those 

stands into desired condition. 

In addition to the present and future activities identified in Alternative A, implementation of the 

action alternatives would result in a decreased mountain pine beetle risk and reduced risk to high 

intensity wildfire. 

The difference in cumulative effects between the action alternatives is directly related to the quantity 

and type of treatments. Alternative C would have the highest associated cumulative effect due to 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 129 

having the highest level of treatment acres. Alternative B would have less impact due to less 

treatment acres and removing recently infested pine trees. The effects of any of the two action 

alternatives would generally be positive and move this area toward Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

The overstocked stands of pine pose a high hazard to attack by mountain pine beetle. This hazard 

may increase over time, with growth, due to increasing stocking levels, until natural disturbances 

act to reduce stand densities. There are 242,000 acres in Alternative B and 248,000 acres in 

Alternative C of high risk stands. When this fact is added to the fact of high beetle populations in 

the area, the likelihood of a continuing widespread epidemic-level infestation of mountain pine 

beetle is high. There are considerable changes in the landscape taking place on the Forest due to 

mountain pine beetle mortality. On the untreated stands, many currently forested areas would lose 

some or all of their mature pine overstory. This loss of mature pine trees would add greatly to fuel 

loads and wildfire hazard (see Fire and Fuels Report), and cause changes to wildlife habitat (see 

Wildlife Report). 

Alternative B and C include integrated pest management activities for treatment on the ground. 

The sawtimber and products-other-logs treatments transition the existing dense structural stage 

acres to more open structural stages. Activities such as tree spraying and cut and chunk are 

predicted to not change the stand structural stages based on the activities’ small scale. 

The amount of dense forest structure decreases the 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C stands and increases the 2, 

3A and 4A stands. The present rate of timber harvest per year, the tree mortality due to 

mountain pine beetles and wildfires, these activities result in changing the forest structure from 

the denser stands to a more open stand structure. 

After a disturbance event, an ecosystem is capable of restoring itself over time. Management actions 

can be used to speed this process and reduce the intensity and extent of subsequent events such as a 

re-burn of fallen dead trees over a large landscape. While some fire or insect-killed areas are an 

essential habitat component for several species and could be conserved, treatments can be used to 

break up the continuity of dead trees to provide defensible space so fire crews can slow or stop 

wildfires. Management actions are used to provide a more even flow of goods and services from the 

forest. The cost of treatment can be high and the economic value of insect or fire-killed trees is short, 

often less than a year. Treatment must occur shortly after the disturbance event to recover value. 

FIRE and FUELS 

Introduction 

The project area is largely characterized by closed canopy ponderosa pine (long needle) that is 

characterized by Habitat Structural Stages 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C. These stands are very conducive to 

crown fire initiation and spread under the right weather and fuel conditions. Due to the amount of 

private property, homes, businesses and critical infrastructure major concerns exist with respect to 

the wildland urban interface (WUI) and at risk communities, specifically relating to public safety. 

As development of private property increases over time, the potential for WUI issues may increase. 

Affected Environment 

The present condition of vegetation is characterized by moderately to well stocked stands of 

ponderosa pine and a general reduction in open grassy meadows, riparian area and hardwood 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 130 

species. These moderately to well stocked stands of ponderosa pine are highly susceptible to 

continued Mountain Pine Beetle activity. 

Vegetation 

When compared to historic conditions, much more of the landscape is now forested and we are 

losing our open meadows and hardwood stringers which serve as natural fuel breaks. (Phase II 

Amendment FEIS). As a result of this increased fuel loading, more of the Black Hills is 

available for, and potentially affected by, large, intense forest fires. The ponderosa pine cover 

type dominates the landscape and as a result of fire exclusion and past management activities, 

ponderosa pine has encroached on the non-forested communities, contributing to the reduction in 

size of the hardwood cover type, creating dense, closed canopy ponderosa pine stands. Surface 

fuels include duff, small woody debris, dead down logs and long needle litter. Isolated areas of 

storm damage, and slash from past management activities exist within the project area. 

In light of the recent and projected mountain pine beetle activity within and adjacent to the project 

area, changes in fuel profiles are expected. Mountain pine beetle damage would continue to alter 

several stand characteristics including canopy fuels, down woody fuels, duff, ladder fuels, 

herbaceous fuels, and microclimate, in turn altering the fire hazard and potential fire behavior. 

Condition Class and Fire Regime 

Historically, fires were more frequent and less severe. Fire suppression activities have trended 

the forest outside historic ranges. Currently, there are three general types of fire regimes in the 

Black Hills. (USDA Forest Service, 2005a) Fire regimes characterize the role fire plays in an 

ecosystem. The Condition Class rating can be used to describe the degree of departure from the 

historic fire regime (Hann et al., 2003). Table 3-23 and 3-24 describes each fire regine followed 

by a typical stand structure for each Conditions Class. 

Table 3-23 Fire Regimes in the Black Hills 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 131 

Table 3-24 Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

Fire Regime Condition Class Description 

FRCC1 

Low Departure from the central 

tendency of the historic fire regime. 

• Fire regimes are within the historical range. 

• Risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. 

• Vegetative attributes are intact and functioning within the 

historical range. 

FRCC2 

Moderate Departure from the central 

tendency of the historic fire regime. 

• Fire regimes are moderately altered from their historical 

range. 

• Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. 

• Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from 

their historical range. 

• Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by 

one or more return intervals, resulting in changes to fire 

size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. 

FRCC3 

High Departure from the central 

tendency of the historic fire regime. 

• Fire regimes are significantly altered from their historical 

range. 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

• Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from 

their historical range. 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies 

by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes 

to fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. 

Central tendency refers to a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics including: species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances. 

The national data characterizes the Black Hills as primarily Condition Class III, high relative risk 

of significantly altering or losing key components of the ponderosa pine forest system. These 

conditions significantly increase the probability of a surface fire transitioning to a crown fire 

with increased burn severity and tree mortality. Evidence of past fires shows the potential for 

large, high intensity surface fires, and, given the right conditions, stand-replacing fires. Recent 

examples include the Jasper, Elk Mountain II, Battle Creek, Grizzly Gulch, West Hell Canyon, 

Rico, Alabaugh, Whoopup, and Coal Canyon Wildland Fires. 

Figure 3-6 Typical Stand Structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 132 

Fire Risk 

Risks are defined as those uses or human activities which have the potential to result in a wildfire 

ignition. Fire history occurrence of both large and point fires were analyzed using the entire 1.2 

million acres of the Black Hills since the proposed project area spans such a large area. The fire 

history data includes fires occurring from 1970 to present. Of the fires identified, 3,781 are known 

lightning-caused, 161 equipment-caused, 574 campfire-caused, 131 smoking-caused, 147 debris 

burning-caused, 68 railroad-caused, 133 arson-caused, 83 children-caused and 246 miscellaneous. 

Both historical fire occurrence data and large fire history (those fires exceeding 100 acres), in and 

around the project area are depicted. In addition, the percent of the project area impacted by large 

fire (greater than 100 acres) is displayed. Table 3-25 and Figures 3-7 and 3-8. 

Table 3-25 Fire history Occurrence and Size of Fires from 1970 to Present. 

Fire Size Class Fire Size (acres) Number of Fires 

A 0 – 1⁄4 3,292 

B 1⁄4 to 9 1,841 

C 10-99 133 

D 100 – 299 18 

E 300-999 14 

F 1000-4999 13 

G 5000 + 13 

U Unknown 0 

Figure 3-7 Point Fire History Within and Adjacent to the Project Area 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 133 

Figure 3-8 Large Fire History (100 Acres or larger) Within and Adjacent to the Project Area. 

Table 3-26 Area of Large Fire (1970-2011) Within the Project Area (Alternative B) 

NUMBER OF 

LARGE FIRES 

LARGE 

FIRE 

ACRES 

PERCENT OF PROJECT 

AREA IMPACTED BY 

PREVIOUS LARGE FIRES 

PERCENT OF PROJECT 

AREA NOT IMPACTED BY 

PREVIOUS LARGE FIRES 

60 311,966 8.6% 91.7% 

Table 3-27 Area of Large Fires (1970-2011) Within the Project Area (Alternative C) 

NUMBER OF 

LARGE FIRES 

LARGE 

FIRE 

ACRES 

PERCENT OF PROJECT 

AREA IMPACTED BY 

PREVIOUS LARGE FIRES 

PERCENT OF PROJECT 

AREA NOT IMPACTED BY 

PREVIOUS LARGE FIRES 

60 311,966 8.4% 91.6% 

The number of fires on the entire Black Hills National Forest system lands has remained fairly 

constant at 65-130 starts per year. The number of fires that have escaped initial attack has also 

remained constant. However, these escaped fires have become larger and are more difficult to 

control with an average large fire size increasing from under 1000 acres per fire in the early 1900’s 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 134 

to over 8000 acres in recent years, having burned approximately 250,000 acres since 1980. This

may be due largely, to drought conditions experienced in 2000-2007. Given severe fire weather 

conditions the average size of fires may be expected to increase due to the increased risk to 

firefighting personnel and limited tactical options for engaging fires in standing bug killed timber 

stands as well as for limited tactical options in bug killed stands where standing dead trees have 

fallen to significantly increase surface fuel loading. This increased surface fuel loading results in 

increased resistance to control and makes direct attack with handtools extremely slow and difficult. 

Values at Risk 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act contains two key items relating to community wildfire 

preparedness. They are the definition of the elements of an at-risk community and the 

establishment of the composition of a community wildfire protection plan. All seven counties 

that have Black Hills NFS lands within them currently have approved Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans including: Crook, Weston, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer and Fall River 

counties. 

1. At-Risk Community (ARC) means an area that meets the following conditions: 

• The definition of a wildland urban interface community 

• Includes an environment that is conductive of a large-scale wildland fire 

• Involves a significant threat to human life or property 

2. Community Wildfire Protection Plan is a collaborative plan for at-risk communities that: 

• Meets specific standards developed by Wildland Fire Leadership Council and agreed 

to by applicable federal, state and local government agencies affected by its 

composition, 

• Identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction; recommends the types 

and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land; and includes actions that 

will protect 1 or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructure, and 

• Includes recommendations to reduce structural ignitability of public and private

property throughout the at-risk community. 

Values are defined in the forest plan EIS (Appendix E-80) as any or all natural resource 

improvements, or other values that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs. There are 56 at-risk 

communities located within the Pine Beetle Response project. To further assess the level of 

wildfire risk for each community, buffer zones were created at distances of one half, one, two, 

and three miles around each community and supported through Community Wildfire Protections 

Plans (Figure 3-9). Based on Mead County Data from 2004 and 2011 data for Crook, Weston, 

Lawrence, Pennington, Custer and Fall River Counties there are approximately 27,301 structures 

within 3 miles of the project area under alternative C and 27,267 structures within 3 miles of the 

project area under alternative B. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 135 

Figure 3-9 Structures within 3 Miles of Project Area 

Additional values at risk include commercial timber stands, public water supplies, power lines, 

communication sites (cell towers, radio towers, etc), recreational sites/facilities, range 

improvements, (fences and spring developments) investments in timber stand improvement and 

reforestation, wildlife habitat, including snags, forage, riparian areas, security cover, and mid to 

late seral ponderosa pine stands, sensitive species, as well as water, air and visual quality 

Fire Hazard 

Fire hazard is defined as a fuel complex that determines the ease of ignition and the resistance to 

control. Hazard is an expression of what kind of fire may potentially occur and how it affects 

human values. The fire hazard rating increases as the amount and continuity of surface and 

canopy fuels increases. As the amount of fuel on a given landscape increases and fuel profiles 

become more horizontally and vertically continuous, the intensity of a wildfire in that landscape 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 136 

is expected to increase. Areas with high fire hazard rating have the potential to exhibit more 

extreme fire behavior with more severe effects than those with a low hazard rating. 

A detailed examination of the Hazard rating is best accomplished by reviewing known data 

regarding the arrangement of the vegetation, or structural stage. The structural stage gives an 

indication of the current fire hazard and is a stand level rating of crown fire susceptibility. Phase 

II quantifies fire hazard in relationship to structural stage. Because the proposed treatment areas 

are in Habitat Structural Stages 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C, the entire projected are has a fire hazard 

rating of High or Very High based again, on existing structural stages. 

Continuous aerial fuels, combined with steep and broken terrain, create the environment for a 

potentially fast moving stand replacing fire. Direct experience has shown that continuous stands 

of ponderosa pine can easily support sustained runs of crown fire, either day or night, given the 

correct weather conditions. High fire severity is a real danger to the existing forest resources but 

the real danger is to life safety. Rapidly moving fire can easily cut off escape routes for the 

public and emergency services. 

Few studies have been done on MPB, ponderosa pine, tree mortality, and fire. Consequently, we 

do not have a firm research basis on which to draw conclusions, anecdotal evidence and field 

experience is currently the best way to draw conclusions. Insect Hazard closely correlates with 

Fire Hazard Ratings and structural stages previously mentioned. One year post infestation, a 

ponderosa pine’s needles will begin to fade and ultimately turn rust red by season’s end, 

(Hopkins 1905). A fading (dying) or “red top” (dead) ponderosa pine might more easily support

the transition from a surface fire to the crowns due to the lack of foliar moisture present within 

the needles (given the correct weather conditions). The potential for crown fire may increase for 

this relatively short time while the needles are still attached to the tree. Needles fall from the 

dead tree in as little as six months or as long as two years depending on weather factors. The fire 

hazard, as defined by structural stage, would reduce dramatically due to the lack of crowns. 

With less vegetative cover, sites would become dryer due to increased solar insolation and 

surface winds. Grasses and forbes would soon begin to be the dominant vegetation. These fine 

fuels could become the carrier of fire depending on weather conditions, potentially increasing 

rates of spread. Within five years, 70-95% of the dead trees would fall to the ground (Schmid et 

al. 2009). The fuel profile has now changed dramatically. The potential for crown fire would 

disappear in areas severely affected by the MPB. However, fuel continuity would remain albeit 

different. Surface fuel loadings would go from a typical fuel model 9 (needle cast) at 

approximately four tons per acre to fuel model 10 (heavy surface fuels) at approximately 15 tons 

per acre (Anderson 1982) with grasses mixed in. A fire passing through this fuel model would 

be resistant to control due to higher fireline intensities, flame lengths exceeding four feet (flame 

lengths greater than four feet require mechanized equipment) and spotting from fire brands. 

Resulting damage to residual trees, regeneration, and soils would most likely be severe. Direct 

experience with prescribed fire in fuel model 10 has shown that even under moderate conditions, 

care must be taken to prevent tree torching (fire transitioning from the surface to the crowns of 

individual or small groups of trees) and crown scorch (crowns being damaged from convective 

heat release), both of which can result in mortality of young and mature trees. With increased 

sunlight and less competition, natural pine regeneration will again to take hold and changing the 

fuel model once again. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 137 

Air Quality 

Air quality within the Black Hills National Forest is addressed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. Overall, air quality within the Black Hills National 

Forest is very good. Air quality is better than national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for all pollutants. 

There are two recognized Class 1 airsheds in the Black Hills area, Wind Cave and Badlands 

National Parks. Wind Cave is located adjacent to the Black Hills National Forest to the 

southeast, and Badlands is located approximately 75 miles east of the Forest. 

A solid working relationship exists between the Black Hills National Forest and the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. There have been few if any problems 

identified and communicated to the Black Hills National Forest regarding negative impacts to air 

quality relating to prescribed fire activity on the Black Hills National Forest in the last 10 years. 

The only case of known impacts was a short term event that lasted less than two hours. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), in compliance with the Clean Air Act. EPA established primary standards 

to protect public health; and secondary standards to protect public welfare. 

EPA established NAAQS primary and secondary standards for six principal pollutants. Of these 

“criteria” pollutants, one, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) is a primary 

component of smoke emissions from wildland fires including prescribed fires. The primary standard 

for PM2.5 is 15.0 micrograms/cubic meter of air (μg/m3). This means that the 3-year average of the 

weighted annual mean concentration measured at established monitoring stations must not exceed 

this level. EPA established the secondary standard as equal to the primary standard. 

Data from four monitoring stations in the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills are reported 

for PM2.5 on EPA’s Airtrends website (http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/). One of these sites meets 

minimum trends completeness criteria. This site is located in Jackson County, near Badlands 

National Monument, some 90 miles east of the town of Custer. The other three sites record data 

but do not meet the minimum trends completeness criteria. 

Between 2000 and 2009, monitoring stations in Custer, Jackson and Meade Counties in South 

Dakota showed PM2.5 concentrations at or slightly above 5 μg/m3, based on seasonally-weighted 

annual averages. Measurements in 2001 and 2003 at the Rapid City monitoring station showed 

levels of about 8 μg/m3. No other measurements were recorded for that site, and no 

measurements after 2009 were recorded for any of the four sites. These measurements are well 

below the national average for PM2.5 concentrations, and are also well below the primary and 

secondary standards for this criteria pollutant. 

Air pollution in the form of PM10, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns diameter, was at 

one time an issue in the Rapid City area. The 1996 Forest Plan EIS notes that the Rapid City 

area had been classified as an area not attaining the NAAQS for PM10 particulates. In September 

2005, the State of South Dakota, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, petitioned 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that the Rapid City area be re-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 138 

designated from unclassifiable to attainment status for the PM10 standard. EPA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 9, 2005, soliciting public comment on the 

proposal (70FR73183). On March 6, 2006, the EPA published a final rule approving the request 

from the State of South Dakota (71FR11162). The approval was based on the State’s 

demonstration that the Rapid City area was in attainment of the PM10 national standard, and 

commitment to continuation of fugitive dust controls. The Rapid City area was officially redesignated from unclassified to attainment status for PM10 effective April 5, 2006. 

The project area is in the vicinity of two Class 1 airsheds; Badlands National Park and Wind 

Cave National Park and several communities at risk (Figure 6). The project area is designated as 

a Class II area allowing higher concentrations of pollutants than the Class I Airsheds. Smoke 

generated by wildfire is usually greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated 

under controlled conditions can be mitigated using the following means: 

• Limit treatment area size 

• Specify wind directions and speed 

• Specify minimum mixing heights 

• Stagger ignitions 

These design criteria techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke management 

minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health. 

Recommendations for Treatment 

The following recommendations are designed to change the fire behavior for wildfire that might 

occur within the Pine Beetle Response project area. By changing fire behavior we hope to 

decrease the risk to life, property and natural resources in the At-Risk Communities defined in 

Phase II and the WUI areas within and adjacent to the project area. These recommendations are 

designed to reduce fuel loading with treatments including both mechanical methods and 

prescribed fire treatments that are focused on pile burning that will have a beneficial impact to 

mitigating fuels loading and subsequent fire behavior providing for increased access and egress 

issues for the public and emergency responders. 

Commercial timber harvest would remove overstory trees to approximately 60 basal area. The 

cut trees would be whole tree yarded to a landing for limbing, processing and hauling. Limbs 

and unmerchantable portions of logs should be piled at landings and removed as fuelwood, 

chipped or burned in place. In areas where commercial thinning is deferred, understory fuels 

adjacent to private property should be treated by mechanical means. 

Prescribed fire applied as a broadcast burn to include areas outside of pile burning was 

considered but dropped from consideration as a recommended treatment due to the highly 

fractured nature of stands that make up the project area. The project area stands are based on 

current structural stages and do not lend themselves to safe and effective prescribed burn unit 

layout. In many cases, the stand boundaries are mid-slope which presents prescribed fire 

practitioners with unacceptable risk in both firing and holding operations. 

Desired Conditions 

The desired condition in the Pine Beetle Response project emphasizes reducing fire hazard by 

focusing on reducing fuels that could lead to crown fire in stands not yet heavily impacted by 

mountain pine beetle activity. Crown fire hazard is not separate from fire hazard, but is a key 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 139 

component of fire hazard, especially in WUI areas. In addition, the correlation between beetle 

hazard and crown fire hazard in strong, stands that have a high crown fire hazard in most cases 

also are at high risk from MPB activity. The project design would use a combination of treatments 

to reduce hazardous fuels thus reducing current fire hazard ratings consistent with Land and 

Resource Management Report (LRMP) Objective 10-01 (to manage for 50%-75% moderate to low 

fire hazard within the wildland urban interface. Fuels are to be treated around all non-National 

Forest lands to meet standards set by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1144: 

Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire. This is consistent with Goal 10, LRMP, Phase II. 

Treatments would be designed to protect hazards identified above. Treatments would be designed 

to break up the continuity of both surface fuel loading and vertical structure thus creating a mosaic 

pattern. This pattern will be especially critical in reducing the threat of a large scale stand 

replacement fire. Residual crown spacing should provide open space between trees thus reducing 

the likelihood of a crown fire’s ability to sustain itself. Treatments resulting in denser tree spacing 

should be isolated by stands of thinner trees to limit crown fire potential. Treatments should also 

be placed adjacent to natural barriers such as meadows and non-coniferous stands to maximize the 

effectiveness of barriers and allow for increased tactical fire management opportunities. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A - No Action 

The no action alternative assumes that no change in management would occur within the project 

area. Management actions currently being practiced, including fire suppression would continue 

to be practiced. The only other changes that would occur on the landscape would be those that 

occur as a result of natural occurrences including Mountain Pine Beetle activity and wildland fire 

or those resulting from other project decisions. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The current mountain pine beetle outbreak is expected to run its course with much of the area

possibly being heavily impacted by 2019. Changes to the fire hazard within the project area are 

expected resulting in substantial areas of dead trees. Based on personal observation, trees that 

die as a result of MPB infestation begin falling within 1 to 3 years. (USDA, Forest Service, 

2009). In addition, within 3-5 years following beetle caused mortality 70%-90% of a stand are 

expected to be on the ground (Schmidt et al. 2009) 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 140 

Figure 3-10 Alternative A Fire Hazard Rating 

*High or Very High is dependent on diameter of trees in the stand. 

Under the No Action alternative, limited vegetative management would take place. Change 

towards desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan would not occur. Objectives presented 

by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, National Fire Plan, and the affected County Wildfire 

Protection Plans would not be met. 

Fire risk would also increase with more people and resulting infrastructure moving in the WUI. As 

fire hazard and risk increase, the potential for a large stand replacing fire event would become more 

likely. Continuous stands of ponderosa pine would become denser and opportunity for human 

caused wildfires would increase. Damage to forest resources would correspond with fire size, 

intensity, and severity. Values-at-Risk in the WUI would also be threatened to a higher degree. The 

threat to life safety of the public and emergency services would also become more of an issue. The 

ability to safely engage a fire during high fire danger would become more difficult as time passes. 

The continuing MPB epidemic would expand in the project area. Crown fire potential could 

increase in the short term with dry red needles versus green. A more likely scenario would be large 

areas of living trees transitioning to areas of substantial down woody debris over a three to five year 

period. Though the fuel profile and composition would change, the condition class of FRCC3 

would not. This material would add to an already existing available fuel bed. Fire in this type of 

fuel model can result in severe fire effects as well as being highly resistant to control due increased 

receptive fuel beds increasing spotting potential. Residual trees, regeneration, and soils would be 

greatly impacted. Regenerating ponderosa pine would most likely be prolific. Areas with thick 

growth of pine regeneration would undergo yet another fuel type change. The areas of down 

woody debris, Fuel Model 10, could transition to areas that would burn more a like a shrub fuel

model. When ponderosa pine regenerates itself in the Black Hills, it often grows like “dog hair” 

(overstocked with saplings) and can burn like a shrub. Fire intensity and rate of spread in this 

model are potentially very high and resistant to control. The ultimate result in many areas would 

most likely be of even-aged, dense stands of ponderosa pine creating the environment prime for 

large severe fires and MPB outbreaks. When untreated stands are impacted by MPB and deteriorate 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 141 

to where surface fuel loading may be in excess of 40-50 tons per acre, coupled with future prolific 

regeneration increased fire potential may exist well into the future. 

Although air quality would not be directly impacted under the no action alternative, there would not 

be any control over the timing or amount of emissions released into adjacent airsheds in the event of a 

wildfire. A large wildfire has the potential to make a much greater impact on adjacent communities 

and Type 1 airsheds, possibly exceeding National Air Quality Standards. The EPA addresses smoke 

from wildland fire under their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/ 

memoranda/nepol.pdf (Phase II Amendment USDA Forest Service, 2005g). 

Alternative B

Alternative B is designed to reduce the threat from recently detected infestations of MPB in high risk 

stands. Infested trees would be treated before the beetles disperse to other trees (stands). Some 

surrounding (non-infested) trees at risk of infestation may also be thinned to reduce stand densities 

and the associated threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing 

(mountain pine beetle) epidemic and reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire. 

Alternative B proposes approximately 41,140 acres of commercial and approximately 7,260 acres of 

non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to remove MPB infested 

trees and associated trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. Follow up treatments 

in the form of pile burning of non-merchantable material would be implemented in order to further 

reduce available biomass that could contribute to future wildland fires both crown fire and surface fire. 

Commercial treatments are expected to result in an approximate 50-60 basal area (BA). These 

treatments are expected to reduce stand susceptibility to mountain pine beetles, as well as reducing 

the threat of crown fire initiation and spread. Non-Commercial thinning is also expected to result in 

reduced fire potential. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments proposed under Alternative B are expected to result in a reduced MPB generated 

fuels and fire risk by reducing canopy cover. Resultant fire behavior post treatment is expected to 

be a fire behavior of low to mixed severity surface fire with isolated pockets of group torching, 

specifically in areas that have been whole tree harvested. The post treatment expected fire 

behavior is expected to provide less risk to the firefighter, public and developments. In addition a 

change in FRCC can be expected to move from a FRCC 3 to a FRCC 2. 

Table 3-28 Existing and Alternative B Post Treatment Structural Stage and Fire Hazard Rating 

Existing Structural Stage 

and Fire Hazard Rating 

Post Treatment Structural 

Stage and Fire Hazard Rating 

Approximate Percentage of Project 

Area

29,800 3B (High) 25,444 3B (High) 10.0% 

4,356 3A (Moderate) 1.7% 

16,332 3C (Very High) 13,428 3C (Very High) 5.4% 

2,904 3A (Moderate) 1.2% 

136,000 4B (High or Very High) 

2,880 2 (Moderate) 1.2% 

25,919 4A (Moderate) 10.5% 

107,201 4B (High or Very High) 43.2% 

66,300 4C (Very High) 

1,234 2 (Moderate) .5% 

11,107 4A (Moderate) 4.5% 

53,959 4C (Very High) 21.8% 

TOTAL: 248,000 Acres 248,000 Acres 100%

*Assumed that post-treatment SS 4A will have trees greater than 9” DBH resulting in a Moderate Fire Hazard Rating. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 142 

Figure 3-11 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating 

*High or Very High is dependent on diameter of trees in the stand. 

During pile burning activities, the main pollutants that would be emitted include: PM2.5, 

PM10, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. PM10 emissions may also be present 

resulting from logging operations, log hauling and road construction/reconstruction or rehabilitation. 

During pile burning activities, the main pollutants that would be emitted include: PM2.5, activities. 

Smoke generated from pile burning may affect visibility and air quality, and may be noticed by 

nearby residents, recreational users, and adjacent communities and perhaps in sensitive areas 

such as the Class 1 airsheds in Wind Cave or Badlands National Parks depending on transport

wind direction and mixing heights. Of the six criteria air pollutants identified by the EPA, 

particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) is the pollutant of greatest 

concern from pile burning activities. Most of the mass of wildfire smoke (80-90%) falls into the 

PM2.5 classification. A 1997 amendment to the Clean Air Act established a national goal of

prevention of any future and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class 1 federal areas where impairments result from human caused pollution. 

Pile burning operations would result in short-term emissions to the atmosphere. Dust may also be 

generated through timber harvest activities including log hauling and road construction or 

reconstruction, adding fine particulate emissions locally. Due to the generally intensity of pile 

burning activities, fuel consumption is expected to be lower and overall emissions would be 

lower than those expected from a high intensity wildfire because significant biomass will be 

utilized as part of commercial harvest activities. 

Any pile burning is subject to prescriptive elements as defined in an approved Prescribed Fire 

Plan. These prescriptive elements may include mixing height, transport windspeed and direction 

as well as the adjective smoke dispersal forecast. Monitoring of potential smoke impacts occurs 

at different levels during pile burning activities and may include on-site air monitoring stations, 

ocular estimation of visual smoke impacts or referencing of air monitoring sites at Wind Cave or 

Badlands National Parks or the monitoring site in Rapid City, SD. Secondly, the prescribed burn 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 143 

planning process itself incorporates the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Guide (July 2008) and undergoes technical review prior to Line 

Officer review and approval. Potential short-term effects will be minimized by project design 

criteria and by following applicable smoke permit conditions identified in the appropriate State 

Implementation plans. Public notification procedures prior to initiating a prescribed fire project 

will be specified in the approved burn plan. 

This alternative would meet the Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of 

vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high intensity fire, insect, and disease 

events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period. 

The alternative is a more proactive response to the purpose and need for action. Specifically, it 

responds to concerns about not treating more ‘high risk’ stands on a landscape basis, treating in 

advance of MPB, and addresses concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress). 

Alternative C includes all aspects of Alternative B (Proposed Action). Integrated Pest 

Management techniques would occur on portions of approximately 248,000 acres to reduce the 

spread of MPB across NFS lands to manage and protect ecosystem components. 

Alternative C proposes approximately 105,400 acres of commercial and approximately 18,600 

acres of non-commercial (POL) thinning over an approximate five to seven year period to 

remove MPB infested trees to lower mountain pine beetle risk and wildfire hazard. 

Commercial treatments are expected to result in an approximate 50-60 basal area (BA). These 

treatments are expected to reduce stand susceptibility to mountain pine beetles, as well as 

reducing the threat crown fire and MPB generated surface fuels. Non-Commercial thinning is 

also expected to result in reduced fire intensities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments proposed under Alternative C are expected to result in a reduced risk of crown fire in 

treated stands by reducing canopy cover and future surface fuel loading resulting from MPB 

mortality. Resultant fire behavior post treatment are expected to result in fire behavior of low to 

mixed severity surface fire with isolated pockets of group torching, specifically in areas that have 

been whole tree harvested. The post treatment expected fire behavior would provide less risk to 

the firefighter, public and developments by removing available fuels that contribute to resistance 

to control. With an emphasis on treatments near road that may facilitate improved access/egress 

in the event of a catastrophic wildfire occurrence, risk to the public may be less than in 

Alternative B and the no action alternative. In addition a change in FRCC would move from a 

FRCC 3 to a FRCC 2. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 144 

Table 3-29 Existing and Alternative C Post Treatment Structural Stage and Fire Hazard Rating 

Existing Structural Stage 

and Fire Hazard Rating 

Post Treatment Structural 

Stage 

And Fire Hazard Rating 

Approximate Percentage of 

Project Area 

29,800 3B (High) 18,640 3B (High) 7.5% 

11,160 3A (Moderate) 4.5% 

16,100 3C (Very High) 8,892 3C (Very High) 3.6% 

7,440 3A (Moderate) 3.0% 

136,000 4B (High or Very High) 

7,378 2 (Moderate) 2.9% 

66,202 4A (Moderate) 26.7% 

62,420 4B (High or Very High) 25.2% 

66,100 4C (Very High) 

3,162 2 (Moderate) 1.2% 

28,338 4A (Moderate) 11.4% 

34,600 4C (Very High) 14.0% 

TOTAL: 248,000 Acres 248,000 Acres 100%

*Assume that post-treatment SS 4A will have trees greater than 9” DBH resulting in a Moderate 

Fire Hazard Rating. 

Figure 3-12 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating 

*High or Very High is dependent on diameter of trees in the stand. 

During pile burning activities, the main pollutants that would be emitted include: PM2.5, 

PM10, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. PM10 emissions may also be present 

resulting from logging operations, log hauling and road construction/reconstruction or 

rehabilitation. During pile burning activities, the main pollutants that would be emitted include: 

PM2.5, activities. 

Smoke generated from pile burning may affect visibility and air quality, and may be noticed by 

nearby residents, recreational users, adjacent communities and perhaps in sensitive areas such as 

the Class 1 airsheds in Wind Cave or Badlands National Parks depending on transport wind 

direction and mixing heights. Of the six criteria air pollutants identified by the EPA, particulate 

matter with diameters less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) is the pollutant of greatest concern from pile 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 145 

burning activities. Most of the mass of wildfire smoke (80-90%) falls into the PM2.5

classification. A 1997 amendment to the Clean Air Act established a national goal of prevention 

of any future and remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class 1 

federal areas where impairments result from human caused pollution. 

Pile burning operations would result in short-term emissions to the atmosphere. Dust may also be 

generated through timber harvest activities including log hauling and road construction or 

reconstruction, adding fine particulate emissions locally. Due to the generally intensity of pile 

burning activities, fuel consumption is expected to be lower and overall emissions would be 

lower than those expected from a high intensity wildfire because significant biomass will be 

utilized as part of commercial harvest activities. 

Any pile burning is subject to prescriptive elements as defined in an approved Prescribed Fire 

Plan. These prescriptive elements may include mixing height, transport windspeed and direction 

as well as the adjective smoke dispersal forecast. Monitoring of potential smoke impacts occurs 

at different levels during pile burning activities and may include on-site air monitoring stations, 

ocular estimation of visual smoke impacts or referencing of air monitoring sites at Wind Cave or 

Badlands National Parks or the monitoring site in Rapid City, SD. Secondly, the prescribed burn 

planning process itself incorporates the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Guide (July 2008) and undergoes technical review prior to Line 

Officer review and approval. Potential short-term effects will be minimized by project design 

criteria and by following applicable smoke permit conditions identified in the appropriate State 

Implementation plans. Public notification procedures prior to initiating a prescribed fire project 

will be specified in the approved burn plan. 

This alternative would meet the Forest Plan Goal 10 by establishing and maintaining a mosaic of 

vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of large-scale, high intensity fire, insect, and disease 

events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities. 

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

In the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project area past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions as well as the MPB and past drought contribute to changes in fuel conditions and 

profiles. Past management activities may have created situations that could have increase and/or 

decreased the risk of large scale high intensity wildland fires. For example, wildfire suppression 

can lead to an accumulation in down and dead fuels, increased stocking levels and an increase in 

ladder fuels which all lead to an increase in fire hazard.. Had fires been allowed to spread across 

the landscape unchecked, instead of aggressive fire suppression over the last 100 years, stands 

would have burned at more frequent interval with expected lower intensities. This however has 

not been possible due to fractured ownership patterns that include interspersed private lands and 

at risk communities. Fuel conditions of today, favor wildfires of increased intensities. 

There are numerous examples of past, present and foreseeable management activities across the 

forest and adjacent to the project area that have helped to reduce the fire hazard. These include 

the Prairie Project, Bugtown Timber Sale and many others. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 146 

Vegetative treatments identified on state and private lands within the cumulative affects area 

may serve to reduce and fire hazard from both crow fire and surface fire. In areas not being 

treated, the potential for sustained crown fire and expected fireline intensities can be reasonably 

expected to increase. These fuel conditions and expected fire behavior may result in forest fire 

suppression to not be met under certain weather conditions. 

Wildland fires occurring outside of the potential treatment areas may also affect the project area 

under the right conditions. There are examples of fires making sustained, high intensity crown fire 

runs, some of these runs are estimated at nearly 12 miles (Jasper 2000). Although rare and 

requiring extreme conditions, a large scale, high intensity fire is more likely if no treatment is 

implemented. A fire starting in the project area under favorable conditions, would not only damage 

or destroy improvements within a given stand, but could have the potential to burn into or affect

one of the 56 At-Risk Communities or private property within a fairly short time frame. A high 

intensity wildfire brings with it numerous risks and effects. Homes in the path of a wildfire are 

perhaps the most immediately recognized value at risk, however, severe wildfires put the 

numerous other important values at risk including: critical infrastructure, fish and wildlife habitat, 

firefighter and public health and safety, soil productivity, clean air, and functional fire-adapted 

ecosystems (Graham et al., 2004). Some of these values are also threatened by the secondary 

effects of wildfire, such as soil erosion, and the spread of exotic species (Graham et al., 2004). 

Action alternatives are expected to have positive long term cumulative effects to both overstory and 

surface fuel loading and potential fire behavior. The proposed treatment combined with monitoring 

and foreseeable future projects would decrease the potential of large-scale, high intensity damage of 

wildfire as well as decrease fuel loading moving the project area to a more desirable condition. The 

proposed treatments would reduce stand density and canopy closure bringing the forest back to a 

more historical type condition. Adjacent area projects would also have an impact. 

The smoke and other emissions that may be generated by activities planned under the selected 

alternative may contribute to local and regional pollutant loading. The cumulative effect of pile 

burning activities or other planned land management activities would be short-lived and once 

smoke and/or dust has dissipated, the impact is over and will have no further overlap in time or 

space with other pollutants that are generated by non-Forest Service activities. As a result, 

planned land management activities (including pile burning) are not expected to have long term 

or significant impacts to National Ambient Air Quality Standards throughout all alternatives and 

should not contribute to significant future impairments of visibility in Class 1 airsheds. 

Approved burn plans for pile burning use design criteria. These design criteria have proven 

effective over the last ten years in maintaining smoke emissions at acceptable levels, as 

demonstrated by State monitoring which has shown only one temporary violation of PM2.5

standards at the monitoring site in Rapid City that may have resulted from prescribed fire activity 

on the Black Hills National Forest. These design criteria have been shown to be effective and the 

same criteria can be expected to be effective under the action alternatives for this project. 

Summary of Effects 

Forest vegetative and fuels conditions in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response project area would 

continue to deviate from their historic range under Alternative A (No Action). With the expanding 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 147 

MPB epidemic, large amounts of dead, dry fuels will be added to an already serious wildfire hazard. 

Currently 100% of the project area is rated at a high or very high wildfire hazard and this hazard will 

continue to increase if no action is taken to modify or treat the fuels. The end result could be high 

intensity wildfire over much of the project area that would remove much of the existing forest cover. 

This could cause significant negative effects to the ecosystem, area infrastructure, public and private 

lands, and threaten the lives of residents and firefighters. 

Treatments planned in Alternatives B and C would help reduce the potential for a severe wildfire by 

moving the forest closer to a Condition Class 1 or 2 - i.e., conditions more closely approaching the 

natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; wildfire 

frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. This would be accomplished by 

thinning the ponderosa pine forest, removing or treating some of the surface fuels by pile burning. 

Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, would have the greatest effect on reducing fire hazards. 

Both alternatives would treat the forest and manage the forest to a lower stand density. Treatments 

would be implemented on a landscape basis and designed so that they would complement existing or 

natural fuelbreak features such as hardwood stands, meadows, private land pastures, and moister 

habitats. 

Fire Hazard is expected to be reduced significantly with Alternatives B and C, but conditions 

change quickly in a Fire Regime I forest, and fire hazard will eventually escalate post-treatment as 

the vegetation grows and the detritus once again accumulates. However, the fire hazard in twenty 

years is expected to be much lower with Alternative C or B than the no action alternative. 

Table 3-30 Fire Hazard Rating Summary 

Fire Hazard Rating Alternative B Alternative C 

Acres % Acres % 

Low 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 48,400 20% 124,000 50% 

High/Very High 199,600 80% 124,000 50% 

Air quality would be affected by both alternative B and C. Smoke generated by pile burning can 

be mitigated using the methods identified in Alternative B and C. Smoke generated by wildfire 

is usually greater and cannot be mitigated. 

All action alternatives would meet the Forest Plan Goal 10 of establishing and maintaining a 

mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce occurrences of catastrophic fire, insect, and disease 

events, and facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting capabilities, and Standard 

4103, utilizing prescribed fire to achieve management objectives. 

It is important to understand that fuel treatments would not prevent wildland fires from

occurring. However, with fuel treatments, the risk of an extreme wildfire event would be greatly 

decreased. Fuel treatments would also need to occur in adjacent planning areas in order for 

treatments to be more effective over a landscape scale. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 148 

RANGE 

Introduction 

The Black Hills is a highly productive area from the standpoint of forage resources with an average of

approximately 466 million pounds of forage produced across the Forest each year. At an average 

proper-use level of 50 percent, up to 233 million pounds of forage is available for harvest each year by 

livestock and wildlife (USDA Forest Service 1996d). Table 3-31 displays the allotment acres and 

improvements within the MPBR project. 

Affected Environment 

Table 3-31 Grazing Allotments and Developments within the MPBR Project Area 

Bearlodge Hell Canyon Mystic Northern Hills Forest 

Allotments 22 40 24 27 113 

Acres Alt B 31,571 90,318 42,482 67,997 232,368 

Acres Alt C 31,571 90,318 42,482 73,499 237,871 

Fence Miles 20 70 46 24 160* 

Water Tank** 14 16 7 8 45 

Storage Tank 5 9 2 2 18 

Pond 12 76 20 1 109 

Spring 11 11 9 9 40 

Well 0 2 0 0 2 

Total Water 

Developments 

214 

Pipeline Miles .13 5.36 0.96 .98 7 

*There is an additional 4 tenth of a mile of fence in Alternative C over B 

** The number of water developments does not change between Alternatives nor does the length of pipelines.

The MPBR Area contains all or portions of 113 different grazing allotments and approximately 

232,368 acres in Alternative B with an additional 5,503 acres included in Alternative C inside 

those allotments (see Appendix A for details). There are also, approximately 160 miles of fence, 

214 water developments and approximately 7 miles of pipelines within the project area (see 

Appendix B for details). See Table 3-31 above for a breakdown by Ranger District for Acres, 

miles of fence and type and number of water development. Acreage derived from Geographic 

Information System (GIS) data is approximate. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A - Direct/Indirect Effects 

Term permitted grazing use would continue as authorized. No new vegetative treatments are 

planned except for those projects derived from previously approved environmental analysis. There 

would be no change in carrying capacity (Animal Unit Months (AUMs)) from Alternative A’s 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 149 

implementation. Range structures would be maintained and improved as necessary to continue cattle 

management at its current scope and intensity, subject to forest-wide standards and guidelines. 

The current transportation system in Alternative A remains unchanged. Open and seasonally 

open motorized road miles remain unchanged. No roads are identified for decommissioning, and 

all routes remain in place. Permittees would continue to be provided administrative access to 

conduct range management activities (USDA Forest Service. 2010a). Past development of the 

transportation system from old timber sales has improved the access of permittees to manage 

their cattle and maintain or construct range improvements such as fences or water developments. 

Meadows and hardwood stands would continue to be subject to conifer encroachment, and their 

individual size and landscape spread reduced in acreage and location. These reductions would 

continue unless some type of mechanical treatment action or wildfire of sufficient magnitude 

occurred. Ponderosa pine trees would continue to be infected and die from the mountain pine 

beetle infestation. Most of these dead trees eventually break up or fall over the next three to five 

years, often at accelerated rates with high winds (USDA Forest Service. 2010b). Historically, 

such tree breakage and wind throw has been shown to impede cattle access to primary and 

secondary rangelands. Fences and other developments could be damaged by falling trees and 

pasture rotations could be altered by damage and/or downfall blocking historic trails. Large areas 

are opened up to sunlight, and a variety of plants would appear including forbs, grasses, shrubs 

and invasive species. Tree downfall can block cattle access and the increased amounts of fine 

fuel growth are not grazed by domestic livestock. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no additional anticipated cumulative effects that would impair or unduly influence shortterm range management of the allotments within the MPBR Project Area other than effects 

discussed above, if Alternative A was selected. The current NEPA documents and the AMPs 

would indicate direction to be followed to improve or sustain desired range conditions and 

capacity. However, there are emerging threats to sustainable cattle grazing. The encroachment of 

woody vegetation on grazeable areas reduces available forage and potentially cuts back carrying 

capacity over time. Also the increased fuel load of pine-killed stands creates the potential for more 

forest fires that are larger, more intense and less predictable (Canada 2007). Any ignition may 

disrupt grazing use for some period of time to allow for resource recovery. Experience with large 

scale wildfires on the Black Hills have demonstrated that remaining black stems of trees that are 

not harvested would decay, fall over, and block access to vegetation by cattle and wildlife. 

Alternative B and C - Direct/Indirect Effects Common to both Action Alternatives 

The following effects throughout this section would be greater for Alternative C than for B 

because of the additional acres of vegetative treatment planned if Alternative C were selected. 

Under both action alternatives, term permitted grazing use would continue as authorized. There 

would likely be no change in permanent carrying capacity (Animal Unit Months (AUMs) as 

currently allocated since vegetative openings from treatments would only temporarily increase 

available forage for livestock. Any changes would be site specific to the allotment and situation 

and would be made in communication with the permittee. We would expect grazing patterns to 

change during this increase in forage (Uresk and Severson, 1988). Range structures would be 

maintained and improved as necessary to continue cattle management at its current scope and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 150 

intensity, subject to forest-wide standards and guidelines. Fences would still need brushing to 

remain open and accessible for repairs and maintenance, but not to the level as in Alternative A 

since commercial and non-commercial treatments are planned with the action alternatives which 

would likely clear fence lines to varying degrees. This means there may be slightly lower levels 

of repairs and maintenance needs with Alternative C when compared to Alternative B. 

Additional fences may be needed as natural barriers to cattle distribution are opened by 

mechanical treatments. Fencing and water developments do exist throughout the Project Area 

that would need protection from commercial and non-commercial treatment activities such as, 

cable operations, harvest machinery, and skidding. The same improvements would need 

protection from other proposed activities such as cut and chunk. 

Under Alternative C and to a lesser degree Alternative B, large areas are opened up to sunlight, 

and a variety of plants generally appear, including forbs, grasses, trees, shrubs and invasive 

species. Aspen suckering when it occurs with the opening of the canopy may need protection for 

a time to establish. Down trees or jackstrawing, (Blue Valley Ranch 2011) can afford this 

protection. But, downed trees from tree breakage and wind throw has historically been shown to 

impede cattle access, movement between pastures, access to primary and secondary rangelands 

and cause roundup of livestock to be more difficult. This would likely be to a lesser degree than 

Alternative A. Cattle are more likely in the action alternatives to access more area and therefore 

reduce more fine fuels focused on the wildland urban interface than in Alternative A. 

Proposed vegetative treatments may allow access to and allow congregation of cattle near private 

land. Private land may be unfenced, fenced but in need of maintenance or reconstruction, thus

increasing permittee control needs and aggravating working relationships with nearby neighbors. 

In contrast, there would be ample adjacent areas with enhanced forage (after thinning and tree 

removal) to draw cattle away from private property. 

Alternative B - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There are 48,400 acres of vegetative commercial and non-commercial treatments planned within 

the 242,000 acre of PTA in this alternative. Alternative B’s treatments would affect and increase 

herbaceous and shrub production over Alternative A since they create canopy openings with less 

needle cast. Vegetation is mechanically removed. These treatments would allow more sunlight 

to reach the ground underneath the remaining ponderosa pine trees, and increase production of

grasses and browse for cattle and wildlife use. The initial quantity of this vegetation usually 

increases distribution of cattle throughout the project area (Uresk and Severson, 1988), into 

primary and secondary rangelands. 

No new roads are planned in this alternative but as many as 5% (15 miles) of the existing 

temporary roads could be converted to system roads. Permittees would continue to be provided 

administrative access to conduct range management activities (USDA Forest Service. 2010a). 

Alternative C - Direct/Indirect Effects 

There are 124,000 acres of vegetative commercial and non-commercial treatments planned 

within the 248,000 acres of PTA in this alternative. Alternative C proposes treating more acres 

by commercial and non-commercial methods than Alternative B. It is anticipated that possibly 

more fence may be needed since less natural barriers to cattle spread would be intact after 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 151 

harvest. These treatments would allow more sunlight to reach the ground underneath the 

remaining ponderosa pine trees, and increase production of grasses and browse for cattle and 

wildlife use. Alternative C’s treatments would have more effect on total herbaceous and shrub 

production than Alternative B since more acres are treated, and when also compared to 

Alternative A. Vegetation is again mechanically removed. These treatments would increase 

production of grasses and browse for cattle and wildlife use. The initial quantity of this 

vegetation has been shown to increase distribution of cattle throughout the project area into 

primary and secondary rangelands (Uresk and Severson, 1988). 

New roads are planned (up to 250 miles) in this alternative and as many as 15% (46 miles) of the 

existing temporary roads could be converted to system roads. The road system is adjusted in this 

alternative to meet existing and anticipated needs. Total forest road miles are increased to access 

additional areas and accomplish cable logging. Permittees would continue to be provided 

administrative access to conduct range management activities (USDA Forest Service. 2010). 

Road prisms (even if closed after harvest but not obliterated ) from Alternative C may allow 

livestock trailing access previously ungrazed area, but terrain generally too steep for cattle and 

use is expected to be minimal. 

Cumulative Effects for both Action Alternatives 

There are no anticipated cumulative effects that would impair or unduly influence short-term 

range management of the allotments within the Project Area if either Action Alternative were 

selected. Increased forage production would promote wider distribution of livestock and may 

improve riparian conditions. Eventually temporary increases in forage production would subside 

as pine regeneration grows and shades out understory vegetation. The NEPA documents and 

AMPs associated with the respective allotments would indicate direction to be followed to 

improve or sustain range condition and capacity. However, there are still threats to cattle grazing 

such as the risk of large-scale wildfire. Any large acreage ignition may disrupt grazing use and 

damage or destroy range improvements. A large scale wildfire can also cause dead trees which 

would decay, fall over, and restrict access to vegetation by cattle and wildlife. 

NOXIOUS and INVASIVE WEEDS 

Introduction

Noxious weeds are typically non-native plants that adversely affect native plant communities by 

aggressively competing for nutrients, water, and sunlight (CWMA. 2002). Without treatment and 

monitoring weeds can quickly get out of hand and be an even larger problem than they currently are. 

As a result, sensitive plants, forage quantity and quality, and soil stability are negatively impacted. 

Background information regarding the status of noxious weeds on the Forest is presented in the 1996 

Final EIS (USDA Forest Service. 1996b) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase 

II Amendment (USDA Forest Service. 2005g). 

Affected Environment 

Ground disturbing activities within or adjacent to areas infested by noxious weeds can encourage 

the establishment and spread of noxious weeds. Canopy opening can also encourage 

establishment of weeds. Many noxious weeds out compete native and other desirable species 

because a) they are early successional species, b) they can be allelopathic, c) they produce 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 152 

abundant seeds, d) they grow rapidly, or e) they have the ability to exploit the soil profile for 

nutrients and water. Many noxious weed species have no natural enemies and are not palatable 

to grazing animals (Sheley and Petroff. 1999. p.7). Left untreated, weeds can continue to spread, 

resulting in establishment of new weed populations in adjacent areas. 

The monitoring report for the Black Hills National Forest prepared for the fiscal year 2009 

suggested that there are about 180,000 acres of National Forest System land infested by various 

noxious weeds (USDA Forest Service. 2010b) within the boundaries of the Black Hills National 

Forest. Within the MPBR project area for Alternative B there are approximately 10,509 acres of 

known noxious weed infestations and Alternative C known infestations are approximately 

10,990 acres (see Table 3-32 for details by species). Acreages derived from Geographic 

Information System (GIS) data are approximate. Many of the areas in the MPBR Project have 

not had soil baring or canopy opening disturbance in many years. The acres around these areas 

that have had disturbance can be more extensive and more heavily infested thus providing a 

ready seed source. Some areas contain multiple noxious weed species. 

Table 3-32 Invasive and Noxious Weeds in the MPBR Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Known Acres in the 

MPBR Project Area Alt B 

Known Acres in the 

MPBR Project Area Alt C 

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 5177 5454 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale 1948 1959 

Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus 1893 1899 

Musk Thistle Carduus nutans 680 682 

Spotted Knapweed Centaurea maculosa 191 191 

Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula 119 119 

Yellow Toadflax Linaria vulgaris 157 159 

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare 133 227 

Henbane Hyoscyamus spp 12 12 

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum 103 189 

Oxeye Daisy 

Chrysantheumum 

leucanthemum 92 95 

Dalmation Toadflax Linaria genistifolia 3 3 

Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 1 1 

 

Total weed acres 10,509 10,990 

Environmental Consequences 

Introduction 

Historically, disturbed areas such as roads, skid trails, landings and burn piles have been the area’s 

most susceptible to infestation. A review of timber sales indicates that we can expect 

approximately 3.0 percent of the total commercially treated acres (USDA Forest Service 1996 

p.III-192) in a timber sale to be infested by noxious weeds. As an example if the entire Alternative 

B’s PTA of 242,000 acres had vegetative treatments we could expect more than 7,260 additional 

acres of weed establishment. For each road, an area including the width of the road and 

approximately five feet on either side of its running surface is capable of supporting noxious weeds 

until re-vegetation occurs (USDA Forest Service 1996b). In Alternative C where road 

construction would take place, new road construction and reconstruction would result in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 153 

approximately 0.12 acres of new weed infestation per mile of road. As an example if 50 miles of 

road were built you would have 6 acres infested because of road work. 

The design criteria and mitigation will allow effective management of noxious weeds throughout 

project implementation. These criteria would meet Forest Plan Objectives 230 and 231 as they 

relate to control and prevention of noxious weeds. The effects analysis assumes that relevant 

weed prevention practices would be implemented though with current monetary trends that may 

be in jeopardy which would allow a much more rapid spread of weeds. 

Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Mature stands of timber are common over the project area; they comprise large contiguous areas 

of forest that are similar structure. This provides the potential for wildfire and beetle infestation, 

both of which can play a role in the spread of noxious weeds. When the canopy cover is opened 

up due to beetle killed trees or wildfire, grass/forb communities may not be able to out compete 

noxious weeds in areas where infestations already exist. An increase in dead and down trees 

resulting from beetle kill could increase the potential for wildfires to spread and burn with 

increased intensity. This could lead to large areas of bare ground on which weeds could become 

established and compete with more desirable species. This hampers the ability of these 

communities to recover from intense fires. As a result, these infestations are likely to increase. 

Under Alternative A, the existing inventory and treatment of noxious weeds would continue. In 

areas where bare soil is exposed, opportunities exist for the establishment of new infestations. 

Roads and trails would continue to be avenues for spread of noxious weeds. Seeds can collect in 

wheel-wells and grills of off-highway vehicles and may be dispersed as machines travel. 

Animals would continue to promote the spread of noxious weeds by providing a means of 

transport. 

Cumulative Effects 

No disturbance creating activities would occur as a result of the MPBR Project under Alternative 

A, so there would be no accumulation of effects with past, present or reasonably foreseeable 

future human actions. 

Alternative B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects Common to both Action Alternatives 

Noxious weed infestations are expected to increase under both these alternatives as well as the no 

action (Alternative A). Where there has been some form of soil disturbance or canopy opening, the 

potential for the establishment of noxious weeds exists. The potential for noxious weed 

establishment is even greater in disturbed areas adjacent to existing weed populations. The existing 

roads create a network of corridors through which seed dispersal can occur. Commercial and noncommercial timber harvest activities which may include cable logging, planned in Alternatives B 

and C through the opening of the canopy and soil disturbance often provide mechanisms for the

introduction, establishment, and spread of noxious weeds. The movement of equipment in and out 

of these areas also facilitates weed establishment. We do not have a good way to predict the 

estimate of weed spread from the additional proposed actions except to say weeds would likely 

increase. The cut, piled and burn with equipment would most likely mimic the weed spread to a

lesser degree due to soil disturbance of commercial/non-commercial harvest activities. The cut and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 154 

chunk, and cut and chip would create opening but would likely have less soil disturbance thus we 

would likely have a smaller percentage of these area infested. 

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B includes approximately 48,400 acres of commercial/non-commercial vegetation 

treatment within 242,000 acre PTA. All acres in the projects could be affected by cut and chunk, 

cut and chip, and cut and burn. Slopes less than 40% could be cut, piled and burned using 

equipment. No new roads are planned in this alternative but as many as 15 miles of the existing 

temporary roads could be converted to system roads. 

The effects of the Proposed Action Alternative B are discussed in “Direct and Indirect Effects 

Common to both Action Alternatives” above. These effects are in addition to those. No new roads 

are proposed so no additional weeds would be expected through this work but the conversion of 

existing temp roads would likely add 2 acres of infestation. With 48,400 acres of commercial/noncommercial vegetation treatment we would expect approximately 1,452 additional acres increase 

in weeds plus the additional increases caused by other proposed treatments. 

Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C includes approximately 124,000 acres of commercial/non-commercial vegetation 

treatment within the 248,000 acre PTA. All acres in the projects could be affected by cut and 

chunk, cut and chip, and cut and burn. Slopes less than 40% could be cut, piled and burned 

using equipment. In addition, this alternative proposes the construction both system and 

temporary, of up to 250 miles of Forest Service roads and as many as 46 miles of the temporary 

roads could be converted to system roads. 

The effects of Alternative C are discussed in “Direct and Indirect Effects Common to both Action 

Alternatives” above. In addition, construction of roads would create disturbance increasing the 

likelihood of increased weeds. Roads also create a network of corridors through which seed 

dispersal can occur. Through the purposed 124,000 acres of commercial/non-commercial 

vegetation treatment, we would expect approximately 3720 acres increase in weeds. The 296 miles 

of additional and converted roads would be expected to increase weed acres by another 36 acres. 

A total of 3,756 acres plus the additional increases caused by other treatments would be expected. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for noxious weeds is the Black Hills National Forest. The 

time period considered for analysis is 20 years total; from 10 years in the past through 10 years 

into the future. 

Previous and foreseeable activities such as timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, road construction 

and maintenance, and disturbed areas around water resources have resulted in a cumulative effect 

of infestation by several noxious weed species. Weeds appear to be scattered across the Forest 

more heavily in the north and central areas than in the southern hills and concentrations are 

known to exist in certain locations, such as disturbed areas. Activities and effects on private land 

appear to be much the same as those on National Forest System lands. The recently signed travel 

management plan for the Black Hills National Forest should reduce the amount of off road travel 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 155 

that occurs away from designated routes. This should reduce the chances of weed infestations 

away from the designated travel routes. 

Noxious weeds have been and would continue to be treated under previous and ongoing projects. 

An increase in infested acres would have negative impacts both ecologically and economically. 

An increase in acres of infestation means a direct increase in cost. Ecologically, noxious weeds 

indirectly affect wildlife and livestock as they displace native vegetation and reduce the ability of 

ecosystems to function properly. This impacts mostly grass/forb communities, specifically 

riparian areas, upland grasslands, and meadows. When these areas become infected with 

noxious weeds, forage for wildlife and livestock is reduced. 

Alternative B or C would be expected to add to known weed infestations. Proposed design criteria 

and weed treatment would reduce the likelihood of introduction of new species and substantial

spread of existing infestations. However, with the level of treatment proposed and probable 

resulting ground disturbance, weeds are likely to appear in new areas. The persistence of these 

new and existing infestations depends in large part on availability of funding for treatment. 

WILDLIFE 

Affected Environment 

The effects of each alternative on Threatened, endangered and sensitive species, Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) and Species of Local Concern are evaluated in this section. The Project Area 

includes a variety of vegetation cover types and structural stages. These cover types and structural 

stages provide a diversity of habitat for wildlife within the Project Area. Refer to the Silviculture 

Section for more information on structural stages and the effects of the alternatives on each. 

Snags and Down Woody Material: Snags are an important habitat component for cavity nesting 

and foraging birds and mammals. The majority of the snags on the Forest are ponderosa pine. 

Forest Plan Objective 211 seeks to provide 3 hard snags greater than 9-inch dbh and 25 feet tall per 

acre, well dispersed across the Forest, 25 percent of which are greater than 14-inch dbh, within a 

management area in conifer-forested portion of the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2006g). 

Forest Plan Standard 2301 provides direction to retain all snags greater than 20-inch dbh unless they 

are a safety hazard. If snag densities within a project area are below Objective 211, retain all snags 

unless they are a safety hazard. If large snags (>14-inch dbh) are not available, retain snags in the 

largest size class available. This standard does not apply to areas salvaged under Objective 11-03. 

All soft snags should be retained unless they are a safety hazard (USDA-Forest Service 2006g). 

Forest Plan Standard 2308 provides direction to retain and average of at least 50 linear feet per 

acre of course woody debris with a minimum diameter of 10 inches during vegetation 

management activities on ponderosa pine forested sites (USDA-Forest Service 2006g). 

Wildfires and insect tree mortality result in more than 3 snags per acre greater than nine inches 

dbh Forest-wide with 23 percent of those being 14 inches dbh or greater (USDA-Forest Service 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 156 

2010b). According to the most recent data, Management Areas 4.1 and 5.6 exceed Objective

211 (USDA-Forest Service 2010). 

Pine beetles and recent fires have created more snags and downed wood in recent years in the 

project area. Areas where mountain pine beetles (MPB) are evident generally have higher snag 

and down woody material counts and snag clumping is common. 

Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat is located along the edges of streams. It is the transitional 

zone between the aquatic habitat and the upland terrestrial habitat. Riparian habitat is important 

to most terrestrial and aquatic species because of its association with water. 

The Forest manages for high quality riparian communities by providing stable stream banks, 

retaining woody vegetation along streams and lakes, and providing large woody material for 

aquatic species (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Guideline 3212). The Forest provides riparian 

habitat diversity through vegetation treatments in conjunction with other habitat improvement 

activities (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Guideline 3211). In the water influence zone next to 

perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, only those actions that maintain or 

improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition are allowed (USDA-Forest 

Service 2006, Standard 1301). Long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow 

patterns in wetlands are maintained to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations 

(USDA-Forest Service 2006, Standard 1302). Log landing, decking areas and mechanical slash 

piling are prohibited within riparian areas unless the integrity of the riparian area can be 

protected (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Standard 1306). Vegetative type conversion should only 

be done in riparian areas to reestablish riparian vegetation for the protection and/or enhancement 

of those ecosystems (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Guideline 1303). 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006) 

lists MIS to be considered during project-level planning. All Forest-wide MIS have habitat or 

populations present within the project area. Some MIS species have other status (such as R2 

sensitive), and additional analyses are provided for them in the Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation (BA/BE). Full analyses and rationale are found in the project record. The MIS 

species carried forward in this document are: 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Beaver (Castor Canadensis) 

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides 

acticus) 

Brown creeper (Certhia Americana) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

Monitoring of MIS is accomplished through coordinated efforts involving US Forest Service 

biologists, research, contracted monitoring surveys and State agencies. More information on 

MIS monitoring can be found in the Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA-Forest 

Service 2009, 2010b). 

White-tailed Deer: White-tailed deer occur throughout most of the United States and southern 

Canada and occupy a wide range of habitats. In the Black Hills, they are associated with forested 

habitat (conifer and hardwood) in close proximity to water (SAIC 2003). White-tailed deer are 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 157 

mostly migratory in the Black Hills, using lower elevations in winter (Stefanich 1995). White-tailed 

deer move to low-elevation winter range from October to January, the timing of which depends on 

snow and forage conditions (Stefanich 1995; Griffin et al. 1999). Wooded draws and pine stands 

with closed canopies provide thermal cover while agricultural areas and recently logged and open 

stands with abundant shrubs are important for forage (DePerno et al. 2002). White-tailed deer in the 

Black Hills require a diversity of habitat types. Juxtaposition between cover and forage is crucial 

year-round. Hardwood stands, which provide abundant forage combined with screening cover, were 

best predictors of white-tailed deer diurnal, summer use (Stefanich 1995). Peak use of dense aspen 

habitats with dense, tall shrub cover indicated importance as fawning habitat in the northern and 

central Black Hills (DePerno et al. 2002). Kennedy (1992) also showed that aspen stands are highly 

selected during fawning season. Summer nocturnal habitat use is significantly different with use of 

open habitat types of meadows, riparian areas, and/or open pine relative to proximity of dense cover 

(Stefanich 1995). Wet meadows, riparian areas, and open stands of ponderosa pine also provide 

quality forage and water. Uresk and Severson (1998) found that open-canopy conditions are

necessary to get understory shrubs. Closed-canopy stands with minimal understory vegetation 

represent cover. 

Road construction and road density can affect deer habitat. High road densities (miles of road/square 

mile area) alter both human and animal behavior, which contribute to animal displacement and stress 

(SAIC 2003). Roads may cause a direct loss in habitat and increased vehicular volume may 

indirectly degrade habitat quality. In the 1990s up to 1,400 deer per year were killed in vehicle 

collisions in the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996). 

Screening cover is defined as: being able to hide 90% of an adult deer or elk from human view 

at a distance of 200 feet or less (of the road). There are many collector and arterial roads in the 

project area where the screening cover requirement (Guideline 3203) applies. The project area 

consists of denser ponderosa pine stands (Structural Stages 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C) that likely 

adequate screening for deer. 

White-tailed deer are present throughout the project area. The Forest-wide habitat trend is stable 

or increasing. Open habitat that provides forage is increasing and screening cover is stable 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). The South Dakota Black Hills white-tailed deer population 

peaked in 2006 at 54,000 and has declined since then to 43,000 in 2009 (Huxell 2010). 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department models estimate that there are about 40,000 white-tailed 

deer in the Black Hills herd unit that includes both private and public lands (Sandrini 2007). The 

population may be beginning to grow based on field personnel observations (Sandrini 2007). 

Beaver: Beavers are semi-aquatic and widely distributed in large rivers and lakes with constant 

water levels, marshes, small lakes, and streams with weak flows adequate for damming (Higgins et 

al. 2000, Boyle and Owens 2007). General habitat requirements of beavers include suitable riparian 

habitat dominated by stands of willow, aspen, or cottonwood (Olson and Hubert 1994). This species

is an herbivore, preferring aspen, willow, cottonwood, and alder (Higgins et al. 2000). Beavers are 

adversely affected by predation, loss of food base due to wildfire or habitat overuse, and drought. 

Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since European settlement, and the total amount of 

aspen has decreased over at least the past 30 years. Both of these indicate a long-term declining 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 158 

habitat trend for beaver. More recent, shorter-term riparian trends are unclear. Small riparian 

protection projects on the Forest have improved riparian conditions in some areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2010b). See also the discussion on riparian habitat earlier in this section. 

Historically, beaver were heavily trapped in the Black Hills. By the late 1880s, populations were 

low and restricted to remote areas (Parrish et al. 1996). Beaver have increased since then and are 

now widely distributed in South Dakota (Higgins et al. 2000). 

Beaver abundance and distribution were monitored from October 22-26, 2007 using the protocol 

developed by Beck and Staley (2005). The average food cache density on the Forest was 0.0252 

caches per kilometer (0.042 cache/mile) or about one cache for every 40 kilometers (24 miles) of 

perennial stream (USDA Forest Service 2009b). Overall, 20 of the 52 watersheds (38%) 

surveyed had beaver food caches present (USDA Forest Service 2009b). 

Subsequently, no comparable trend data is available, but inferences can be made from past to 

present conditions regarding trends in the beaver population and its habitat. The long-term

beaver population trend has increased in the Black Hills since heavy trapping has been 

moderated by hunting regulations. Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since European 

settlement, and the total amount of aspen has decreased over at least the past 30 years. Both of 

these indicate a long-term declining habitat trend for beaver. 

There are 45,805 acres of aspen and 13,556 acres of bur oak on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 

2010). There are small inclusions of hardwoods, such as aspen and bur oak, within the pine 

stands in the project area. Hardwoods are more abundant on the northern portions of the Black 

Hills and become sparse at the southern end of the Black Hills. 

Black-backed Woodpecker: In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpecker distribution and 

abundance is closely associated with recent stand replacing fires (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 

2005, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et al. 2010) and insect 

out-breaks (Bonnot et. al. 2009). They also occur at much lower densities throughout the 

remainder of the Forest (Mohren 2002, Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Hutton et al. 2007, 

Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et al. 2010). 

There are abundant MPB infested stands within the project area (Allen 2011). There are 159,000 

acres of Structural Stage 4C and 118,000 acres of Structural stages 3B/ 3C within the project 

area. The addition of recent wildfires and insect tree mortality results in above 3 snags per acre 

(Forest Plan Objective) well dispersed across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Forest-wide habitat conditions have been favorable for the black-backed woodpecker over the past 

few years due to recent large fires and beetle outbreaks. Habitat is relatively abundant when 

compared to 10-25 years ago. In the past few years, the habitat trend appears to be stable as recently 

burned areas have declined (aged) and insect caused tree mortality continues to rapidly increase. 

Black-backed woodpecker densities peaked after the 2000 Jasper Fire during the second post-fire 

year when one bird/36 acres (or 6.9 birds/km2) were observed (Panjabi 2003). Relative densities in 

burned habitat declined in the Jasper Fire as expected following a fire (Hutton et al. 2007). Forest-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 159 

wide densities of black-backed woodpeckers have spiked upward in 2009 (White et al. 2010), 

possibly due to MPB outbreaks. 

Overall, habitat for this species is being provided, consistent with Objective 238b, Objective 221 

and Objective 11.03. The “aging” of large burned areas, such as the Jasper Fire, into habitat less 

suitable for black-backed woodpeckers is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insectinfested timber stands and the stable acreage of large diameter, older pine trees. Though more time 

is needed for additional stands to develop into structural stage 5 (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Brown Creeper: The brown creeper is found in dense, mature and late successional coniferous 

forests (structural stages 4C and 5) in the summer and deciduous forests during the winter 

(Wiggins 2005). Forest characteristics preferred by creepers include large, unfragmented, 

mature and late successional stands with large trees and snags (Wiggins 2005a). At least 90 

percent of brown-creeper observations have occurred in white spruce and mature and late 

successional pine habitats (structural stages 4C and 5) (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason 

et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et al. 2010). 

They are also found in lower densities in other structural stages of ponderosa pine (Panjabi 2001, 

2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 

2009, White et al. 2010). Snags (at least 10 inches dbh) or live trees with loose bark or old 

woodpecker cavities are required for nesting (Wiggins 2005a). Optimal habitat within the project 

area is spruce and pine (structural stages 4C and 5). 

Data suggests the brown creeper is well distributed throughout the Black Hills. Forest-wide 

habitat is relatively stable or slightly increasing (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). 

Brown creeper populations appear stable on the Forest. Brown creepers have been monitored on 

the Black Hills since 2001 in cooperation with the RMBO (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 

Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et al. 

2010). Brown creepers are well distributed in low abundance throughout the Black Hills. 

This species has been documented across the Forest and in the project area, and suitable habitat 

exists within the project area.. The project area contains 165,000 acres of mature (4C and 5) 

ponderosa pine habitat suitable to support brown creeper. There are 25,749 acres of white spruce 

cover type in the project area (USDA-Forest Service 2010b), and there are small inclusions and 

stringers of spruce within the ponderosa pine stands in the central and northern part of the project 

area. The Forest-wide habitat is stable (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). 

Golden-crowned Kinglet: In the Black Hills, golden-crowned kinglets are found primarily in 

white spruce forests (Panjabi 2003, Giroir et al. 2007, White et al. 2010). Panjabi (2003) also 

found them in small numbers in mature ponderosa pine, aspen, and wet meadows, although these 

areas likely had a spruce component. Golden-crowned kinglets on the Black Hills are likely 

limited by the abundance, distribution and condition of white spruce habitat. 

Golden-crowned kinglet habitat (white spruce) appears relatively stable or slowly increasing on 

the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Relative to ponderosa pine, spruce habitat is naturally 

patchy and of low abundance on the Black Hills. White spruce occurs at high elevations, on 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 160 

north aspects, and in cool canyon bottoms of the Forest. According to the 2009 Monitoring 

Report, spruce habitat is found on 25,749 acres on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010). This 

exceeds Objective 239-LVD of 20,000 acres. The Forest is meeting Objective 238a based on the 

acres of preferred habitat. 

In the short-term, the relative density of golden-crowned kinglets in 2007 was the lowest since 

the MBBH program began in 2001; however, relative densities rebounded considerably in 2009 

in both late successional and white spruce habitats (White et al. 2010). 

Suitable spruce habitat exists in the northern portion of the project area. Patches and stringers of 

spruce occur within the ponderosa pine stands in the project area. 

Grasshopper Sparrow: Grasshopper sparrows are found in a variety of open grassland types 

(Slater 2004). Grasshopper sparrows occur widely in native mixed-grass prairies in the southern 

Black Hills, and locally further north in the central Black Hills (Panjabi 2005). Panjabi (2005) 

found them in the highest density in mixed-grass prairie habitat. They may also occur in other 

types of grasslands (Panjabi 2003). 

There are currently 107,464 acres of grassland cover-type on the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 

2010). Grassland cover-types have varied but remained fairly stable on the Forest since 1995. 

Projects across the Forest have been emphasizing meadow and grassland restoration through 

removal of pine encroachment. Some of this, particularly pine removal on the periphery of 

prairies, is likely contributing to an increased habitat trend for the grasshopper sparrow. 

However, changes in mapping and reporting methods might contribute to at least some of the 

difference (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). 

Grasshopper sparrows have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2002 in cooperation with 

the RMBO (Panjabi 2003, 2005). The monitoring program was designed to statistically detect 

population trends over a longer time period than it has been implemented. However, a less 

rigorous analysis of the data suggests an upward Forest-wide population trend between 2002 and 

2008 (USDA Forest Service 2009d). However, this may not be a trend, but instead a short-term 

phenomenon. According to Panjabi (2003), it is possible that numbers would decrease in future 

years as habitat becomes more suitable again on the Great Plains (USDA Forest Service 2007a). 

Ruffed Grouse: Ruffed grouse are a year-round resident in the Black Hills and their presence 

roughly correlates to the distribution of aspen (Panjabi 2003). On the Forest, this species may 

require a variety of aspen structural stages to thrive, including late succession aspen for 

drumming logs and most other stages for buds and catkins in winter and spring months (Wiggins 

2006). Ruffed grouse nesting habitat is closely associated with hardwoods; particularly aspen 

(McCaffery et al. 1997). 

The long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline given the reduction of aspen acreage 

compared to historic condition. It is likely that there has been an associated population decline in 

ruffed grouse. There has been a slight increase in aspen acres over the past five years. The Forest 

continues to meet Objective 238a by maintaining aspen habitat (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 161 

The project area (Forest) has 45,805 acres typed as aspen (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). Suitable 

habitat also occurs in the project area as small inclusions of aspen within pine dominated stands. 

Song Sparrow: Song sparrows are found throughout much of the Black Hills, but they are more 

common in the northern part of the Forest (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, Beason et al. 2006, 

Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et al. 2010). In the Black 

Hills, song sparrow is found in the highest density in riparian habitat (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 

2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009, White et 

al. 2010). Panjabi also found them in white spruce adjacent to riparian stringers. 

Data suggests a stable Forest-wide population trend since 2001 (USDA Forest Service 2009a). Data 

from the MBBH program show that the song sparrow is well distributed throughout the northern Black 

Hills and Bearlodge Mountains, with a more localized distribution in the central and southern Hills. 

Riparian habitats have decreased in quality since the pre-European settlement era, indicating a longterm declining habitat trend. In the short term, small riparian protection projects have improved 

riparian conditions in some areas and contribute to achievement of Forest Plan Objective 238a (USDA 

Forest Service 2009). The project area contains suitable riparian habitat to support the song sparrow. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: The only threatened, endangered, or proposed species located 

on or adjacent to the Forest is the black-footed ferret (Mustela negripes). This species was identified 

through informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service South Dakota and Wyoming 

Field Offices. Black-footed ferrets have been recently released in Wind Cave National Park in the 

southern Black Hills. There is no designated critical habitat for black-footed ferrets on the Forest. 

The black-footed ferret is a nocturnal, solitary carnivore with the narrowest range of ecological 

tolerance of any North American predatory mammal (USDA-Forest Service 1996b Appendix H). 

In the Black Hills, as elsewhere, the key habitat component for black-footed ferrets is the 

distribution and abundance of prairie dogs (Forrest et al. 1985), its primary food source. Vacated 

prairie dog burrows also provide shelter. 

There are about 400 acres of prairie dog towns in 10 towns on the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 

2010b). Black-footted ferrets have been released as part of an experimental population in Wind 

Cave National Park adjacent to the Forest. 

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species 

Sensitive species (SS) are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for 

which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). 

The most recent Region 2 SS wildlife list (FSM R-2 Supplement 2600-2011-1, effective June 10, 

2011) was reviewed and species that may occur in or near the Black Hills were identified. A 

pre-field wildlife and fish review of the project area for all Region 2 SS was completed using 

Heritage database records, district data, literature reviews, communication with district personnel 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 162 

and the Forest Plan to identify which SS occur within the project area or have potential habitat 

within the project area. All sensitive species on the Forest occur within the project area or have 

potential habitat within the project area and are carried forward in the effects analysis. 

American peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus anatum) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) 

Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus) 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) 

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) 

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes 

pahasapensis) 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Plecotus 

townsendii) 

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) 

American Marten (Martes americana) 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Picoides 

dorsalis) 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

Black Hills redbelly snake (Storeria 

occipitomaculata pahasapae) 

Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia) 

Cooper’s Mountain Snail (Orechelix 

strigosa cooperi)

The black-backed woodpecker and grasshopper sparrow are also designated as MIS and are 

discussed under the MIS section. 

American Peregrine Falcon: In the Black Hills, the peregrine falcon is an uncommon spring 

and rare fall migrant and a rare winter visitor. Potential nest sites may occur in deep rocky 

canyons or other places with tall vertical cliffs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Historical 

records indicate nesting occurred in the Black Hills in the 1960s (ibid.). The peregrine has not 

been documented breeding in the Black Hills since that time despite efforts to reestablish it 

through cross-fostering and hacking during the late 1970s and late 1990s (USDA Forest Service 

1979, Sharps and O’Brien 1985). Evaluation of potential peregrine habitat by the Peregrine Fund 

concluded that most of the Black Hills does not provide adequate nesting sites. The Monitoring 

Birds of the Black Hills program has not detected peregrines anywhere in the Black Hills since it 

began in 2001 (Giroir et al. 2007). 

Open areas that could provide foraging habitat in the Black Hills include grasslands, shrublands, 

and structural stages with open canopies (1, 2, 3A, 4A). Currently, there are nearly 600,000 acres 

that meet these criteria on the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). The main factors that may 

limit occupation of the Black Hills by peregrines are the lack of tall, unbroken cliffs and isolation 

from established breeding populations. Forest Plan Standard 3204 protects known raptor nests. 

There are no known peregrine nests on the Forest. 

Bald Eagle: Bald eagles are present in the Black Hills during winter, usually arriving in early 

November and leaving by March or April. Bald eagles are often associated with water. In the 

Black Hills, this species utilizes winter habitat where carrion is available (along highways and in 

big game winter range) and where there are open lakes and streams. An unsuccessful nesting 

attempt was reported adjacent to the Forest in the Southern Hills in spring 2004. In 2007, an 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 163 

unsuccessful nest attempt occurred at Deerfield Lake on the Forest. This was the first nest 

attempt on the Forest in recent times. The nest was again active in 2008-2011 and appears to 

have successfully fledged young. Most suitable nesting habitat occurs around the major 

reservoirs or along major creeks in the Black Hills. 

In 2006, a night roosting area was discovered at Pactola Reservoir. Approximately 18 – 22 

eagles were observed at the roost on four separate occasions between late December 2005 and 

late January 2006. The roost covers at least 100 acres of mature to late-successional ponderosa 

pine forest on very steep slopes. Large trees and snags are abundant. The site is adjacent to 

Pactola Reservoir, parts of which were not frozen during the time of the discovery. 

The bald eagle population is in an upward trend in South Dakota with successful nesting in 

twenty-two counties (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks [SDGFP], 2012). 

Suitable nesting habitat occurs in structural stage 4B and 4C stands near major lakes and creeks 

in the project area. Suitable roosting habitat occurs throughout the project area, especially in 

structural stages 4b and 4C. 

Forest Plan Standard 3101 prohibits new disturbances not existing at the time of bald eagle nest 

initiation that may detrimentally influence nest success within one mile of bald eagle nests 

during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). The distance may be reduced where 

forest characteristics or topography reduce the line-of-site distance from the nest, based on sitespecific analysis. Standard 3101 protect traditional communal bald eagle winter roost sites. 

Restrict activities that may disturb bald eagles within one mile of communal roosting areas from 

November 1 through April 1. In stands being used by bald eagles on a transitory basis, avoid 

timber harvest activities when in use. Harvest may resume when birds have vacated the stands. 

Northern Goshawk: Typical nest areas for goshawks in the northern Rocky Mountains are 

single storied, mature or late-successional coniferous forest, with high canopy closure, clear 

forest floors, on north-facing moderate slopes (Hayward and Escano 1989, Squires and Ruggiero 

1996, Kennedy 2003). Goshawks tend to select stands that have relatively large trees and 

relatively high canopy closure (Kennedy, 2003). Reynolds et al. (1992) characterized the nest 

area as mature and old stands with canopy closure greater than 50 percent. Ponderosa-pine 

structural stages 4C and 5 (dense mature forest and late-succession), at least 30 acres in size, 

likely best meet these conditions in the Black Hills. Structural stage 4B (mature forest with 40 to 

70 percent canopy closure) may also provide some additional nesting habitat. Goshawks return to 

the same territory year after year. 

Goshawks use a mosaic of structural stages for foraging within their home range (Kennedy 2003). 

Goshawks hunt in diverse habitats from open-sage steppe to dense forests, including riparian areas. 

They are considered generalist predators, feeding mostly on prey that occupies the ground through 

lower canopy zones; often large bodied animals, especially young of the year, such as squirrels, 

rabbits, hares, passerines, woodpeckers, game birds, and corvids. Prey abundance and availability 

are important habitat attributes and potential limiting factors for goshawk populations (Reynolds et 

al. 2006). According to Reynolds et al. (1992), foraging habitat typically includes a diversity of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 164 

forest types and conditions including stands of young, mid-aged, mature, and late-successional 

trees. This roughly equates to structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 on the Black Hills. 

Snags, downed logs, and woody debris are an important component of the post-fledging family 

and foraging habitat. Typically, two snags per acre and three downed logs per acre are desired in 

the ponderosa-pine forest type (Reynolds et al. 1992). Nicholoff (2003) recommends three snags 

per acre for goshawks. The Forest currently exceeds the snag objective in the Forest Plan (3 

snags per acre) (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Reynolds et al. (1992) suggests three large 

downed logs per acre (at least eight feet long) in ponderosa pine habitats. Nicholoff (2003) 

recommends five downed logs per acre at least eight feet long. 

Structural stage objectives for Management Areas 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43 and 5.6 in the Forest Plan 

were designed to provide the balance of condition for goshawk foraging and nesting habitat. 

Forest Plan Standard 3108 requires the identification of nest areas around all historically active 

nests. Each nest area should consist of 180 acres best suited for goshawk nesting within 1⁄2 mile 

of the nest. Vegetation management activities within nest areas are limited to those that maintain 

or enhance the stand’s value for goshawk. Goshawk nest areas were identified by using R2veg 

data, aerial photos, field surveys and Forest Plan requirements. Each territory may consist of 

multiple historically active nests. 

Forest Plan Standard 3111 minimizes additional human-caused noise and disruption beyond that 

occurring at the time of nest initiation (e.g., road traffic, timber harvests, construction activities) 

from April 1 through August 15, within one-half mile of all active goshawk nests up until the 

nest has failed or fledglings have dispersed. 

Northern Harrier: The northern harrier is an uncommon migrant and summer resident in South 

Dakota. Harriers are relatively absent from the Black Hills (Slater and Rock 2005), but the 

species is occasionally observed here. 

Harriers are open-country hawks that are commonly found in prairies, wetlands, marshes, meadows, 

croplands, and shrublands (Slater and Rock 2005). Associated topography is generally flat. Most nest 

sites are in undisturbed wetlands or grasslands dominated by thick vegetation (Slater and Rock 2005). 

Large open areas are limited on the Forest, which probably constitute the most limiting factor for 

harriers on the Forest. Currently, there are approximately 107,400 acres of grasslands on the 

Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2010b), but much of this occurs in linear meadows or isolated 

patches that are likely too small to support birds for a full season or more. The most extensive 

grasslands occur in the southern Black Hills. 

Forest Plan Standard 3204 provides direction to protect known raptor nests. There no known 

harrier nests on the Forest or in the project area. 

Burrowing Owl: The western burrowing owl is a grassland specialist distributed throughout 

western North America, primarily in open areas with short vegetation and bare ground (Klute et al. 

2003). Burrowing owl nesting habitat typically consists of level, open landscapes with sparse 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 165 

grassland vegetation that either has low structure or is heavily grazed, either by cattle or prairie 

dogs (Klute et al. 2003, McDonald et al. 2004). They are dependent on burrowing mammals whose

vacant burrows are used for nesting and roosting; the burrows of prairie dogs, particularly blacktailed prairie dogs, are of central importance (Johnson and Anderson 2002, Klute et al. 2003). 

Habitat for burrowing owls on the Forest is limited; the availability of black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

may be the greatest limiting factor (Johnson and Anderson 2002; see also prairie dog discussion). 

A burrowing owl was observed in 2004 and 7 were observed in 2006 by the Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory during ongoing breeding bird monitoring (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). The 2004 

observation was associated with a prairie dog town on the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Two adults 

and three chicks were observed at two nests in 2007. Burrowing owl nests are protected by Forest 

Plan Standard 3204. 

Flammulated Owl: Flammulated owls are associated primarily with ponderosa pine and Jeffrey 

pine habitats. In the Black Hills, only ponderosa pine is present. Flammulated owls select older 

seral stages for breeding and nesting (Hayward and Verner 1994). Interior and exterior forest 

edge seems to be a desirable if not a necessary component of flammulated owl habitat (Hayward 

and Verner 1994). Clumped tree distributions, multi-layered canopy, and a well-developed 

shrub component contribute to internal forest edge. Low-to-moderate canopy closure prevails in 

most sites used by the owl (Hayward and Verner 1994). The ponderosa pine structural stages 

corresponding most closely to potential flammulated owl nesting and foraging habitat on the 

Forest are 4A, 4B, and 5. 

Flammulated owls appear to prefer denser vegetation for roosting (Hayward and Verner 1994). 

Across the species range, they have been found roosting in mixed conifer stands, thickets, and other 

conditions with high foliage density or multi-layered canopy that were in close proximity to nest 

sites (e.g., <300 feet). In Oregon and Colorado, the species did not select pure stands of ponderosa 

pine for roosting but instead used mixed conifer stands where pine was a component (Hayward and 

Verner 1994). Roosting habits are unknown in the Black Hills, but if range-wide patterns hold true 

here, the species may roost in spruce or in stands where pine and spruce co-occur. 

In their summary of nest site characteristics across three studies in New Mexico and Oregon, 

Hayward and Verner (1994) stated that they occurred in snags that averaged between 19 and 28 

inches dbh. Large snags such as these are rare in the Black Hills. 

There have been two reports of flammulated owls in the Black Hills in the past 10 years that 

could be valid sightings. These could represent periodic use by transient individuals, or the 

beginning of a range expansion. A concerted effort was made to verify flammulated owls at the 

two recent observation areas and other seemingly suitable sites during 2003, but the species were 

not detected (Fauna West Wildlife Consultants 2003-09). 

Forest Plan Standard 3204 protects known raptor nests. There no known flammulted owl nests 

on the Forest or in the project area. 

Lewis’s Woodpecker: The Lewis’s woodpecker is an edge specialist that prefers open mature pine 

forests, mature cottonwood forests, and areas with large burned trees (Tobalske 1997). Burned 

stands are used most often after they have aged several years (Tobalske 1997). A well-developed 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 166 

shrub layer is usually present (Anderson 2003, Abele et al. 2004). In the Black Hills, this 

woodpecker is most often observed in burned pine forests, but it could also be found in mature to 

late-successional ponderosa pine stands that have an open canopy (structural stages 4A and some 5). 

Lewis’s woodpeckers typically excavate nest cavities in soft ponderosa pine or cottonwood 

snags, although they will also re-use cavities made by other woodpecker species. Lewis’s 

woodpeckers nest in large snags; review of several studies across the bird’s range show snag 

sizes vary from 12 to 45 inches dbh (Anderson 2003). Snag (greater than 9 inches diameter)

densities around nests in burned and logged areas in Idaho were 40 snags per acre and around 

nests in unlogged areas were 80 snags per acre (Anderson 2003). 

Recent bird monitoring on the Black Hills has detected an average of 6 birds each year since 2001 

(White and Giroir 2009). Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data suggests that many populations of 

Lewis’s woodpeckers may have declined since the 1960s (Sauer et al. 2011; Tobalske 1997). 

Risks to Lewis’s woodpeckers include activities that reduce open or old growth ponderosa pine 

forests and snags (e.g., fire suppression and clearcutting) (Anderson 2003). Loss of cottonwood 

riparian habitat and human encroachment on breeding and wintering habitat are also negative 

factors (Tobalske 1997), although little cottonwood habitat exists on the Forest. 

The project area includes 307,000 acres of open, mature to old ponderosa pine forest (Structural 

stage 4A and 5). Pockets of open forest could also occur within the denser structural stages in 

the project area. 

Black-backed Woodpecker: The black-backed woodpecker is discussed under the MIS section. 

Grasshopper Sparrow: The grasshopper sparrow is discussed in the MIS section. 

Loggerhead Shrike: The loggerhead shrike is a fairly common summer resident in Wyoming 

and South Dakota, with breeding records occurring over most of both states (Luce et al. 1999). 

The bird is rare or casual (out of normal range) in the Black Hills. Breeding records occur near 

the periphery of the Black Hills but not in the interior or at higher elevations. Wiggins (2005a) 

lists agricultural conversion, degradation or loss of nesting trees and shrubs, and over-grazing as 

potential threats to the species. 

The loggerhead shrike is associated with open habitats that include scattered or clustered shrubs 

or trees. This includes some types of grasslands, shrublands, and savannas. Wiggins (2005a) 

describes nesting habitat as having trees, shrubs or low bushes and elevated perches for hunting 

and courtship activities. Foraging habitat includes areas of open, short vegetation with some bare 

areas and thorny trees or barbed-wire fence for impaling prey (Wiggins 2005a). These habitats 

are limited in the Black Hills but are provided mainly by mixed-grass prairies, mountain 

mahogany shrublands, and grassy or brushy areas with scattered juniper or ponderosa pine. The 

combination of habitat features described above is distributed primarily along the southern flank 

of the Black Hills, especially in the southwestern portion. Most of the interior Black Hills do not 

provide suitable habitat because tree density is too high. 

Long-billed Curlew: Long-billed curlews are native prairie specialists, nesting primarily in 

shortgrass or mixed-grass prairie habitat with flat to rolling topography (Sedgwick 2006). They 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 167 

prefer short vegetation and generally avoid habitats with trees, abundant shrubs, and tall, dense 

grass (Sedgwick 2006). Curlews may use taller, denser grass during brood rearing when shade 

and camouflage from predators are presumably more important for chicks (Sedgwick 2006). 

Long-billed curlews have been observed nesting in suitable habitat on the Black Hills, mostly the 

southern Black Hills, during annual bird monitoring efforts (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). A 

marginally significant decline has been observed in South Dakota (Sedgwick 2006). 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo: In western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming, the species is a rare to 

uncommon breeder (Wiggins 2005c). The yellow-billed cuckoo is considered a riparian obligate 

species (Nicholoff 2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer to nest in open woodlands with a dense 

understory and near water. They typically inhabit wooded river valleys in the Great Plains 

(Wiggins 2005c). 

Breeding habitat in the Black Hills occurs mainly in low-elevation riparian areas. Habitat is very 

limited on the Forest and has most potential to occur where narrowleaf cottonwood or bur oak 

riparian corridors meet the Forest boundary at the edge of the Black Hills. Breeding has been 

documented in the Bear Lodge Mountains and likely occurs elsewhere at lower elevations (Panjabi 

2003). The site was a mature, bur-oak woodland that had a well-defined understory and very largediameter trees (Panjabi 2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos are extremely sensitive to habitat alterations 

(Nicholoff 2003, Wiggins 2005b). Major causes of degradation have included grazing, placer 

mining, cultivation, road development, dam construction, channel realignments, urbanization, and 

loss of riparian habitat (Wiggins 2005c). 

Fringed Myotis: The Black Hills population of the fringed myotis is a disjunct population and 

recognized as belonging to a distinct subspecies, Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis. In the Black 

Hills, this species is known in Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, and Pennington counties of South 

Dakota and Crook and Weston County in Wyoming at an elevation between 3,800 and 6,200 feet 

(Schmidt 2003e). The fringed myotis is a year-round resident of the Black Hills. It can be found 

during the summer but is very difficult to locate during the winter (USDA-Forest Service 2000). 

The fringed myotis occupies a variety of habitats including mid-elevation desert, grass, and 

woodland habitats and is found at higher elevations in spruce-fir and in mixed timber (Schmidt 

2003e). In the Black Hills, it is one of the more commonly captured bats during summer mistnetting studies and tends to occur along ecotones between ponderosa pine and oak/juniper forests 

(Schmidt and Anderson 2003). 

Little is known about hibernacula requirements for this species. The fringed myotis is known to 

hibernate in the “Heavenly Room” of Jewel Cave. Snags, caves, mines, and buildings may be 

used as roosts (Schmidt and Anderson 2003). In the Black Hills, maternity roosts recorded for 

this species include rock crevices and ponderosa pine snags (Cryan et al. 2001, Keinath 2004). 

Riparian areas and water sources are important features of habitat. Open water is important 

because bats obtain water while flying. Riparian habitats are also important for insect production 

and provide foraging opportunities (USDA-Forest Service 2000a). 

The fringed myotis is more closely associated with the forested environment than other bat species 

and may be fairly sensitive to forest management, particularly the availability of snags as roost sites 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 168 

(USDA-Forest Service 2000). The fringed myotis has been documented using ponderosa pine snags 

for roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998). 

Forest Plan direction pertaining to snags and riparian areas were discussed earlier in this section. 

Forest Plan Standard 1401a provides direction to avoid ground disturbance within 100 feet of an 

opening of a natural cave. Where caves or abandoned mines serve as nurseries or hibernacula for 

bats, vegetative changes within 500 feet of the opening are allowed only if needed to maintain bat 

habitat or if topography or other features protect the openings from disturbance (Forest Plan 

Standard 3207). 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat: Townsend’s big-eared bat is a year-round resident in all South 

Dakota Black Hills counties and reported to be the most numerous bat species in Crook County, 

Wyoming (Schmidt 2003e). There are known maternity roosts of these bats in the Black Hill 

(USDA-Forest Service 2000a). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats occupy a variety of habitats but are closely associated with caves and 

mines (Schmidt 2003e, Gruver and Keinath 2006). They also use riparian areas for foraging, 

including wetlands and meadows (Pierson et al. 1999). 

Key habitat components include suitable maternity roost sites and hibernacula. The bats utilize 

both caves and mines for hibernacula (Schmidt 2003e). In the Black Hills, maternity roost sites 

are often in steep drainages with nearly vertical walls. These bats also utilize caves with 

relatively warm domes or large flat ceilings (Schmidt 2003e). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are especially susceptible to human disturbance during the active time 

of year (summer), more so than other bat species (USDA-Forest Service 2000). These bats are 

extremely sensitive to disturbances in the vicinity of their roosts, including loud noises such as 

those produced by motorized off-road vehicles, discharging of firearms, and other such activities 

(Schmidt 2003e). 

Potential habitat exists in and near the project area n the form of caves and mines. Potential habitat 

also exists in snags and riparian areas. 

Forest Plan direction pertaining to snags and riparian areas were discussed earlier in this section. 

Forest Plan Standard 1401a provides direction to avoid ground disturbance within 100 feet of an 

opening of a natural cave. Where caves or abandoned mines serve as nurseries or hibernacula 

for bats, vegetative changes within 500 feet of the opening are allowed only if needed to 

maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features protect the openings from disturbance 

(Forest Plan Standard 3207). 

Hoary Bat: The hoary bat generally roosts in medium to large trees with dense foliage that hides 

them from above, with few branches below, and has ground cover of low reflectivity. They 

prefer open conifer and deciduous habitat mosaics, and uses habitat edges for feeding. (Tigner 

and Stukel 2003). This species feeds chiefly on large moths and to a lesser extent on other 

insects over clearings, along forest edges and near water where prey may be more abundant. 

Risks to this species is loss of suitable habitat during critical periods, reduced foraging habitat, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 169 

chemical spraying that reduces prey, human disturbance, and predation (South Dakota Game, 

Fish and Parks 2004). Rapidly changing habitat conditions associated with MPB and wind 

energy development are considered a substantive and imminent threat to the hoary bat (USDA 

Forest Service 2011). 

In South Dakota, the hoary bat ranges throughout the state and has been documented breeding in 

Lawrence, Pennington, Custer and Fall River counties in the Black Hills (Higgins et al. 2000, 

Tigner and Stukel 2003). 

Potential forest habitat exists throughout the project area. Snag habitat created by mountain pine 

beetle appears to be abundant (USDA Forest Service 2010). Water sources and riparian habitat 

that provide abundant prey species are found in the project area. 

American Marten: The Black Hills supports an isolated population, with the nearest 

neighboring population in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming (Buskirk 2002). According to 

Fecske et al. (2003), the greatest marten concentrations in the Black Hills appear to be in the 

northern part of the Forest southwest of Deadwood (northern subpopulation) and in and around 

the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (Norbeck subpopulation). These two dominant subpopulations 

are likely very important in maintaining species persistence in the Black Hills. 

Martens are primarily associated with mature white spruce in the Black Hills (Fecske 2003). Key 

habitat elements are relatively dense forests with complex physical structure near the ground, 

abundant coarse woody debris, and lengthy fire-return intervals (Buskirk 2002). Martens prefer 

moist coniferous forest types with tree species that have branches on their lower boles. White 

spruce is the tree species on the Forest that provides this condition. There are currently 25,749 

acres of white-spruce stands on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010b), mostly at high elevations, 

on north aspects, and in cool canyon bottoms. There are smaller inclusions of spruce within the 

ponderosa pines stands in the project area. 

Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat. Large logs and other structures 

provide protection from predators, access to the subnivean (i.e., beneath the snow) space where most 

winter prey are captured, and protective thermal conditions, especially during winter (Buskirk and 

Powell 1994). A variety of structures are used for dens, with trees, snags, logs, and rocks accounting 

for 70 percent of reported den structures (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Forest Plan direction on 

down logs is provided earlier in this section. 

American marten typically avoid dry ponderosa pine sites; however, due to the limited distribution 

of spruce in the Black Hills, most marten territories undoubtedly contain some portion of pine 

(Buskirk 2002). Mature and late-successional pine stands also help maintain connectivity between 

spruce stands. Martens are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and will not move through large, open 

canopy or non-forested areas. In areas identified as important connectivity corridors for marten, 

Forest Plan direction is to maintain canopy closure of at least 50 percent (Standard 3215). 

Marten historically occurred within the Black Hills, but were thought to be trapped out by 1930. The 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks reintroduced a total of 125 individuals into the 

Black Hills during the 1980s and 1990s (Buskirk 2002). Fecske et al. (2003) estimated that 124 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 170 

resident martens occur in the Black Hills in high quality habitat, with additional animals occurring at 

lower density within lower quality habitat. Although considerable mortality and reproduction have 

likely occurred here since reestablishment began, it appears the marten population trend was 

relatively stable in the Black Hills through 2003 (USDA-Forest Service 2004). The Forest is 

conserving marten habitat (spruce) but population trends since 2003 are unknown. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep: Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep typically inhabit alpine 

meadows, foothills, cliffs, and rock outcrops (Luce et al. 1999, Beecham et al. 2007). Alpine 

habitat is absent in the Black Hills. Merwin (2000) noted that bighorn sheep often selected areas 

with good visibility (less than 40 percent canopy closure) within suitable distance of water and 

escape terrain. Limits to persistence include limited availability of habitat on the Forest, 

vulnerability of habitat to residential development on adjacent private lands, and disturbance 

from recreation (Benzon and Halseth 1999). 

There are 480,000 acres of ponderosa pine stands that provide good visibility (Structural Stages 

1, 2, 3A, and 4A) within the project area. Sheep could move through some of the denser stands 

within the project area. 

The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep race was introduced to the Black Hills in 1924. The South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks classify it as big game but hunting permits are limited (Huxoll 

2010). The species occurs in small areas of the Black Hills with six sub-herds, occupying 

portions of Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, Custer State Park, Elk Mountain, Spring Creek, and 

Rapid Creek. Monitoring indicates that the bighorn sheep population estimate for the Black 

Hills proper has increased from 2004-2006 and has remained stable through 2009 (350 animals). 

The Forest is conserving habitat for the bighorn sheep consistent with Objective 221 based on 

the trend in bighorn sheep numbers (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog: Black-tailed prairie dogs are associated with shortgrass and mixedgrass prairies but require sites with soils conducive to burrowing. Suitable prairie dog habitat on 

the Black Hills National Forest is limited to nonrocky grassland soils on the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. The Forest manages for 200 to 300 acres of prairie dog towns in at least three separate 

towns (Forest Plan objective 237). There are currently 10 known prairie dog colonies on the 

Forest, covering approximately 400 acres of National Forest System land (USDA Forest Service 

2010b). All the towns are in South Dakota. There are no prairie dog towns on the Wyoming 

portion of the Forest. The three largest towns are about 170, 110 and 40 acres in size. All other 

towns are less than 20 acres. Additional acres occur on adjacent private land. The potential for 

prairie dog expansion on the Forest is limited because prairie dog towns on the Forest quickly 

reach private land or encounter rocky soils that make burrowing difficult. Large areas (greater 

than 1,000 acres) of potentially suitable prairie dog habitat are not present on the Forest. The 

colonies are comparatively small and disjunct from adjacent known colonies. Prairie dog towns 

have remained stable or increased in size on the Forest regardless of recreational shooting and 

disease (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Northern Leopard Frog: Northern leopard frogs are considered common in suitable habitat in 

the Black Hills (Smith 2003) and are found at all elevations, though systematic surveys have not 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 171 

been done in the Black Hills to verify this (Smith 2003). They appear to be more common in the

northern Black Hills (Smith 2003). 

The northern leopard frog occurs in a wide variety of habitats including creeks, lakes, ephemeral 

wetlands, and ponds (Fischer et al. 1999; Smith 2003). Breeding habitat is limited to permanent 

water sources at least 6 inches in depth that do not freeze solid. 

After maturing, sub-adult frogs migrate to suitable feeding sites that are usually adjacent uplands. 

These dispersal movements may be along riparian corridors or upslope areas. Adult frogs are 

highly mobile, moving at night or when vegetation is wet (Smith 2003). They have been found up 

to two miles from water (Smith 2003). 

Limited data suggest that the Forest is conserving habitat for the leopard frog (Forest Plan 

Objective 221) (USDA Forest Service 2010). However, monitoring of index sites and anecdotal 

observations indicate possibly fewer leopard frogs than in the past (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Additional index site monitoring is needed to determine if this is a long-term trend. Suitable habitat 

exists for the northern leopard frog in riparian areas throughout the project area. 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake: Black Hills redbelly snakes are associated with mesic sites such as 

wetlands, riparian areas, and wet meadows (Smith and Stephens 2003). Sites where the snake has 

been observed, range in elevation from 4,700 to 6,400 feet (Smith and Stephens 2003). There is 

some indication that redbelly snakes may feed on snails (and on the genus Oreohelix, 

preferentially), implying that habitat management aimed at snails may also benefit the Black Hills 

redbelly snake (Smith and Stephens 2003). 

The most serious risk to redbelly snakes populations may be the loss of moist habitats (Smith and 

Stephens 2003). Suitable environments for redbelly snakes are thought to be abundant and broadly

distributed across the Black Hills (USDA-Forest Service 2000). The northern Black Hills, being 

generally moister and more fire resistant than the rest of the Forest, likely provides more habitat than 

other districts on the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2000). Stumps and downed woody material are 

important in maintaining moist conditions; as roots of stumps decay, they provide cover (USDAForest Service 2000, Smith and Stephens 2003). Forest wide, projects which enhance riparian and 

aspen habitat will improve habitat for the redbelly snake (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

Suitable habitat exists for the Black Hills redbelly snake throughout the project area. Den sites and 

hibernacula in the Black Hills are located within rock fissures (USDA-Forest Service 2000a). Forest 

Plan Standard 3116 provides direction to avoid creating barriers between redbelly snake

hibernacula and wetlands. There are no known hibernacula in the project area, but this may be due 

to lack of surveys. Undiscovered hibernacula and den sites could occur throughout the project area. 

Regal Fritillary: The Black Hills are at the western margin of the regal fritillary’s range, possibly 

due to increased aridity further west (USDA Forest Service 2000a). The regal fritillary requires open 

prairies (Royer and Marrone 1992) and wet meadows (Selby 2007). In South Dakota, the fritillary is 

most likely to be found in native tall-grass prairies composed of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), 

western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) (Royer and Marrone 

1992). Continuous prairie greater than 1,000 acres may be required for stable populations (Royer and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 172 

Marrone 1992). In smaller habitat patches, individuals would move in and out depending on habitat 

condition and size (Royer and Marrone 1992, USDA Forest Service 2000a). The Black Hills is 

primarily forested, and as such, contains only relatively small patches. The best habitats within the 

Black Hills occur in lower elevation prairies along the outer Forest boundary and in interior prairies, 

although tall-grass species are not predominant in the interior prairies. 

Adult female regal fritillaries lay eggs near violets. During the following spring, the larvae feed 

exclusively on violet leaves. By late June or early July, juveniles transform to adults (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). Adults require a continuous source of nectar-producing flowers such as 

coneflowers, fleabanes, and thistles (Royer and Marrone 1992). 

Habitat needs of regal fritillaries are considered prior to prescribed burning in meadows and 

grasslands (Forest Plan Guideline 3105). 

Cooper’s Mountain Snail: Anderson (2005) lists Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail (Oreohelix 

cooperi) as the only Oreohelix in the Black Hills. Anderson (2005) also notes the taxonomy of this 

species is confusing with the species often classified as Oreohelix strigosa cooperi. Anderson et al. 

(2006) and Weaver et al. (2006) found only one species in the Black Hills, and referred to it as O. 

cooperi. For the purposes of this analysis, we consider the two species to be one and the same as 

suggested by Anderson et al (2006), but refer to it here as O. strigosa cooperi since that is the label 

used on Region 2 SS List. 

The following discussion is based on information specific to the Black Hills (Frest and Johannes 

2002). Cooper’s snail was found on calcareous soils; most localities were lowland wooded areas 

and talus slopes, generally but not always with northern or eastern exposures. Many of the 

colonies, including most of the largest, are found in ponderosa pine with a partially closed 

canopy, a secondary deciduous tree component, and diverse understories. At some sites, white 

spruce was common. Riparian woodland communities, often in areas with adjacent steep rocky 

slope bases, were also found to contain some substantial colonies. 

Litter is an important component for snails as food and cover. In general snails prefer a welldeveloped litter layer, but not thick or matted (Anderson 2005). In contrast to other land snails, 

Cooper’s snail can thrive with little cover and thin litter (Anderson 2005). Oreohelix have been 

observed in a variety of litter types in the Black Hills, including coniferous needles litter, 

deciduous litter and areas of thin litter (Anderson 2005). 

Timber harvest and grazing may affect snails by altering the amount of litter, soil moisture or 

temperature for snail colonies (Anderson 2005). Although fire is a natural disturbance, high 

intensity fire can potentially eliminate snail habitat (Anderson 2005). Forest management, including 

fire suppression, in the last century has led to fuel buildup, which may promote high intensity fires. 

Road construction and maintenance can also affect snails by eliminating habitat or killing snails. 

Roadside brushing or weed spraying can also damage snails or their habitat (Anderson 2005). 

Known colonies of this snail are conserved by (a) retaining overstory sufficient to maintain 

moisture regimes, ground level temperatures and humidity; (b) retaining ground litter, especially 

deciduous litter; (c) avoiding burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 173 

equipment and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and 

ground cover; (d) burning when snails are hibernating, usually below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and 

using fast-moving fires to minimize effects to snails, and (e) controling invasive weeds, but using 

herbicides when snails are not on the surface, and treating individual plants rather than broadcast 

application (Standard 3103). Cooper’s snail has been recorded within the project area and 

suitable habitat exists within the project area. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are plant, fish and wildlife species (including subspecies or 

varieties) that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with 

declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of 

diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as NFS lands within the Black Hills National 

Forest. (FSM 2620.5 Black Hills Supplement 2600-2011-1). All SOLC species on the Forest 

occur in the project area or habitat occurs in the project area. Therefore, all are carried forward 

and analyzed in this document. 

Table 3-33 Habitat Descriptions for SOLC occurring within the Project Area. 

Species of Local Concern Habitat 

Birds 

American Dipper (Cinclus 

mexicanus) 

Swift-flowing montane streams; occur primarily in Spearfish Creek and its 

tributaries and Whitewood Creek in the Black Hills (Anderson 2002). 

Black-and-White Warbler (Mniotilta 

varia) 

Found primarily in bur oak woodlands and associated edges, mainly at lower 

elevations (Hutton et al. 2007). 

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo 

platypterus) 

Primarily found in habitat with prominent deciduous component, but also 

found occasionally in late successional pine stands (Stephens and Anderson 

2003). 

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrubland and burned areas (Stephens 

and Anderson 2002). 

Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius 

acadicus) 

Forest habitat generalist; dense coniferous or mixed forest; prefers conifer 

stands and willow thickets for roosting; hunt along edges or openings in 

forest (Johnson and Anderson 2003). 

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Mature ponderosa pine stands with large trees and snags (Ghalambor 2003). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipter 

striatus) 

A variety of forested areas, but nesting habitat typically restricted to dense 

young conifer stands (Stephens and Anderson 2002). 

Mammals 

Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) Mostly coniferous montane habitats; roosts in snags; no known hibernacula in 

Black Hills (Schmidt 2003a). 

Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans) Primarily in montane coniferous forests; uses caves and mines as hibernacula; 

roosts in abandoned buildings, rock crevices, under bark; in Black Hills occur 

primarily between 4500 and 6500’ (Schmidt 2003b). 

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius campestris) 

Strongly associated with riparian habitats along small streams in meadows 

(Luce et al. 1999). 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos 

americanus) 

Rugged terrain with cliffs, rock faces, ledges and talus slopes. Limited 

primarily to Black Elk Wilderness Area and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

(USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus) 

Optimal conditions are cool, moist, mature forest with abundant standing and 

down snags; typically dominated by conifers or mixed coniferous/deciduous 

forests (Wells-Gosling and Heanery 1984). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 174 

Species of Local Concern Habitat 

Northern Myotis (Myotis 

septentrionalis) 

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest; roosts in caves, 

mines, tunnels, and under bark of snags; elevation ranges between 4000 to 

6500’ in the Black Hills (Schmidt 2003c). 

Small-footed Myotis (Myotis 

ciliolabrum) 

Variable habitats, but usually associated with rocky areas like bluffs, 

dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs and major rock outcrops; Roosts include 

mines, caves, rock features, and under bark (Schmidt 2003d). 

Invertebrates 

Atlantis Fritillary Butterfly (Speyeria 

Atlantis pahasapa) 

Prefer wet meadows and boggy areas near springs and headwaters of small 

streams (Marrone 2002). 

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes 

batesii) 

Open meadows and riparian woodlands (Stefanich 2001). 

Callused Vertigo Snail (Vertigo 

arthuri) 

Moist, relatively undisturbed forest with diverse understories, deep litter, and 

abundant woody material. Calcareous or shist soils. (Frest and Johannes 

2002, Anderson 2004a) 

Frigid Ambersnail (Catinella gelida) Limestone soils, usually in open ponderosa pine forest (sometimes spruce), 

often with a secondary deciduous tree and shrub component (Frest and 

Johannes 2002). 

Mystery Vertigo Snail (Vertigo 

paradoxa) 

On limestone or schist soils, usually in spruce forests (but sometimes pine) 

with relatively closed canopy, abundant litter, and well-developed 

understories (Frest and Johannes 2002, Anderson 2004b). 

Striate Disc Snail (Discus shimekii) Found in litter of rich mesic forests with limestone soils, generally on shaded, 

north-facing slope bases; often bordering or ranging slightly onto stream 

flood plains (Frest and Johannes 2002). 

Migratory Birds 

The USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) 

partitions North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions. The Black Hills is included in 

BCR 17 – Badlands and Prairies. Of the 38 bird species found in BCR 17 (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008), twenty species are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of 

habitat. Eleven are duplicated on the R2 sensitive species list, and are evaluated in the BA/BE if 

they have potential to occur in the Black Hills. There are seven remaining species that could 

potentially occur in the Black Hills: golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, black-billed 

cuckoo, red-headed woodpecker, pinyon jay and dickcissel. Of these seven species, the golden 

eagle, red-headed woodpecker and black-billed cuckoo have the potential to occur within the 

treatnment areas. The Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, pinyon jay and dickcissel will not be 

analyzed because suitable habitat is not present in the potential treatment area. 

Golden Eagle: This eagle inhabits open country, from barren areas to open coniferous forests, 

primarily in hilly or mountainous regions, but is also found in deserts and grasslands. It prefers 

to nest on cliff ledges, but will occasionally use trees for nesting. The golden eagle utilizes 

hilltops, cliff ledges and trees for roosting. Within the Black Hills, this eagle prefers to nest on 

sandstone and limestone cliffs. Contiguously forested habitats, such as those found within most 

of the project area are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be used for roosting or 

perching if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is nearby. Forest Plan direction provides 

direction to protect known golden eagle nests (Forest Plan Standard 3204). 

Red-headed Woodpecker: Red-headed Woodpecker prefers open, park-like woodlands, including 

open ponderosa pine, but is most prevalent along riparian areas within forested areas. They use 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 175 

more open and edge forest habitats than some other woodpeckers, but are still dependent on 

snags and decaying trees (Anderson 2003). They occur locally in the Black Hills, where they are 

generally uncommon to rare. At present, they occur in very low densities across the Forest 

except in burn areas where they are found in higher densities in 2009 (White et al. 2010). They 

are a generalist species feeding on mast, a wide variety of berries, as well as insects and other 

birds' young and they often appear in areas with insect outbreaks (Anderson 2003). 

Black-billed Cuckoo: This species favors areas of upland woods that provide a variety of trees, 

bushes and vines. Also occurs in brushy pastures, hedgerows, open woodlands, thickets, and 

along wooded roadsides. Preferred habitat includes low, dense, shrubby vegetation . They will 

also inhabit open woods, avoiding extremely dense woods and high elevations (Haldeman 1980). 

Environmental Consequences 

Assumptions 

• Treatments will follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines, WCP Handbook standards, 

BMPs and project design criteria during implementation. 

• Treatments will occur in Management Areas proportional to the amount of potential 

treatment areas in those Management Areas. 

• Commercial treatments will occur in Structural stages 4B and 4C because they are of 

commercial size, and will occur in 4B and 4C proportional to their availability. 

• Non-commercial (POL) activities will occur in all structural stages in the potential 

treatment areas (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C) proportional to their availability. 

• Insects will infest tree diameter classes (>5 inches dbh) proportional to their availability 

on the landscape. 

• Vegetation treatments in the action alternatives will remove very large trees proportional 

to their availability on the landscape. 

General Effects to Wildlife Habitat 

Alternative A 

MPB activities are expected to create more open forest conditions in ponderosa pine (Structural 

Stages 1, 2, 3A, 4A) across the Forest. Big game forage is expected to increase, but some of the 

forage may become inaccessible if the fallen dead trees form a barrier. If these open conditions 

occur in bighorn sheep use areas within suitable distance of water and escape terrain, bighorn 

sheep habitat is expected to be improved through improved visibility. If these open conditions 

occur at snail colonies, they could cause severe drying of sites, increase isolation. If fires occur 

in the increased fuel loads it could kill colonies that are burned over. Open forest conditions are 

also used by peregrine falcons and goshawks for foraging, saw-whet owls, Lewis’s woodpeckers 

and northern flying squirrels. These species are expected to benefit from MPB activity. 

Dense forest conditions (Structural Stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5) are expected to decline in this 

alternative as a result of continued MPB outbreaks. Some existing goshawk nest areas are expected 

to be lost to MPB activity. Goshawk nesting habitat (pine structural stages 4B, 4C and 5) and 

habitat for other species that use dense, mature forest (flammulated owls, Black-backed 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 176 

woodpeckers, American marten, broad-winged, sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks, saw-whet owls, 

pygmy nuthatches and northern flying squirrels.) is expected to decline due to MPB activity. 

MPB activities are expected to reduce large, mature ponderosa pine trees. These large trees serve 

as raptor roost trees, bat roosts, foraging habitat for brown creepers and pygmy nuthatches, and 

provide future large snags for woodpeckers and flying squirrels. MPB are not expected to remove 

all large, mature trees, but this habitat component for these species is expected to be reduced. 

MPB activity could increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire as infested trees fall down and 

add to the fuel load. Stand-replacing fire would create Black-backed and Lewis’s woodpecker 

habitat while removing habitat for other sensitive species. 

Aspen may increase over time in response to more open forest conditions. Deciduous trees such 

as aspen and oak may increase under if MPB areas have a deciduous component. Redbelly

snakes, broad-winged hawks, Cooper’s hawks and goshawks use hardwoods or prey on animals 

that use hardwood habitat. These species would benefit from increased aspen and hardwoods. 

White spruce may increase if surrounding ponderosa pines are killed by MPB. These increases 

would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to occur in areas 

where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not expected to change 

noticeably in the next 5 years. Flammulated owls, American marten, broad-winged hawks, 

Cooper’s hawks and northern flying squirrels all use spruce as part of their habitat. 

Connectivity between spruce habitat patches used by marten could be affected if MPB opens the 

canopy in these areas below 50% canopy closure. If a wildfire occurs, the increase in downed wood 

from MPB killed trees could increase the risk that spruce habitat and connecting pine habitat would 

burn. 

Alternative B 

MPB activity is expected to continue under Alternative B. The effects of MPB in Alternative B 

are expected to be similar to Alternative A in the untreated areas. Proposed treatments are 

expected to have the following direct and indirect effects. 

Effects Common to All Vegetation Treatments 

Structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 are expected to decline more than Alternative A as a result of 

mechanical treatments to control MPB. Alternatives B offers added flexibility over Alternative 

A in prioritizing treatments for MPB. If sanitation treatments occur near goshawk nests sooner 

in Alternative B, the risk of losing desirable vegetation characteristics at the nest sites may be 

reduced compared to Alternative A. Nesting habitat (pine structural stages 4B, 4C and 5) is 

expected to decline due to MPB and treatment activity. 

Habitat for other species (flammulated owls, Black-backed woodpeckers, broad-winged, sharpshinned and Cooper’s hawks, saw-whet owls, pygmy nuthatches and northern flying squirrels) 

that use dense, mature forest conditions is expected to decline. These species may decline until 

the forest recovers from MPB and treatments. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 177 

Open forest conditions are expected to increase while dense forest conditions are expected to 

decline due to treatment activities. Open forest conditions are expected to be greater than 

Alternative A and less than Alternative C. Open forest conditions are used by peregrine falcons 

and goshawks for foraging, saw-whet owls, Lewis’s woodpeckers and northern flying squirrels. 

Open forest conditions that provide good visibility for bighorn sheep are expected to increase 

due to vegetation treatments. These open forage conditions may provide more forage than 

Alternative A because sanitation of infested trees is expected to reduce the number of snags that 

are likely to fall down in the future. If these open conditions occur in bighorn sheep use areas 

near water and escape terrain, bighorn sheep habitat could be improved. Treatments in 

Alternative B have more potential to improve bighorn sheep habitat than Alternative A. 

Foraging habitat for bats would most likely improve under this alternative, through opening of 

pine stands by treatment activities. Insect populations may increase after canopy opening, 

thereby increasing available bat prey. Silvicultural treatments of timber harvest that benefit 

riparian habitat would also benefit bat insect prey, and thus bat foraging habitat. 

Thinning treatments are expected to conserve habitat for woodpeckers, brown creepers, and 

pygmy nuthatch, and bats by conserving larger-diameter trees, which may eventually provide 

large-diameter snags. Alternative B is expected to lead to fewer mature and large trees and open 

forest conditions on the Forest than Alternative A and more than Alternative C. 

Deciduous trees such as aspen and oak may increase under this alternative if MPB areas have a 

deciduous component. This could improve foraging habitat for redbelly snakes, broad-winged 

hawks, Cooper’s hawks, goshawks and other species that use hardwoods or prey on animals that 

use hardwood habitat. The potential for hardwood to increase is greatest in Alternative C, 

followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

Alternative B is expected to have more opportunities for spruce expansion than Alternative A 

because it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest conditions. These 

increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to occur in 

areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not expected to 

change noticeably in the next 5 years. Flammulated owls, American marten, broad-winged hawks, 

Cooper’s hawks and northern flying squirrels all use spruce as part of their habitat. 

Connectivity between spruce habitat patches could be reduced if MPB opens the canopy in pine 

stands adjacent to spruce areas below 50% canopy closure. Treatments would maintain 50% 

canopy cover in marten connectivity corridors (Standard 3215), but MPB may reduce the canopy 

closure below effective levels. Sanitation treatments are expected to occur in connecting 

corridors in Alternative B to help maintain canopy cover. Alternative B has more flexibility than 

Alternative A to sanitize MPB infestations in connective corridors and maintain their value to 

marten. Forest Plan standards pertaining to the retention of CWD (Standards 3117 and 2308a) 

would be followed. Habitat for marten prey associated with closed pine forest conditions would 

also decrease. If fuel loading is reduced adjacent to spruce by removal of infested trees, Spruce 

sites and connecting corridors may be less susceptible to wildfire. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 178 

The action alternatives conserve habitat for snails (Objective 221) by active management 

following Forest Plan direction. Active management, which lessens the risk of high intensity fire, 

would potentially benefit snails. Silvicultural treatments may dry out some mesic sites, while 

enhancing others. 

Sanitation (cut/chunk, cut/pile/burn, cut/chip, commercial sanitation): Direct mortality of 

most adult birds and mammals is expected to be unlikely in due to their mobility. Undiscovered 

bird nests could be lost in all alternatives during treatment activities if they occur within 

treatment areas. Direct effects include limited potential for individual mortality due to tree 

felling. Cutting of occupied daytime bat roost trees may negatively impact individual bats, if a 

roost snag is determined to be a safety hazard and removed. Small mammals could be killed 

directly or die from lack of cover if they are using piles when the piles are burned. 

Commercial Timber harvest: Effects are expected to be similar to sanitation activities except 

that commercial harvest involves more heavy equipment and hauling traffic. The added heavy 

equipment and road traffic has the potential to add more direct mortality of less mobile species 

such as land snails, amphibians, and reptiles. Unknown snail colonies may be impacted in 

treatment areas over time, however, most treatment areas do not occur in typical snail habitat. 

Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103). 

In addition, BMPs and Forest Plan Standards pertaining to watershed, soils, and road 

construction would help avoid some of these effects. 

Road Construction/Use: No new roads would be constructed in this alternative so no habitat 

would be lost to road surface. Existing roads used for the project would be closed following 

project completion, so additional disturbance is not expected following project completion. 

Treatment and hauling activities may disturb many wildlife species during operations. Long 

term, disturbances from roads are not expected above the current level because new roads would 

be closed following harvest activities. 

Semiochemical treatments (Spraying trees, pheromone traps): Tree spraying to repel MPB and 

the use of pheromone traps are not expected to reduce the overall MPB population on the Forest 

due to their cost and limited use. Tree spraying and pheromone traps are not expected to adversely 

affect species that prey on MPB, such as woodpeckers. These chemicals may kill other insects at 

the local area where used. This could lead to fewer insectivorous birds in these localized areas. 

Habitat features such as goshawk nests, bat hibernacula, eagle and other raptor nests, snail 

colonies are known to be sensitive to changes in surrounding vegetation. If pheromone traps are 

placed in forested habitat features, they can be expected to increase the risk that those habitat 

features will be altered by MPB. Pheromone traps would not be placed in goshawk nest areas 

(Standard 3108), marten corridors (Standard 3215), and snail colonies (Standard 3103). 

Pheromone traps/baiting may be used near some of these features to draw MPB away from the 

site. This may help reduce effects of MPB on those sites. 

Alternative C 

MPB activity is expected to continue under Alternative C. The effects of MPB in Alternative C 

are expected to be similar to Alternatives A and B in the untreated areas. Proposed treatments 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 179 

under Alternative C are expected to have similar effects as Alternative B except for the 

differences noted below. 

Effects Common to All Vegetation Treatments 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except that Alternative C 

would treat more acres and offer more flexibility on where to place treatments. The added 

flexibility offers more opportunities to protect known wildlife habitat features from MPB activity 

compared to Alternatives A and B. 

Alternative C includes more vegetation treatments than Alternative B. Mature ponderosa pine 

stands with moderate-or-high canopy cover (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5) is expected to 

decline more in Alternative C than in Alternatives A and B due to the added treatment activities. 

Habitat for species (flammulated owls, Black-backed woodpeckers, broad-winged, sharp-shinned 

and Cooper’s hawks, saw-whet owls, pygmy nuthatches and northern flying squirrels) that use 

dense, mature forest conditions is expected to decline. These species may decline until the forest 

recovers from MPB and treatments. 

Open forest conditions are expected to increase while dense forest conditions are expected to 

decline due to treatment activities. Open forest conditions are expected to be greater than 

Alternatives A and B. Open forest conditions are used by peregrine falcons and goshawks for 

foraging, saw-whet owls, Lewis’s woodpeckers and northern flying squirrels. 

Open forest conditions that provide good visibility for bighorn sheep are expected to increase 

due to vegetation treatments. These open forage conditions may provide more forage than 

Alternatives A and B because sanitation of infested trees is expected to reduce the number of 

snags that are likely to fall down in the future. If these open conditions occur in bighorn sheep 

use areas near water and escape terrain, bighorn sheep habitat could be improved. Alternative C 

has more potential to improve bighorn sheep habitat than Alternatives B and A. 

Foraging habitat for bats would most likely improve under the action alternatives, through 

opening of pine stands by treatment activities. Insect populations may increase as the understory 

increases following logging and thinning, thereby increasing available bat prey. Silvicultural 

treatments of timber harvest that benefit riparian habitat would also benefit bat insect prey, and 

thus bat foraging habitat. 

Thinning treatments are expected to conserve habitat for woodpeckers, brown creepers, and 

pygmy nuthatch, and bats by conserving larger-diameter trees, which may eventually provide 

large-diameter snags. Alternative C includes more treatment that reduce amount of mature forest 

than Alternative B. Alternative C is expected to have fewer large diameter trees and mature trees 

on the landscape than Alternatives A and B. 

Deciduous trees such as aspen and oak may increase under this alternative if MPB areas have a 

deciduous component. This could improve foraging habitat for redbelly snakes, broad-winged 

hawks, Cooper’s hawks, goshawks and other species that use hardwoods or prey on animals that 

use hardwood habitat. The potential for hardwood to increase is greatest in Alternative C, 

followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 180 

Alternative C is expected to have slightly more opportunities for spruce expansion than Alternatives 

B or A because it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest conditions. 

These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to 

occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not 

expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. Flammulated owls, American marten, broadwinged hawks, Cooper’s hawks and northern flying squirrels all use spruce as part of their habitat. 

Treatments would maintain 50% canopy cover in marten connectivity corridors (Standard 3215), 

but MPB may reduce the canopy closure below effective levels similar to Alternative B. 

Sanitation treatments are expected to occur in connecting corridors in Alternative C to help 

maintain canopy cover. Alternative C has the most flexibility to sanitize MPB infestations in 

connective corridors and maintain their value to marten. 

Sanitation (cut/chunk, cut/pile/burn, cut/chip, commercial sanitation): Direct mortality of 

most adult birds and mammals is expected to be unlikely in due to their mobility. Undiscovered 

bird nests could be lost in all alternatives during treatment activities if they occur within treatment 

areas. Direct effects include limited potential for individual mortality due to tree felling. Small 

mammals could be killed directly or die from lack of cover if they are using piles when the piles 

are burned. Cutting of occupied daytime bat roost trees may negatively impact individual bats, if a 

roost snag is determined to be a safety hazard and removed. Potential direct effects of Alternative 

C include mortality of unknown frog locations through the use of heavy equipment and falling of 

trees if activities are located within mesic areas or the surrounding uplands of breeding grounds. 

Commercial Timber harvest: Effects are expected to be similar to sanitation activities except 

that commercial harvest involves more heavy equipment and hauling traffic. The added heavy 

equipment and road traffic has the potential to add more direct mortality of less mobile species 

such as land snails, amphibians, and reptiles. More small mammals could be killed directly or 

die from lack of cover if they are using slash piles when the piles are burned. Unknown snail 

colonies may be impacted in treatment areas over time, however, most treatment areas do not 

occur in typical snail habitat. Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan 

direction (Standard 3103). In addition, BMPs and Forest Plan Standards pertaining to watershed, 

soils, and road construction would help avoid some of these effects. 

The effects of alternative C are the same as Alternative B except that increased silvicultural treatments 

in Alternative C could mean increased avoidance of more areas when vegetation treatments are active. 

Direct mortality of unknown snail colonies could occur during timber harvest activities. 

Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103)

except in Spearfish Canyon (Management Area 4.2A). ). Alternative C proposes timber harvest 

via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders in MA4.2A. Some road construction is 

expected associated with these activities. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountainsnail 

in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a Forest Plan 

amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place within 

MA4.2A. Approximately 2/3 of MA 4.2A is identified a potential treatment areas. If these areas 

are treated, as much as 2/3 of the available habitat could be affected. Treatments that open the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 181 

canopy, such as thinning and selection harvest, would be expected to open the canopy and cause

the sites to dry from exposure to sun. Snails are known to be sensitive to site conditions and are 

not expected to use these areas until shade and moist conditions return. Ground disturbing 

activities such as tractors and skidders, and cable logging on snail colonies are expected kill 

snails and alter habitat. These activities are expected remove litter and expose bare soil, which 

would likely be unsuitable for snails until the litter layer developed. 

Road Construction: It is estimated that Alternative C would construct 70 miles of new system 

roads. Newly constructed roads may have a temporary increase in potential vehicle caused 

mortality. Road construction is expected to reduce wildlife habitat by about five acres per mile 

of road (Rowland et al. 2004). Disturbance effects and mortality from vehicles is not expected to 

increase in the long term because newly constructed roads and other roads used during the 

project would be closed following project completion. 

Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103)

except in Spearfish Canyon (Management Area 4.2A). Alternative C proposes temporary road 

construction (no system roads constructed) in MA4.2A. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s 

mountainsnail in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, 

a Forest Plan amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take 

place within MA4.2A. Ground disturbing activities such as road construction on snail colonies

are expected kill snails and alter habitat. These activities are expected remove litter and expose 

bare soil, which would likely be unsuitable for snails. 

Semiochemical treatments (Spraying trees, pheromone traps): The effects of semiochemical 

treatments are expected to be the same as Alternative B. 

Snags and Down Woody Material 

Alternative A 

Snags are expected to increase while MPB activity is high (short term) and decline as trees killed 

by MPB fall to the ground (long term). Down woody material is expected to increase as trees 

killed by MPB fall. 

Harvesting and clearing of dead trees (snags) is not part of this alternative. In Alternative A, short 

term snag densities are expected to be the highest of any alternative in the next five to seven years 

due to high levels of MPB mortality (Allen 2011a). In the short term, snags are expected to remain 

above 3 snags per acre in a variety of diameters and heights (Forest Plan Objective 211). In the 

short-term, large areas of dead trees are expected to attract irruptive species such as the blackbacked woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and redheaded woodpecker. However, the snag density 

may decline if the tree mortality from insects decline and current insect killed trees fall. This 

alternative is expected to lead to increased down woody material as insect-killed trees fall. 

Alternative B 

Snags are expected to increase while MPB activity is high (short term) and decline as trees killed 

by MPB fall to the ground (long term). Down woody material is expected to increase as trees 

killed by MPB fall. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 182 

Harvesting and clearing of dead trees (snags) is not part of this alternative. However, snags may be 

cut because they pose a safety hazard to the public or to protect communities which are consistent 

with Forest Plan direction (Standard 2301 and 2305). This could include dead trees being removed 

to provide safe public egress in the event of a wildfire, removal of dead trees within close proximity 

of a high use recreation sites and in fuel breaks, especially within 200’ of private land. However, the 

removal of snags for safety reasons is not expected to move overall snag densities in the project area 

below Objective 211. MPB mortality would continue to affect untreated stands so snag densities are 

expected to remain above Object 211 in the next five to seven years. In the long term, snag density 

is expected to decline as insect-killed trees fall and insect attacks decline. Treatments are expected to 

reduce the amount of large diameter trees on the Forest slightly more than MPB in Alternative A. 

Therefore the number of mature and large trees available for future snags is expected to be slightly 

less than Alternative A, and slightly more than Alternative C. Down woody material is expected to 

increase less than Alternative A and more than Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Effects are expected to be the same as Alternative B except the number of mature and large trees 

available for future snags is expected to be less than Alternatives A and B. Down woody material 

is expected to be less than Alternatives A and B because fewer trees are expected to die from MPB. 

Riparian Habitat 

Alternative A 

No treatments would occur in riparian areas. MPB are expected to kill pine trees near some 

riparian areas, which may promote shrub and hardwood development along some riparian areas. 

Action Alternatives 

Logging activities and treatment of logging slash may require ground disturbance, which has the 

potential to indirectly affect riparian and wetland ecosystems primarily through changes in 

sediment loads to creeks or wetlands. The larger the amount of ground disturbance and/or the 

closer proximity to wetland and riparian areas, the greater the potential for disturbed areas to be 

connected to the streams and riparian areas, and the greater potential to have an indirect impact 

to riparian and wetland habitats. Alternative C includes the most treatments, followed by 

Alternative B and Alternative A, respectively. Therefore, Alternative C has the most potential to 

affect riparian habitat, followed by Alternatives B and A, respectively. 

Under the action alternatives, the riparian areas throughout the project area are not targeted for 

treatment and would be protected and avoided through Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

buffers created by the water influence zone (WIZ). Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be 

followed in all alternatives. Forest-wide standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water 

influence zones, and wetlands. Under all alternatives, long-term riparian ecosystem health and 

ecological function are expected to be maintained by not allowing actions that would be 

detrimental to riparian- ecosystem condition (Standards 1301, 1302). Riparian and wetland areas 

that contain emphasis species would be given additional protection from direct and indirect 

disturbances under all alternatives (Standard 3106). In all alternatives, log landings, decking 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 183 

areas and mechanical-slash piling would not occur within riparian areas unless the integrity of 

riparian areas can be protected (Standard 1306). 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

White-tailed Deer 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality is expected because not management activities are included in this alternative. 

Open forest conditions that provide forage (SS 1, 2, 3A, and 4A) are expected to increase due to 

MPB activity (Dymerski 2012). Dense forest conditions that provide screening cover (Structural 

Stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5) are expected to decline as open forest condition increase. Aspen 

and other hardwood may increase as ponderosa pine dies from MPB. This could lead to an 

increase in forage and in fawning habitat. Increases in aspen are most likely to occur around 

existing aspen, meaning aspen distribution is expected to be similar to current conditions. 

Habitat trend is expected to continue to remain stable or slightly increase. The juxtaposition of 

cover and forage will depend on the location of MPB attacks. The juxtaposition may influence 

how deer use the habitat – deer may not use some forage if lack of cover makes them more 

susceptible to predation. 

Alternative B 

Direct deer mortality is unlikely, but could happen if logging truck strike a deer during hauling 

activities. 

Commercial treatments are expected to create more open forest conditions that provide forage. 

Open forest conditions that provide forage (SS 1, 2, 3A, and 4A) are also expected to increase 

due to MPB activity (Dymerski 2012). Dense forest conditions that provide screening cover are 

expected to decline as open forest conditions increase. Screening cover would be retained along 

arterial and collector roads in consistent with Guideline 3203, but MPB are expected to take 

some of those areas as well as other areas on the Forest. Aspen and other hardwood may

increase as ponderosa pine dies from MPB. This could lead to an increase in forage and in 

fawning habitat. Increases in aspen are most likely to occur around existing aspen, meaning 

aspen distribution is expected to be similar to current conditions. 

Open road densities are not expected to change because all new roads would be closed following 

the project. 

Habitat trend is expected to continue to remain stable or slightly increase. The juxtaposition of 

cover and forage will depend on the location of MPB attacks and the location of commercial and 

non-commercial activities. The juxtaposition may influence how deer use the habitat – deer may 

not use some forage if lack of cover makes them more susceptible to predation. 

Alternative C 

Effects of Alternative C are expected to be the same as Alternative B, except for the following 

differences. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 184 

Commercial treatments in all alternatives are expected to create more acres of open forest 

conditions over the next five to seven years. Open forest conditions that provide forage is 

expected to increase more than Alternative B and screening cover is expected to decline more 

than Alternative B over the next five to seven years. 

Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of newly constructed roads. These newly 

constructed roads could remove an estimated 350 acres of forage habitat (5 acres per mile, 

Rowland et al. 2004). 

Summary: Deer populations can be expected to remain stable similar to habitat trends over the 

long term. However, deer populations can be expected to have a delayed response to improved 

habitat until the forage responds to the changes in tree cover. Deer harvest levels are expected to 

continue and will also influence deer populations. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed, and if conditions 

move towards structural stage objectives. Vegetation treatments in Alternatives B and C will 

follow applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All alternatives conserve deer habitat 

(Object 238) by providing a diversity of forage and cover juxtaposed across the Forest. Conditions 

are expected to move towards or exceed structural stage objectives that provide forage for deer in 

all alternatives due to MPB activity and vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments are not 

expected to reduce dense mature stands (4C) below objectives. Young dense stands (3C) that 

provide cover are expected to be at or below objectives. White-tailed deer are likely to persist on 

the Forest under all alternatives. Alternative A is expected to provide the best mix of screening 

habitat in close proximity to foraging habitat, followed by Alternatives B and C, respectively. 

Beaver 

Alternative A 

In Alternative A, MPB activity is expected to lead to increased open forest conditions. Aspen and 

bur oak may increase as ponderosa pine dies from MPB. This could lead to an increase in food and 

dam building material if these occur close to streams. Alternative A is expected to have the least 

potential for hardwood increase because it is expected to have the fewest acres of open forest 

conditions. The changes can be expected to occur slowly as aspen and oak replace pine in some 

places. A benefit to beaver habitat would not be realized for several decades. Likewise, any 

increase in the beaver population would be slow. Aspen, burr oak and beaver would continue to be 

more abundant in the Northern Black Hills and sparse at the southern end of the Black Hills. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B conserves habitat for beaver (Objective 238) by contributing to riparian and hardwood 

objectives (Forest Plan Objective 201) and following Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water influence zones, and wetlands. 

Under the alternatives, long-term riparian ecosystem health and ecological function are expected 

to be maintained by not allowing actions that would be detrimental to riparian- ecosystem 

condition (Standards 1301, 1302). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 185 

Aspen and bur oak may increase in all alternatives as ponderosa pine dies from MPB or is 

removed by mechanical treatments (Objective 201). This could lead to an increase in food and 

dam building material if these occur close to streams. Alternative B is expected to have more 

potential for hardwood increases than Alternative A because it is expected to have more acres of 

open forest condition. Alternative B is expected to have less potential for hardwood increases 

than Alternative C because it is expected to have less acres of open forest condition. 

The changes can be expected to occur slowly as aspen and oak replace pine in some places. A 

benefit to beaver habitat would not be realized for several decades. Likewise, any increase in the 

beaver population would be slow. Aspen, burr oak and beaver would continue to be more 

abundant in the Northern Black Hills and sparse at the southern end of the Black Hills. Beaver 

are expected to continue to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative C 

Effects are expected to be the same as Alternative B except that Alternative C is expected to 

have the most potential for hardwood increases because it is expected to have the most acres of 

open forest condition, followed by Alternatives B and A, respectively. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed. All 

alternatives in this project follow Forest Plan riparian standards, contribute to aspen and bur oak 

objectives (201), and conserve habitat for beavers (Objective 238). Under All alternatives, 

beaver are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

Alternative A 

MPB activity would continue to create snags across the Forest. Many high risk stands are 

expected to be affected by MPB. No infested trees would be removed, so they would remain 

available to woodpeckers. Snags are expected to be the highest in this alternative. In the next 5 

years, snag densities are expected to remain above Forest Plan objective 211 due to the ongoing 

MPB outbreak. In the long term, snags are expected to decline as MPB killed trees fall down. 

MPB activity could increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire as infested trees fall down and 

add to the fuel load. Both beetle infestations and stand-replacing fire would create black-backed 

woodpecker habitat. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B could result in the loss of nests if occupied nest trees are cut during timber harvest 

or road construction. The mobility of adult birds would reduce the risk of direct mortalities. 

Alternative B conserves habitat for black-backed woodpeckers (Objective 238, 221). All snags 

except those deemed safety hazards would be maintained (Standards 2301 and 2305). Many high 

insect risk stands are expected to be affected by MPB. In the absence of fire, areas of beetle 

outbreak might serve as the only substantial source of habitat in the Black Hills (Bonnot et. al. 

2009). In the next 5 years, snag densities are expected to remain above Forest Plan objective 211 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 186 

due to the ongoing MPB outbreak. In the long term, snags are expected to decline as MPB killed 

trees fall down. 

Cutting of insect infested trees and hazardous snags is expected to reduce foraging habitat. 

Reducing insect populations via sanitation logging may reduce key food resources to blackbacked woodpeckers during nesting. Alternative B is expected to reduce foraging habitat more 

than Alternative A and less than Alternative C. 

Tree spraying to repel MPB is not expected to reduce the overall MPB population on the Forest 

due to its cost and limited use. Tree spraying is not expected to adversely affect black-backed 

woodpecker or their prey. 

MPB activity could increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire as infested trees fall down and 

add to the fuel load. Both beetle infestations and stand-replacing fire would create black-backed 

woodpecker habitat. 

Alternatives B and C include timber harvest prescriptions that would reduce mature trees and stand 

density. Alternative B is expected to lead to fewer mature and large trees on the Forest than 

Alternatives A, and more than Alternative C. 

Treatment and hauling activities may disturb Black-backed woodpeckers during operations. Long 

term, disturbances are not expected above the current level because new roads would be closed 

following harvest activities. 

The impacts of timber treatment would be mitigated by Forest Plan standards and objectives for 

general snag protections, which are being met through specific design criteria in the project area. 

At the Forest level, habitat is expected to be maintained through structural stage objectives. 

Alternative C 

The effects of alternative are the same as Alternative B, except: Alternative C is expected to have 

fewer acres of live mature and old trees than Alternative B on the Forest because it includes 

more treatments that reduce amount of mature forest than Alternative B. 

Cutting of insect infested trees and hazardous snags is expected be highest in Alternative C. 

Reducing insect populations via sanitation logging may reduce key food resources to blackbacked woodpeckers during nesting. Alternative C is expected to reduce foraging habitat the 

most, followed by Alternatives B and A, respectively. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed, and if 

conditions move towards structural stage objectives at the Forest level. All alternatives follow 

Forest Plan snag and downed wood standards. Open forest conditions are expected to increase in all 

alternatives. Treatments are not expected to reduce dense, mature pine forest below structural stage 

objectives. Black-backed woodpeckers are expected to persist on the Forest under all alternatives 

because snag standards will be followed and snags are expected to be abundant on the Forest over 

the next five to seven years. Thinning and sanitation treatments are expected to retain fewer mature 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 187 

trees in Alternatives B and C, which is expected to lead to fewer large diameter snags in the future. 

In the long term, populations are expected to decline as MPB killed trees fall down. 

Brown Creeper 

Alternative A 

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 are expected to decline due to MPB activity. 

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 are expected to decline less in Alterative A than in 

Alternatives B and C. 

White spruce may increase if surrounding ponderosa pines on suitable sites are killed by MPB. 

These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to 

occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not 

expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B could result in the loss of nests if occupied nest trees are cut during timber harvest 

or road construction. The mobility of adult birds would reduce the risk of direct mortalities. 

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5 are expected to decline due to MPB activity. Project 

activities designed to reduce stand susceptibility to MPB are also expected to reduce the amount 

of Structural Stage 4C by converting some of them to more open forest condition (SS 4A). 

Project activities are expected to reduce structural stage 4C more than Alternative A and less 

than Alternative C. 

Alternative B includes timber harvest prescriptions that would reduce mature trees and stand 

density. Thinning may minimize the habitat fragmentation by maintaining more mature forest on 

the landscape, though that forest can be expected to be open. Alternative B is expected to retain 

more large and mature trees on the landscape than Alternative C, and less than Alternative A. 

Tree spraying is not expected to affect brown creeper habitat or populations. Some localized 

effects are expected where treatments occur because the chemicals could kill non-targeted insects 

on which brown creepers feed. Spraying may protect some very large trees in campgrounds 

from MPB, which could benefit individual brown creepers in the long term, but is not expected 

to have any effect on Forest scale due to its cost and limited application. 

White spruce may increase if surrounding ponderosa pines on suitable sites are killed by MPB or 

treated by mechanical methods. These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several 

decades and can be expected to occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine 

stands. Spruce habitat is not expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. 

Brown Creeper populations are expected to decline as pine habitat components decline. 

Alternative B conserve habitat for brown creepers (Objective 238) by minimizing the loss of 

ponderosa pine habitat components to MPB. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is expected to have the same effects as Alternative B, except the following: 

Structural stage 4C and 5 are expected to decline more in Alternative C that Alternative A and B 

due to increased acres treated. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 188 

Alternative C includes more treatments that reduce amount of mature forest than Alternative B 

Alternative C is expected to have fewer large diameter trees and mature trees on the landscape 

than Alternatives A and B, which could lead to fewer large snags in the future. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of brown creeper if standards are 

followed, and if conditions move towards structural stage objectives at the Forest level. All 

alternatives in this project follow Forest Plan snag Standards 2301 and 2305, the spruce objective 

(239-LVD), and conserve habitat for brown creepers (Objective 238). Structural stage 4C is 

expected to decline in all alternatives, but is expected to be above objectives after five to seven 

years. Structural stage 5 is expected to continue to be below objectives in all alternatives. 

Structural Stage 4B is expected to be below objectives in MA 5.4 and 5.43. These reductions in 

structural stages increase the risk to persistence. Under All alternatives, brown creepers are 

likely to persist on the Forest because these structural stages are expected to remain above 

objectives in most Management Areas and spruce habitat is expected to remain in all 

alternatives. Brown creepers are most likely to persist in Alternative A because these structural 

stages occur in the greatest amounts, followed by Alternative B and C, respectively. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet 

Alternative A 

White spruce may increase in all alternatives if surrounding ponderosa pines on suitable sites are 

killed by MPB. These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can 

be expected to occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce 

habitat is not expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B could result in the loss of nests if occupied nest trees are cut during timber harvest 

or road construction. The mobility of adult birds would reduce the risk of direct mortalities. 

Alternative B conserves habitat for golden-crowned kinglets (Objective 238). White spruce may 

increase in all alternatives if surrounding ponderosa pines are killed by MPB or treated by 

mechanical methods. Alternative B is expected to have more opportunities for spruce expansion 

than Alternative A because it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest 

conditions. These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be 

expected to occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce 

habitat is not expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be the same as Alternative B, except that Alternative 

C is expected to have more opportunities for spruce expansion than Alternatives A and B 

because it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest conditions. 

Summary: Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would 

be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of golden-crowned kinglets if standards are 

followed, and if conditions move towards the spruce objective (objective 239-LVD). All

alternatives in this project follow applicable Forest Plan standards and none of the alternatives alter 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 189 

spruce acres, thus the Forest is expected to continue to exceed the spruce objective. All alternatives 

contribute to conservation and maintenance of kinglet habitat (Forest plan Objective 238-c). 

Golden-crowned kinglets are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

All alternatives conserve habitat for grasshopper sparrows (Objectives 238, 221). None of the 

alternatives propose activities that would reduce or enhance grassland habitat (Objective 205). No 

direct or indirect effects are expected on grasshopper sparrows. Habitat and population trends are 

expected to be similar to current trends. 

Ruffed Grouse 

Alternative A 

No direct effects are expected because no new activities would occur. Aspen and other hardwood 

may increase as ponderosa pine dies from MPB. This could lead to an increase in ruffed grouse 

habitat. Increases in aspen are most likely to occur around existing aspen, so aspen distribution is 

expected to be similar to current conditions. 

Alternative B 

Potential mortality of ruffed grouse and nest destruction could occur during timber and prescribed 

burning operations. The mobility of adult birds would reduce the risk of direct mortalities. 

Aspen and other hardwood may increase in Alternative B as ponderosa pine dies from MPB or is 

removed by mechanical treatments. This could lead to an increase in ruffed grouse habitat. 

Alternative B may have more opportunities for grouse habitat increases that Alternative A because 

is expected to lead to more open conditions that may be more conducive to aspen regeneration. 

Increases in aspen are most likely to occur around existing aspen, so aspen distribution is expected 

to be similar to current conditions. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be the same as Alternative B, except that Alternative 

C is expected to have more opportunities for aspen expansion than Alternatives A and B because 

it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest conditions.

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of ruffed grouse if standards and 

guidelines are followed at the project level, and if conditions move towards aspen and hardwood 

objectives. All alternatives are expected to conserve grouse habitat (Objective 238) through 

increased aspen habitat (Objective 201), Forest-wide ruffed grouse populations are expected to 

remain stable over the next 5 years. Long term, populations could increase in all alternatives if 

aspen increases in response to more open Forest Conditions. 

Song Sparrow 

Alternative A 

No direct effects are expected because no new treatments would occur in the alternative. MPB 

are expected to kill pine trees near some riparian areas, which may promote shrub and hardwood 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 190 

development along some riparian areas. MPB activities may lead to more downed woody 

material near riparian areas as dead trees fall. 

Alternative B 

The risk of mortality to song sparrows is very low due to their mobility. Alternative B conserves 

riparian habitat for song sparrows (Objective 238). Under Alternative B, the riparian areas 

throughout the project area are not targeted for treatment and would be protected and avoided 

through Best Management Practices (BMPs) and buffers created by the water influence zone 

(WIZ). Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines will be followed. Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines protect riparian areas, water influence zones, and wetlands. Long-term riparian 

ecosystem health and ecological function are expected to be maintained by not allowing actions 

that would be detrimental to riparian- ecosystem condition (Standards 1301, 1302). Riparian and 

wetland areas that contain emphasis species would be given additional protection from direct and 

indirect disturbances (Standard 3106). Log landings, decking areas, and mechanical-slash piling 

would not occur within riparian areas unless the integrity of riparian areas can be protected 

(Standard 1306). Similarly, song sparrow populations are expected to remain stable on the Forest. 

Alternative C 

The effects of alternative C are expected to be the same as Alternative B, except alternative C 

treats more acres, which could lead to a slight increase in direct mortality. Otherwise, standards, 

guidelines and BMPs conserve riparian habitat for song sparrows. Song sparrow populations and 

habitat are expected to remain stable on the Forest. 

Summary: Population viability was evaluated in the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of song sparrows if standards and guidelines 

are followed, and if conditions move towards riparian restoration objectives. All alternatives 

follow Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines. All alternatives are expected to have little 

change (neutral effect) on riparian habitat for the song sparrow. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Black-footed Ferret 

The only prairie dog town close to Wind Cave National Park that could have ferrets is the town 

in Section 2 of Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. None of the alternatives propose treatments or roads 

within prairie dog towns, including the one in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. All alternatives are 

expected to have no effect on black-footed ferrets. 

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species 

This section contains the expected impacts from taking no action (Alternative A) and 

implementing the action alternatives (Alternatives B and C). 

Summary of Determinations 

The Determination language is set forth in Region 2 Supplement 2600-2011-1 to Forest Service 

Manual 2670. Determinations for each species were made as a result of the information gathered 

during the pre-field review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis conducted in this report. 

The basis for each determination is potential habitat, expected occurrence, distribution, effects 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 191 

from Forest activities, and proposed mitigation used to alleviate the potential effects resulting 

from Forest-management activities as well as the no action alternative. All species 

determinations apply only if the proposed project area design criteria are adopted and 

implemented. The following Region 2 Sensitive Species have a determination of “No Impact” 

for all alternatives: 

American peregrine falcon 

Northern harrier 

Burrowing owl 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

Long-billed curlew 

Black-tailed prairie dog 

Regal fritillary

The following Region 2 Sensitive Species have a determination of “may impact individuals, but 

not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing” for all alternatives: 

Bald eagle 

Northern goshawk 

Flammulated owl 

Lewis’s woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker 

Fringed myotis 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Hoary bat 

American marten 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

Northern leopard frog 

Black Hills redbelly snake 

Cooper’s mountain snail

American Peregrine Falcon 

None of the alternatives are expected to cause direct mortality of peregrines. 

All alternatives conserve habitat for peregrines (Objective 221) through Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. In all alternatives, potential nest sites are not expected to be affected because of the 

instability and inaccessibility of rock cliffs. If nests are discovered on the Forest, they would be 

protected using the best available information (Standard 3204). Open forest conditions suitable for 

foraging are expected to increase in all alternatives but considering the preponderance of unutilized 

habitat, it is unlikely that such changes would lead to more use by peregrines. None of the 

alternatives are expected to impact peregrine falcons. 

Bald Eagle 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality is expected because no new activities would occur under this alternative. 

MPB activities are expected to reduce large, mature ponderosa pine trees that could serve as 

eagle roost trees. MPB would not remove all large, mature trees. Sufficient trees are expected to 

remain on the landscape, given the relatively few bald eagles that occur in the Black Hills during 

the winter. The primary winter food source, deer carrion, is expected to continue to be available. 

Alternative B 

No direct mortality is expected due to the mobility of eagles. Some individual wintering bald 

eagles may avoid areas when vegetation treatments are active. 

Alternative B conserves habitat for bald eagles (Objective 221). The primary winter food source, 

deer carrion, is expected to continue to be available. In all alternatives, activities would be restricted 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 192 

during sensitive periods near the communal roost at Pactola Reservoir (Standard 3101). Nests also 

would be protected through avoidance and timing in all alternatives (Standards 3204, 3101).

Alternative C 

The effects of alternative C are the same as Alternative B except that increased silvicultural 

treatments in Alternative C could mean increased avoidance of more areas when vegetation 

treatments are active. Alternative C conserves bald eagle habitat (Objective 221) by following 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Determination: All alternatives may impact individual eagles, but are not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, no cause a trend toward federal listing. The Phase II Amendment 

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be adequate habitat for 

maintaining a viable population if standards are followed. All alternatives follow Forest Plan 

standards relevant to bald eagle protection. 

Northern Goshawk 

Alternative A 

Direct mortality is expected to be unlikely because no new vegetation management activities 

would occur. Structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 are expected to decline this alternative as a result of 

continued MPB outbreaks. Some existing nest areas are expected to be lost to MPB activity. 

Nesting habitat (pine structural stages 4B, 4C and 5) is expected to decline due to MPB activity. 

Alternative A is not expected to lead to additional disturbance to nesting goshawks because this 

alternative does not include silvicultural treatments, new road construction or additional open roads. 

Open forest conditions are expected to increase while dense forest conditions are expected to decline 

due to MPB activities. Snags are expected to be abundant in the near future and decline as MPB 

attacks subside and trees fall. Downed woody material is expected to increase as snags fall, as long 

as a wildfire doesn’t consume it. Aspen may increase over time in response to more open forest 

conditions. 

Goshawks can be expected to shift their diet based prey availability. While the MPB are active, 

goshawks may shift their diet more towards snag dependant species such as woodpeckers. As the 

snags age and fall down, goshawk may be limited to forest generalists that use open pine 

conditions or other cover types such as rabbits, ground squirrels, robins, and jays. There may a 

period after the snags have fallen and before shrubs and aspen can respond that prey diversity 

and availability is reduced. Nesting habitat may also be reduced at this time. If this occurs, 

goshawk populations can be expected to decline. In the long term, as the shrubs, aspen and pine 

re-establish goshawk populations can be expected to rebound as associated prey and nest areas 

rebound to pre-epidemic levels. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality is expected to be unlikely in due to the mobility of goshawks. Undiscovered nests 

could be lost in all alternatives during treatment activities if they occur within treatment areas. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 193 

Alternative B conserves nesting habitat for goshawks (Objective 221) by following Forest Plan 

standards. All known or newly discovered goshawk nests will be managed according to the

Forest Plan (Standards 3108, 3111) to minimize disturbance and impacts to habitat. Structural 

stages 4B, 4C and 5 are expected to decline more than Alternative A as a result of mechanical 

treatments to control MPB. Alternatives B offers added flexibility over Alternative A in 

prioritizing treatments for MPB. If sanitation treatments occur near goshawk nests sooner in 

Alternative B, the risk of losing desirable vegetation characteristics at the nest sites may be 

reduced compared to Alternative A. Nesting habitat (pine structural stages 4B, 4C and 5) is 

expected to decline due to MPB and treatment activity. 

Alternative B minimizes disturbance to nesting goshawks during project implementation by 

providing timing restrictions on logging activities (Standard 3111). No new roads would be

constructed under this alternative. Existing roads used for the project would be closed following 

project completion, so additional disturbance is not expected following project completion. 

Alternative B conserves foraging habitat for goshawks (Objective 221). Open forest conditions 

are expected to increase while dense forest conditions are expected to decline due to MPB and 

treatment activities. Open forest conditions are expected to be greater than Alternative A and 

less than Alternative C. Snags are expected to be abundant in the near future and decline as 

MPB attacks subside and trees fall. Downed woody material is expected to increase as snags 

fall, as long as a wildfire doesn’t consume it. Aspen may increase over time in response to more 

open forest conditions. 

Tree spraying to repel MPB is not expected to reduce the overall MPB population on the Forest due 

to its cost and limited use. Tree spraying is not expected to adversely affect goshawk or their prey. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except that Alternative C 

would treat more acres and offer more flexibility on where to place treatments. Nesting habitat 

is expected to decline more than Alternatives A and B. The added flexibility offers more 

opportunities to protect known goshawk nests from MPB activity compared to Alternatives A 

and B. Alternative C is expected to result in the most open forest conditions, followed by

Alternative B and A, respectively. All vegetation management activities would conserve 

goshawk habitat by following Forest Plan standards and guidelines for goshawk nests, snags and 

down woody material. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. Impacts of the 

action alternatives include the reduction of habitat and potential removal of unknown nests and 

disturbance by management activities. The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 

2005g) determined that there would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of 

northern goshawk if standards are followed Forest-wide at the project level, and if conditions move 

towards the structural stage and late succession objectives at the Forest level. Alternatives B and C 

in this project follow applicable Forest Plan standards including goshawk Standards 3108 and 3111. 

Open forest structural stages (1, 2, 3A, 4A) are expected to increase in all alternatives due to MPB 

activity. These structural stages are highest in Alternative C, followed by Alternative B. Structural 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 194 

Stages 3B and 3C are expected to be below objective for all alternatives. These structural stages are 

expected to be highest in Alternative A, followed by Alterative B and C, respectively. Structural 

Stage 4B is expected to be above objectives except MA 5.4 and 5.43 in all alternatives. Structural 

stage 4C is expected to be at or above objectives for all alternatives. Based on this information, 

goshawks are expected to persist on the forest because a mix of structural stages for foraging is 

expected in all alternatives and nesting habitat (4B, 4C, and 5) is expected to be available in all 

alternatives. Alternatives B and C offer flexibility to sanitize MPB infestations near goshawk nests, 

which is expected to help maintain existing nest areas. Goshawks can be expected to shift their diet 

based prey availability. While the MPB are active, goshawks may shift their diet more towards 

snag dependant species such as woodpeckers. As the snags age and fall down, goshawk may be 

limited to forest generalists that use open pine conditions or other cover types such as rabbits, 

ground squirrels, robins, and jays. There may a period after the snags have fallen and before shrubs 

and aspen can respond that prey diversity and availability is reduced. Nesting habitat may also be 

reduced at this time. If this occurs, goshawk populations can be expected to decline. In the long 

term, as the shrubs, aspen and pine re-establish goshawk populations can be expected to rebound as 

associated prey and nest areas rebound to pre-epidemic levels. 

Northern Harrier 

All alternatives conserve habitat for northern harriers (Objective 221). None of the alternatives 

propose treatments in prairies, shrublands, or other large open areas. Insects and treatments are 

not expected to create large, open grasslands of sufficient size to be used by harriers. All 

alternatives are expected to have no impact on northern harriers. Determination: No Impact 

Burrowing Owl 

All alternatives conserve habitat for burrowing owls. None of the alternatives propose treatments in 

prairies or prairie dog towns on the Forest. Insects and treatments are not expected to create large, 

open grasslands of sufficient size to be used by prairie dogs or burrowing owls. All alternatives are 

expected to have no direct or indirect impacts on burrowing owls. Determination: No Impact

Flammulated Owl 

At present, there is no indication suggesting that flammulated owls are established or breeding in 

the Black Hills. If occasional flammulated owls occur in the Black Hills, all alternatives could 

have impacts on individuals from MPB activities and/or treatment activities. 

All alternatives conserve potential habitat for flammulated owls (Objective 221). Mature and old 

ponderosa pine conditions are expected to decline in all alternatives due to MPB activity and 

proposed treatments. Spruce would continue to provide suitable habitat in all alternatives. Snags 

are expected to exceed Forest Plan objective 211 in the near future until they age and fall down. 

All snags except those deemed safety hazards would be maintained (Standards 2301 and 2305). 

All alternatives include timber harvest prescriptions that would reduce mature trees and stand 

density. Thinning treatments are expected to conserve habitat by conserving larger-diameter 

trees, which may eventually provide large-diameter snags. Pre-commercial thinning (post-sale) 

of small diameter stands could benefit this species. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. Changes in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 195 

habitat from MPB and/or treatment activities could impact individual owls if they are in the 

Black Hills. However, there would likely be little impact on the number, reproduction, or

survival of flammulated owls. This is because a large amount of currently unoccupied but 

suitable habitat would still be available for owl colonization. At present, there is no evidence 

suggesting that flammulated owls are established or breeding in the Black Hills 

Lewis’s Woodpecker 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is not expected to cause direct mortality of Lewis’s woodpeckers because there 

would be no treatment activities. 

Open, mature pine forests preferred by Lewis’s woodpeckers are expected to increase due to 

MPB activity. MPB activity could increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire as infested trees 

fall down and add to the fuel load. Both beetle infestations and stand-replacing fire would create 

woodpecker habitat. In the absence of wildfire, burned habitat is not expected to change. 

MPB activity would continue to create snags across the Forest. No infested trees would be 

removed, so they would remain available to woodpeckers. Snags are expected to be the highest 

in this alternative. In the next 5 years, snag densities are expected to remain above Forest Plan 

objective 211 due to the ongoing MPB outbreak. In the long term, snags are expected to decline 

as MPB killed trees fall down. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B could result in the loss of nests if occupied nest trees are cut during timber harvest 

or road construction. The mobility of adult birds would reduce the risk of direct mortalities. 

Alternative B conserves habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers (Objective 238, 221). All snags except 

those deemed safety hazards would be maintained (Standards 2301 and 2305). Many high insect risk 

stands are expected to be affected by MPB. In the absence of fire, areas of beetle outbreak might 

serve as the only substantial source of habitat in the Black Hills (Bonnot et. al. 2009). In the next 5 

years, snag densities are expected to remain above Forest Plan objective 211 due to the ongoing 

MPB outbreak. In the long term, snags are expected to decline as MPB killed trees fall down. 

MPB activity could increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfire as infested trees fall down and 

add to the fuel load. Stand-replacing fire would create Lewis’s woodpecker habitat. Mechanical 

treatments are expected to reduce the potential for wildfires. 

Tree spraying to repel MPB is not expected to reduce the overall MPB population on the Forest 

due to its cost and limited use. There could be localized reductions in insect populations if the 

chemicals kill non-targeted insects. Tree spraying is not expected to adversely affect populations 

of Lewis’s woodpecker or their prey. 

Alternative B includes timber harvest prescriptions that would reduce mature trees and stand 

density. Alternative B is expected to have to more mature and large trees, which provide 

potential future large snags, than Alternatives C, but fewer than Alternative A. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 196 

Treatment and hauling activities may disturb woodpeckers during operations. Long term, 

disturbances are not expected above the current level because new roads would be closed 

following harvest activities. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are the same as Alternative B, except: Alternative C is expected to 

have fewer live mature and old trees on the Forest, which provide potential future large snags, 

than Alternative B because it treats more acres with commercial thinning. Alternative C includes 

more treatments that reduce the amount of mature forest than Alternative B. Open forest 

conditions preferred by Lewis’s woodpeckers are expected to be the most abundant in 

Alternative C, followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be adequate habitat 

for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed, and if conditions move towards 

structural stage objectives at the Forest level. The action alternatives conserve habitat (Objective 

221) by following Forest Plan snag standards. Structural stage 5 is expected to decline due to MPB 

activity and remain below objective. Open, mature forest conditions (structural stage 4A) are likely 

to increase and exceed objectives in all alternatives. Snags are expected to exceed Forest Plan 

objectives in all alternatives. Lewis’s woodpeckers are expected to persist on the Forest because 

snags are expected to be abundant on the Forest over the next five to seven years and open, mature 

forest conditions are expected to be abundant in the long term. 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

Effects to black-backed woodpeckers are discussed in the MIS section. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be adequate habitat 

for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed, and if conditions move towards 

structural stage objectives at the Forest level. All alternatives follow Forest Plan snag and downed 

wood standards. Open forest conditions are expected to increase in all alternatives. Treatments are 

not expected to reduce dense, mature pine forest below structural stage objectives. Black-backed 

woodpeckers are expected to persist on the Forest under all alternatives because snag standards 

will be followed and snags are expected to be abundant on the Forest over the next five to seven 

years. Thinning and sanitation treatments are expected to retain fewer mature trees in Alternatives 

B and C, which is expected to lead to fewer large diameter snags in the future. In the long term, 

populations are expected to decline as MPB killed trees fall down. 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

The effects on grasshopper sparrows are discussed in the MIS section. 

Determination: All alternatives are expected to have “no impact” on grasshopper sparrows. 

None of the alternatives propose activities that would reduce or enhance grassland habitat 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 197 

(Objective 205). No direct or indirect effects are expected on grasshopper sparrows. Habitat and 

population trends are expected to be similar to current trends. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Mixed grass prairies, mountain mahogany shrublands, and grassy or brushy areas are not

expected to be affected by MPB in all alternatives. Vegetation management treatments are not 

proposed in these habitats in all alternatives. All alternatives are expected to have no impacts on 

loggerhead shrikes. Determination: No impact.

Long-billed Curlew 

Native short-grass or mixed-grass prairies are not expected to be impacted by MPB or MPB 

treatment activities. All alternatives are expected to have no impacts on long-billed curlews or 

their habitat. Determination: No impact.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

None or the alternatives are expected to cause direct mortality of yellow-billed cuckoos or 

increased disturbance because no new management activities are expected to occur in 

cottonwood or bur oak riparian areas. MPB activity is not expected to change the amount of 

cottonwood or bur oak riparian areas. All alternatives are expected to have no impacts on 

yellow-billed cuckoos. Determination: No impact.

Bats (Fringed Myotis, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Hoary Bat) 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have no direct effects because no new activities would occur. Roosting 

habitat in snags is likely to increase with MPB activity. There are also increased risks from 

wildfire and mountain pine beetle outbreaks under this alternative. Pine beetle outbreaks and 

wildfire at lower intensity levels could lead to an increase in snags, but current conditions favor 

high intensity, stand-replacing events that would not benefit these species. 

MPB activity is expected to occur around some caves and mines that serve as bat roosts or 

hibernacula. If MPB activity occurs at the entrance to these sites, air flow patterns within the 

sites could be altered such that they become less suitable for bats. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality is expected to be minimal in this alternative. Direct effects include limited 

potential for individual mortality due to tree felling and from collisions. Potential loss of 

occupied daytime roost trees may negatively impact individuals, if the snag is determined to be a 

safety hazard and removed. Risk is low because of their mobility and because they primarily 

roost in caves, mines and rock crevices. Due to the maneuverability of these species and their 

hours of activity (night time), collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are 

not likely to affect Forest-wide populations. 

Ground disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave openings (Standard 1401). 

Caves and their microclimate would be protected when implementing management activities near 

caves that are important bat nursery or hibernacula sites (Standard 3102). Vegetative changes 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 198 

would be avoided within 500 feet of caves and mines that serve as nursery roosts or hibernacula 

unless needed to maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features protect the openings 

(Standard 3207). Sanitation near the openings may reduce the chance that MPB will alter air flow 

within the caves or mines. 

Other indirect impacts include the potential loss of habitat due to the reduction of suitable roost 

snags if they are removed due to safety concerns or new road construction. The potential 

negative impact of the action alternatives on snags would be reduced by maintaining all snags in 

treatment areas except for those that pose a safety hazard. Alternative B is expected to have 

fewer snags than Alternative A and more snags than Alternative C due to MPB activity. 

Foraging habitat for bats would most likely improve under the action alternatives through 

opening of pine stands by MPB and treatment activities. Insect populations may increase if 

understory vegetation increases after logging and thinning, thereby increasing available bat prey. 

Silvicultural treatments of timber harvest that benefit riparian habitat would also benefit bat 

insect prey, and thus bat foraging habitat. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except there would be 

more treatments and possibly more snags removed for safety reasons. Some snags may also be 

lost along corridors where new roads are being constructed. Alternative C is expected to have 

fewer snags than Alternatives A and B. Alternative C includes more silvicultural treatments 

which are expected lead to more open conditions which may lead to more food insect 

populations for bats than Alternatives B or A. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. MPB could affect 

air flow near caves and mines, which could affect individual bats, in all alternatives. There is a 

potential loss of occupied daytime roost trees which could affect individuals under the action 

alternatives. The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would likely be adequate habitat for maintaining viable bat populations if Forest Plan standards are 

followed, and if conditions move towards the snag and structural stage objectives. All alternatives 

conserve habitat for bats (Objective 221) by following Forest Plan bat and snag Standards (2301, 

3207, 3208, and 3209), maintaining riparian conditions, and avoiding disturbance at caves and 

mines. All alternatives are expected to reduce dense structural stages and increase open forest 

conditions. Structural stage 4C is expected to be above the objective for all alternatives. 

Structural stages are important for bats because more snags that provide potential roost sites are 

associated with certain structural stages. All alternatives are expected to have abundant snags 

(exceeding Objective 211) due to MPB activity. These bats are likely to persist on the Forest 

under all alternatives because of cave and mine protection and expected snag densities. 

Alternative A is expected to have more snags in the short term because of MPB activity, and 

Alternative A may have more snags in the long term because treatments in Alternative B and C are 

expected reduce mature forest on the landscape. 

American Marten 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have no direct effects on marten because no treatments would occur. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 199 

White spruce may increase in all alternatives if surrounding ponderosa pines are killed by MPB. 

These increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to 

occur in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not 

expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. Closed canopy pine stands are expected to be 

reduced by MPB. Connectivity between spruce habitat patches could be affected if MPB opens the 

canopy in these areas below 50% canopy closure. If a wildfire occurs, the increase in downed wood 

from MPB killed trees could increase the risk that spruce habitat and connecting pine habitat will 

burn. 

Alternative B 

Direct effects in Alternative B include a limited potential for individual mortality due to timber 

felling, pile burning and vehicle traffic. Direct effects may occur if natal or maternal den sites are 

removed during project activities and young of the year are still in these dens. Individual martens 

could be killed directly or die from lack of cover if they are using slash piles when the piles are 

burned. These effects are not expected to occur at a scale that will effect Forest-wide populations. 

Alternative B conserves habitat for martens (Objective 221). White spruce may increase in all 

alternatives if surrounding ponderosa pines are killed by MPB or treated by mechanical methods. 

Alternative B is expected to have more opportunities for spruce expansion than Alternative A 

because it includes treatments that are expected to create more open forest conditions. These 

increases would be expected to occur slowly over several decades and can be expected to occur 

in areas where small inclusions of spruce occur within pine stands. Spruce habitat is not 

expected to change noticeably in the next 5 years. 

Mature ponderosa pine stands with moderate-or-high canopy cover (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5) 

is expected to decline more in Alternative B than in Alternative A due to treatment activities. 

Treatments would maintain 50% canopy cover in connectivity corridors (Standard 3215), but MPB 

may reduce the canopy closure below effective levels. Sanitation treatments are expected to occur 

in connecting corridors in Alternative B to help maintain canopy cover. Alternative B has more 

flexibility than Alternative A to sanitize MPB infestations in connective corridors and maintain 

their value to marten. Forest Plan standards pertaining to the retention of CWD (Standards 3117 and 

2308a) would be followed. Habitat for marten prey associated with closed pine forest conditions 

would also decrease. If fuel loading is reduced adjacent to spruce by removal of infested trees, 

Spruce sites and connecting corridors may be less susceptible to wildfire.

No new road would be constructed in this alternative so no habitat would be lost to road surface. 

Some disturbance effects to marten could occur during treatment operations. Disturbance effects 

and mortality from vehicles is not expected to increase in the long term because all system and 

temporary roads used in this alternative would be closed following project completion. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except that Alternative C 

includes new road construction and includes more treatment acres. More individual martens could 

be killed directly or die from lack of cover if they are using slash piles when the piles are burned 

due to increased treatments over Alternative B. Mature ponderosa pine stands with moderate-orhigh canopy cover (structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5) is expected to decline more in Alternative C 

than in Alternatives A and B due to the added treatment activities. Treatments would maintain 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 200 

50% canopy cover in connectivity corridors (Standard 3215), but MPB may reduce the canopy 

closure below effective levels similar to Alternative B. Sanitation treatments are expected to occur 

in connecting corridors in Alternative C to help maintain canopy cover. Alternative C has the most 

flexibility to sanitize MPB infestations in connective corridors and maintain their value to marten. 

It is estimated that Alternative C would construct 70 miles of new roads. It is estimated that 8 

miles of new road construction would occur in high value marten habitat areas as identified by 

Fescke (2003). If these roads occur in or adjacent to marten habitat, it would reduce habitat by 

about five acres per mile of road (Rowland et al. 2004). Treatment activities are expected to 

cause some disturbance to marten if they occur in or near spruce habitat. Disturbance effects and 

mortality from vehicles is not expected to increase in the long term because newly constructed 

roads and other roads used during the project would be closed following project completion. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. The primary threats 

this project proposes to this species is fragmentation and loss of habitat and the slight chance of loss 

of natal or maternal dens. Spruce habitat is expected to remain stable, but connectivity corridors 

between spruce sites may decline in all alternatives due to MPB activity.

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining viable population if standards are followed, and if conditions move 

towards the spruce objectives (objective 239-LVD). All alternatives in this project follow Forest 

Plan standards for marten including standards 3215, 3117, and 2308. None of the alternatives alter 

spruce acres, thus this project contributes to the spruce objective. MPB may reduce connectivity 

corridors which may reduce marten populations. Sanitation treatments are expected to occur in 

connecting corridors in Alternatives B and C to help maintain canopy cover. Alternative C has the 

most flexibility to sanitize MPB infestations in connective corridors and maintain their value to 

marten. MPB activity is expected to increase risks to marten persistence. Habitat is expected to be 

available in sufficient quantity and distribution so that marten are likely to persist on the Forest. The 

action alternatives offer flexibility to maintain connectivity corridors better than Alternative A. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality is expected in Alternative A because there would be no treatments and 

associated machinery. 

MPB activities are expected to create more open forest conditions across the Forest. If these open 

conditions occur in bighorn sheep use areas within suitable distance of water and escape terrain, 

habitat could be improved through improved visibility. Forage may also increase, but some of the 

forage may become inaccessible as the dead trees fall down. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality of bighorn sheep could occur from vehicle accidents during treatment operations. 

Long term, vehicle accidents are not expected to increase over current levels because all roads 

used during the project that are not on the Forest Motorized Vehicle Use Map will be closed 

following project completion. Likewise, disturbance from vehicles are not expected to increase 

over current levels. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 201 

Open forest conditions that provide good visibility for bighorn sheep are expected to increase due 

to MPB activities and vegetation treatments. These open forage conditions may provide more 

forage than Alternative A because sanitation of infested trees is expected to reduce the number of 

snags that are likely to fall down in the future. If these open conditions occur in bighorn sheep use 

areas near water and escape terrain, bighorn sheep habitat could be improved. Alternative B has 

more potential to improve bighorn sheep habitat than Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except that Alternative C is 

expected to create more open forest conditions and includes an estimated 70 miles of new road 

construction. This new road construction would remove about five acres of forage per mile of road 

if it occurs in bighorn sheep use areas. Alternative C has more potential for improving bighorn 

sheep than Alternative B and A because of the increased open forest conditions that are expected. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. All alternatives 

conserve bighorn sheep habitat (Objective 221) by increasing open forest conditions. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that bighorn sheep are likely to persist 

on the Forest if standards are followed Forest-wide at the project level, and if conditions move 

towards the structural stage objectives at the Forest level. All alternatives in this project follow 

applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All alternatives are expected to increase open forest 

structural stages that provide good visibility preferred by bighorn sheep. Bighorn sheep habitat may 

improve under all alternatives. Bighorn sheep are expected to persist on the Forest in all alternatives. 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog 

None of the alternatives propose treatments within prairie dog towns. All alternatives are expected 

to have no effect on black-tailed prairie dogs. 

Northern Leopard Frog 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have no direct effects because no new activities would occur. Upland 

habitats could be altered if MPB occur on upland sites near water. This could affect individual 

frogs using these upland sites. 

Alternative B 

Potential direct effects of Alternative B include mortality of unknown frog locations through the 

use of heavy equipment and falling of trees activities are located within mesic areas or the 

surrounding uplands of breeding grounds. Because timber treatments do not focus upon riparian 

areas, most sites would be avoided. Roads can cause substantial direct mortality from road-kill 

events (Smith 2003, Smith and Keinath 2007). Additional direct impacts to northern leopard frog 

could include individual mortality of eggs, larvae, and adult frogs due to increased vehicle 

traffic, and newly constructed roads and stream crossings. There are no newly constructed roads 

in this alternative. Road mortality is expected to remain similar to existing conditions following 

the project because all roads used during project implementation that are not part of the Forest 

MVUM will be closed following project completion. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 202 

Riparian areas throughout the project area are not targeted for treatment and would be protected and 

avoided through Best Management Practices (BMPs) and buffers created by the water influence 

zone (WIZ). Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be followed in all alternatives. Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water influence zones, and wetlands. Under all 

alternatives, long-term riparian ecosystem health and ecological function are expected to be 

maintained by not allowing actions that would be detrimental to riparian- ecosystem condition 

(Standards 1301, 1302). Riparian and wetland areas that contain emphasis species would be given 

additional protection from direct and indirect disturbances under all alternatives (Standard 3106). In 

all alternatives, log landings, decking areas, and mechanical-slash piling would not occur within 

riparian areas unless the integrity of riparian areas can be protected (Standard 1306). 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B, except that Alternative C 

includes more acres treated and more road construction. Newly constructed roads may have a 

temporary increase in potential vehicle caused mortality. Effects are expected to end upon 

project completion because all new roads will be closed following project completion. The 

increased treatment acres in Alternative C lead to an increased probability that frogs could be 

killed by vehicles and equipment during treatment operations. 

Determination: All Alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result 

in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. Impacts from 

the action alternatives include habitat disturbance or loss or direct mortality that may occur from 

timber management activities and road construction in riparian areas. MPB activities may affect 

upland sites adjacent to water. The action alternatives conserve habitat for leopard frogs 

(Objective 221) through implementation of riparian standards and guidelines. 

Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would likely be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are followed, and if 

conditions move towards riparian restoration objectives at the Forest level. This species is 

common in suitable habitat on the Forest. The action alternatives in this project follow Forest 

Plan riparian standards including Wildlife/Riparian Standard 3106. Implementation of WCPs and 

BMPs would maintain and protect aquatic, riparian and upslope areas in a condition and quantity 

that continues to support well-distributed, reproductive populations. 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality of redbelly snakes would occur with the no action alternative. The risk of 

wildfire and insect epidemics would increase. Large scale fires and insect epidemics could have 

a positive effect due to lush herbaceous growth coming from beneath dead standing trees and 

increases in microhabitat humidity. MPB activity may provide increased opportunity for aspen 

regeneration may lead to improved redbelly snake habitat. Negatively, MPB could also cause 

severe drying of sites and increase isolation (Smith and Stephens 2003). 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct mortality of unknown snake locations could occur during timber harvest, road construction 

(Alternative C only) and maintenance. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 203 

Soil compaction throughout the timber harvesting units could reduce prey availability. Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines pertaining to watershed, soils, and road construction would help 

avoid some of these effects. Buffer areas created for the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) would 

prevent most of the soil compaction issues unless the road is crossing the WIZ. BMPs would be 

utilized for all proposed stream crossings with Alternative C. This would help to prevent 

sedimentation into the stream channel due to road use. As a result of the hardwood enhancement 

treatments under the action alternatives, there would be an increase in the amount and quality of 

hardwood habitat (primarily aspen). 

The miles of new road construction, road reconstruction and pre-use maintenance present an 

additional negative impact to redbelly snake. No new road construction would occur in 

Alternative B. For Alternative C, it is expected that 70 miles of new roads would be built, some 

of which may occur in mesic areas. All newly constructed roads would be closed following 

treatment activities. Existing roads used in both action alternatives would be closed following 

treatment activities unless the road is included as part of the open road system under the Forestwide Travel Management Plan. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. Impacts from 

the action alternatives include loss of some preferred habitat as well as the potential direct 

mortality from management activities. Under the no action alternative, some preferred habitat 

could be altered by MPB. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are followed and if 

conditions move towards riparian and hardwood objectives at the Forest level. All alternatives 

follow Forest Plan riparian, hardwood and redbelly snake standards including Wildlife/Riparian 

Standards 3106 and 3116. All alternatives contribute to riparian and hardwood objectives. 

Regal Fritillary 

None of the alternatives would affect mixed-grass or tall-grass prairies. All alternatives are 

expected to have no effect on regal fritillaries. Determination: No Impact.

Cooper’s Mountain Snail 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality of snails are expected occur with the Alternative A. The risk of MPB and wildfire 

would increase. MPB are expected to open forest canopies and increase fuel loads as trees fall over. 

If these open conditions occur at snail colonies, they could cause severe drying of sites, increase 

isolation. If fires occur in the increased fuel loads it could kill colonies that are burned over. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality of unknown snail colonies could occur during timber harvest and road 

maintenance. Alternative B conserves habitat for snails (Objective 221) by active management 

following Forest Plan direction. Active management, which lessens the risk of high intensity fire, 

would potentially benefit this snail. Silvicultural treatments may dry out some mesic sites, while 

enhancing others. Unknown snail colonies may be impacted in treatment areas over time, however, 

most treatment areas do not occur in typical snail habitat. Known snail colonies would be conserved 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 204 

according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103). In addition, BMPs and Forest Plan Standards 

pertaining to watershed, soils, and road construction would help avoid some of these effects. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B for most of the project 

area except that Alternative C includes vegetative treatments in Spearfish Canyon and includes 

70 miles of road construction that could potentially affect snail colonies. 

Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103)

except in Spearfish Canyon (Management Area 4.2A). Alternative C proposes timber harvest 

via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders in MA4.2A. Some road construction is 

expected associated with these activities. Due to the high occurrences of Cooper’s mountainsnail 

in MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a Forest Plan 

amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place within 

MA4.2A. Approximately 2/3 of MA 4.2A is identified a potential treatment areas. If these areas 

are treated, as much as 2/3 of the available habitat could be affected. Treatments that open the 

canopy, such as thinning and selection harvest, would be expected to open the canopy and cause

the sites to dry from exposure to sun. Snails are known to be sensitive to site conditions and are 

not expected to use these areas until shade and moist conditions return. Ground disturbing 

activities such as road construction, tractors and skidders, and cable logging on snail colonies are 

expected kill snails and alter habitat. These activities are expected remove litter and expose bare 

soil, which would likely be unsuitable for snails until the litter layer developed. 

Sanitation activities (cut and chunk, cut/pile/burn, cut/chip, hand cut/helicopter yarding) and tree 

spraying are consistent with Standard 3103. Sanitation activities would remove trees that are already 

dying so solar exposure would not be increased. They also may retain more shade in snail colonies by 

reducing the amount of trees killed by MPB. Tree spraying would also help maintain canopy cover. 

Determination: All alternatives “may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a 

loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”. Impacts of 

the action alternatives include habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from timber 

management activities and road construction in unknown colonies. Under the no action alternative, 

there is an increased chance of high intensity wildfire, which could cause severe drying of sites and 

increase colony isolation. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are followed, including 

snail specific Standard 3103. Snail colonies are expected to be impacted by MPB in all alternatives. 

Unknown snail colonies may be impacted by treatments in Alternatives B and C. All known colonies 

would be managed consistent with Standard 3103 in Alternative B. Alternative B follows Forest 

Plan riparian, hardwood and snail standards including Standard 3103. This snail is likely to persist 

on the forest under Alternatives A and B. 

Persistence is more uncertain in Alternative C. In Alternative C, snail colonies would be managed 

according to Standard 3103 on most of the Forest outside of MA 4.2A. There are numerous 

scattered colonies outside MA 4.2. These sites are expected to persist. Colonies in MA 4.2A are 

expected to decline substantially if potential treatment areas are treated with cable logging, road 

construction, tractor logging/skidding, and forest thinning. MA 4.2A has the highest density of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 205 

Cooper’s mountainsnail on the Forest, so this activity is expected to affect the Forest-wide 

population. This species is expected to persist on the Forest, but reduced populations may make 

them more susceptible to natural disturbances. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 

American Dipper 

Alternative A 

The likelihood of high intensity fire in the headwaters of Spearfish Creek or Whitewood Creek 

could increase under the no action alternative if MPB causes high tree mortality in these areas. 

Should a high intensity fire occur, water quality and riparian habitat could be negatively affected 

due to reduction of cover, increased erosion, and sedimentation. 

Alternatives B and C 

Alternatives B and C conserve dipper habitat (Objective 221) through treatments that are expected 

to reduce the risk of MPB near dipper streams. Under Alternatives B and C, management activities 

are expected to reduce the chance of MPB in the headwaters of Spearfish and Whitewood Creeks. 

Alternative C would have the most potential for reducing the risk of MPB and fires in these areas, 

followed by Alternative B. Potential impacts would be minimized through BMPs, WCPs, and 

Forest aquatic and riparian objectives, standards and guidelines. Forest Plan Standards would be 

followed in Alternatives B and C. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards and BMPs 

are followed. The action alternatives follow all Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines. 

This species is expected to continue to persist on the Forest under all alternatives. 

Black-and-white Warbler 

Alternative A 

No direct impacts are expected under Alternative A because no new activities would occur. MPB 

are expected to lead more open forest conditions. If these open forest conditions occur at lower 

elevations near oak woodlands and riparian areas, this could improve habitat for this species. 

Alternative B and C 

Alternatives B and C include the potential for individual mortality due to management activities. 

MPB are expected to lead more open forest conditions. These alternatives conserve habitat for 

this species (Objective 221). If these open forest conditions occur at lower elevations near oak 

woodlands and riparian areas, this is expected to conserve, and could improve, habitat for this

species (Objective 221). Alterative C has the most potential for improving habitat, followed by 

Alternatives B and A, respectively. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards and BMPs 

are followed. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for deciduous forests, hardwoods and 

riparian areas would be followed in Alternatives B and C. All alternatives may contribute to 

hardwood Objectives (Objective 201). This species is expected to persist under all alternatives. 

This species is most likely to persist under Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, because 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 206 

treatment activities are expected create more open conditions forest-wide, which leads to the 

most potential for conserving or improving habitat. 

Broad-winged Hawk and Cooper’s Hawk 

Alternative A 

No direct impacts are expected under Alternative A because no new activities would occur. In 

ponderosa pine, structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 correspond most closely to the nesting habitat 

preferences of both hawk species. These ponderosa pine structural stages are expected to decline 

due to MPB activity. Deciduous trees such as aspen and oak may increase under if MPB areas 

have a deciduous component. White spruce and shrubland habitat is not expected to change 

noticeably this alternative. Alternative A is expected to maintain more mature or old structural 

stage habitat preferred for nesting by these species (structural stage 4B, 4C and 5). 

Alternative B and C 

Direct impacts in Alternatives B and C include potential for individual mortality (nest loss or 

abandonment) to unknown nests due to management activities. 

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 are expected to decline in both alternatives due to 

MPB activity and vegetation treatments. These conditions are expected to decline the most in 

Alternative C, followed by Alternative B, due to vegetation treatments designed to reduce MPB. 

Alternatives B and C conserve habitat for this species (Objective 221) by seeking to retain as 

much mature forest on the landscape as possible. 

Deciduous trees such as aspen and oak may increase under all alternatives if MPB areas have a 

deciduous component. This could improve foraging habitat for both species. The potential for 

hardwood to increase is greatest in Alternative C, followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

White spruce and shrubland habitat is not expected to change noticeably under any alternative. 

Alternatives B and C are expected to result in a reduction in preferred nesting habitat (4B, 4C and 5) 

within the project area, with Alternative C resulting the least amount of nesting habitat. Applicable 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be followed during this project including standard 3204. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are 

followed and if conditions move towards structural stage and hardwood objectives. The action 

alternatives follow applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. All alternatives are expected 

to contribute to the hardwood objective (Objective 201). Structural stages that provide nesting 

habitat are expected to decline and structural stages and cover types that provide foraging habitat 

are expected to increase. Treatments are expected to maintain Structural Stages 4B and 4C above 

objectives in Management Areas with structural stage objectives. These hawks are expected to 

persist on the Forest in all alternatives. The adaptability of both of these species to forage in a 

variety of habitat types for a variety of prey species adds to the likelihood of their persistence. 

Northern Saw-whet Owl 

Alternative A 

No direct impacts are expected under Alternative A because no new activities would occur. 

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble the preferred breeding and nesting habitat for 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 207 

the saw-whet owl. Nesting habitat (i.e. mature, dense forest) is expected to decrease due to MPB 

activity. Large snags would likely increase in the short term and decline as snags fall down and 

MPB activity declines. Young, dense stands are expected to be susceptible to MPB and are 

expected to decline. There are increased risks from high intensity wildfire and mountain pine 

beetle outbreaks in Alternative A. Wildfire has the potential to reduce habitat. Foraging habitat 

is expected to increase in Alternative A as MPB activity creates more open forest conditions. 

Hardwoods could increase as MPB open the Forest, providing more habitat diversity. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct impacts in Alternatives B and C include potential for individual mortality due to 

management activities. Nesting habitat (i.e. mature, dense forest) is expected to decrease in both 

alternatives due to MPB activity. Nesting Habitat is expected to decline the most in Alternative 

C, followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

In both alternatives, large snags would likely increase in the short term and decline as snags fall 

down and MPB activity declines. All snags except those deemed safety hazards would be 

maintained, thereby assuring a long-term supply of snags. Young, dense stands are expected to 

decline due to MPB and non-commercial vegetation treatments. Young stands have the most 

potential to decline in Alternative C, Followed by Alternative B and A, respectively. 

Wildfire has the potential to reduce habitat. Alternatives B and C are expected to reduce fuel 

loads through treatment activities. Alternative C would reduce the potential loss of habitat to 

wildfire the most. 

Foraging habitat is expected to increase in Alternatives B and C as MPB and vegetation 

treatments create more open forest conditions and more forest edges. Riparian habitats would be 

protected from harvest treatments and hardwoods could increase, providing more habitat

diversity. 

Alternative C includes 70 miles of new that could present an additional negative impact to sawwhet owls, at least partially due to increased disturbance of nesting birds and a potential loss of 

snags along new road corridors and landing sites. Disturbance is expected to return to current 

levels following project completion because all roads not on the Forest Motorized Vehicle Use 

Map would be closed following treatments. 

Alternatives B and C conserve habitat for this species (Objective 221) by following Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. To help reduce disturbances to nesting and wintering raptors, Standard 

3204 guide general protections at active raptor nests. Standard 3204 directs projects to consider 

recommendations from other federal and state agencies when designing management near known 

raptor nests. Both alternatives are consistent with Standard 3204. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are 

followed. The action alternatives follow applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

saw-whet owl is by far the most common and widespread owl on the Forest (Drilling 2010). Its 

ability to use a variety of habitats contributes to its ability to persist on the Forest. Saw-whet 

owls are expected to persist on the Forest under all alternatives. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 208 

Pygmy Nuthatch 

Alternative A 

No direct effects are anticipated under Alternative A because no activities would occur in the 

project area under this alternative. Preferred nesting and foraging habitat in mature, dense forest 

(4C) habitat is expected to decrease, while preferred nesting and foraging habitat in open pine 

sites (4A) is expected to increase, due to MPB activities. MPB-caused tree mortality in 

Alternative A could lead to stand-replacing wildfires and/or beetle infestation. Either of these 

events could reduce this species’ preferred nesting and roosting habitat but would create snags. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct impacts in Alternatives B and C include the potential for individual mortality due to 

management. Treatments could cause individual mortality if trees or snags that contain nests or 

roosting birds are cut. 

Preferred nesting and foraging habitat in mature, dense forest (4C) habitat is expected to 

decrease in both alternatives, while preferred nesting and foraging habitat in open pine sites (4A) 

is expected to increase, due to treatment activities. Dense forest is expected to decrease the most 

in Alternative C, followed by Alternatives B and A respectively. Open sites are expected to 

increase the most in Alternative C, followed by Alternatives B and A, respectively. The open 

forest sites will continue to provide nesting and foraging habitat as long as large snags are 

retained. The availability of large trees is expected to be similar in all alternatives. Treatments 

in Alternatives B and C may make mature and large diameter trees less susceptible to MPB, 

which could improve the potential for future large diameter snags. This is expected to conserve 

habitat for the species (Objective 221). Alternatives B and C reduce the chance of wildfire and 

conserve large snag habitat (Objective 221) by removing MPB infested trees. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are 

followed and conditions move towards the structural stage objectives. The action alternatives 

follow applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines including snag standards. All alternatives 

are expected to move away from the open, mature and old structural stages (4A and 5) objective 

(except MA 5.43). Even though conditions move away from this objective, all alternatives are 

expected to be above the objective. This should be a benefit to pygmy nuthatches if trees and 

snags are retained. Alternative B and C are expected to have slightly fewer large trees, which are 

potential future large snags, due to thinning activities. All alternatives move towards dense, 

mature structural stage (4C) objectives. Pygmy nuthatches are expected to persist on the Forest 

under all alternatives. They are more likely to persist under Alternative A, followed by 

Alternative B, which are expected to retain more large trees and large snags on the landscape. 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

Alternative A 

No direct impacts are expected under Alternative A because no new activities would occur. 

Preferred nesting habitat (i.e. dense young forest, structural stages 3B and 3C) would likely 

decrease due to MPB activity. Foraging habitat (open habitat) may increase along with prey 

species associated with open habitat. There are increased risks from wildfire from mountain pine 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 209 

beetle outbreaks with this alternative. Wildfire has the potential to reduce habitat. Spruce habitat 

could increase slightly over time under this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct impacts include potential for individual mortality (including nest loss or abandonment) due 

to management activities. Indirect impacts include loss of nesting habitat and disturbances from 

timber harvest, mechanical thinning, and road construction (Alternative C). However, in time, 

other nesting habitat would be created and enhanced where mature trees are harvested, leaving 

younger trees to become established and dominate stands. Under both alternatives, preferred 

nesting habitat (3B and 3C) is expected to decrease due to MPB activity. Nesting habitat is 

expected to decline the most in Alternative C, because it has the potential to treat the most 3B and 

3C stands, followed by Alternative B. Foraging habitat would likely remain stable with timber 

harvest and MPB providing a variety of structural stages and cover types in which diverse prey 

species exist. Spruce habitat is not targeted for treatment under the action alternatives. Any known 

or newly discovered nests would be protected through Standard 3204. Protection of known nests 

and the retention and creation of suitable habitat contribute to Objective 221. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are 

followed and conditions move towards the structural stage objectives. The action alternatives 

follow applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Foraging habitat is expected to remain 

stable. Treatments in the action alternatives are expected to move conditions away from the 

objectives for nesting habitat (structural stages 3B and 3C). MPB activity in Alternative A is 

also expected to move conditions away from objectives for these structural stages. This presents 

an increased risk to persistence over current conditions. This could lead to fewer sharp-shinned 

hawks until the forest can recover to following the MPB outbreak. In all alternatives, nesting 

habitat is expected to be available, though in lesser amounts. This species is expected to persist 

on the Forest under all alternatives. 

Bats 

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have no direct effects because no new activities would occur. Roosting 

habitat in snags is likely to increase with MPB activity. There are also increased risks from 

wildfire and mountain pine beetle outbreaks under this alternative. Pine beetle outbreaks and 

wildfire at lower intensity levels could lead to an increase in snags, but current conditions favor 

high intensity, stand-replacing events that would not benefit these species. 

MPB activity is expected to occur around some caves and mines that serve as bat roosts or 

hibernacula. If MPB activity occurs at the entrance to these sites, air flow patterns within the 

sites could be altered such that they become less suitable for bats. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality is expected to be minimal in this alternative. Direct effects include limited 

potential for individual mortality due to tree felling and from collisions. Potential loss of 

occupied daytime roost trees may negatively impact individuals, if the snag is determined to be a 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 210 

safety hazard and removed. Risk is low because of their mobility and because they primarily 

roost in caves, mines and rock crevices. Due to the maneuverability of these species and their 

hours of activity (night time), collisions are possible, but unlikely. If collisions do occur, they are 

not likely to affect Forest-wide populations. 

Ground disturbance would be avoided within 100 feet of natural cave openings (Standard 1401). 

Caves and their microclimate would be protected when implementing management activities 

near caves that are important bat nursery or hibernacula sites (Standard 3102). Vegetative 

changes would be avoided within 500 feet of caves and mines that serve as nursery roosts or

hibernacula unless needed to maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features protect the 

openings (Standard 3207). Sanitation near the openings may reduce the chance that MPB will 

alter air flow within the caves or mines. 

Other indirect impacts include the potential loss of habitat due to the reduction of suitable roost 

snags if they are removed due to safety concerns or new road construction. The potential 

negative impact of the action alternatives on snags would be mitigated by maintaining all snags 

in treatment areas except for those that pose a safety hazard. Alternative B is expected to have 

fewer snags than Alternative A and more snags than Alternative C. 

Foraging habitat for bats would most likely improve under the action alternatives, through 

opening of pine stands by treatment activities. Insect populations may increase after logging and 

thinning, thereby increasing available bat prey. Silvicultural treatments of timber harvest that 

benefit riparian habitat would also benefit bat insect prey, and thus bat foraging habitat. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B except there would be 

more treatments and possibly more snags removed for safety reasons. Some snags may also be 

lost along corridors where new roads are being constructed. Alternative C is expected to have 

fewer snags than Alternatives A and B. Alternative C includes more silvicultural treatments 

which are expected lead to more open conditions which may lead to more food insect 

populations for bats than Alternatives B or A. 

Summary: MPB could affect air flow near caves and mines, which could affect individual bats, in 

all alternatives. There is a potential loss of occupied daytime roost trees which could affect 

individuals under the action alternatives. The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 

2005g) determined that there would likely be adequate habitat for maintaining viable bat 

populations if Forest Plan standards are followed, and if conditions move towards the snag and 

structural stage objectives. All alternatives conserve habitat for bats (Objective 221) by following 

applicable Forest Plan standards including Bat and Snag Standards (2301, 3207, 3208, and 3209), 

maintaining riparian conditions, and avoiding disturbance at caves and mines. All alternatives are 

expected to reduce dense structural stages and increase open forest conditions. Structural stage 4C 

is expected to be at or above the objective for both action alternatives. Structural stages are 

important for bats because more snags that provide potential roost sites are associated with certain 

structural stages. All alternatives are expected to have abundant snags (exceeding Objective 211) 

due to MPB activity. These bats are likely to persist on the Forest under all alternatives because of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 211 

cave and mine protection and expected snag densities. Alternative A is expected to have the most 

snags because of MPB activity. 

Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality is expected because no management actions would occur. MPB are expected 

to kill pine trees near some riparian areas, which may promote shrub and hardwood development 

along some riparian areas. 

Alternatives B and C 

Vehicle traffic from treatment activities could cause individual mortality. Mice could be killed 

directly or die from lack of cover if they are using piles adjacent to meadows when the piles are 

burned. These impacts are expected to occur to individuals and are not expected to lead to 

population declines. 

Logging activities and treatment of logging slash may require ground disturbance, which has the 

potential to indirectly affect riparian and wetland ecosystems primarily through changes in 

sediment loads to creeks or wetlands and the introduction or spread of noxious weeds. The larger 

the amount of ground disturbance and/or the closer proximity to wetland and riparian areas, the 

greater the potential for disturbed areas to be connected to the streams and riparian areas, and the 

greater potential to have an indirect impact to riparian and wetland habitats used by jumping 

mice. Alternative C includes the most treatments, followed by Alternative B and Alternative A, 

respectively. Therefore, Alternative C has the most potential to affect riparian habitat, followed 

by Alternatives B and A, respectively. 

Under the action alternatives, the riparian areas throughout the project area are not targeted for 

treatment and would be protected and avoided through Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

buffers created by the water influence zone (WIZ). Forest Plan standards and guidelines will be 

followed in all alternatives. Forest-wide standards and guidelines protect riparian areas, water 

influence zones, and wetlands. Under all alternatives, long-term riparian ecosystem health and 

ecological function are expected to be maintained by not allowing actions that would be 

detrimental to riparian- ecosystem condition (Standards 1301, 1302). Riparian and wetland areas 

that contain emphasis species would be given additional protection from direct and indirect 

disturbances under all alternatives (Standard 3106). In all alternatives, log landings, decking 

areas and mechanical-slash piling would not occur within riparian areas unless the integrity of 

riparian areas can be protected (Standard 1306). 

Summary: Management activities are expected to maintain or enhance of riparian habitat that 

would lead to increasing meadow jumping mouse populations within the project area, contributing 

to Objective 221. The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) determined that 

there would likely be adequate habitat for maintaining viable bat populations if Forest Plan 

standards are followed, and if conditions move towards riparian objectives. The action 

alternatives follow standards and guidelines for riparian areas. All alternatives contribute to 

riparian (213) and hardwood (201) objectives. This species is expected to persist on the Forest. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 212 

Mountain Goat 

Open forest conditions are expected to increase in all alternatives due to MPB activities. This 

could result in improved forage for mountain goats if MPB areas occur near escape terrain 

(cliffs) near Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Alternatives B and C do not include treatments in 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Treatments outside Norbeck could occur near escape terrain, 

especially if helicopters or non-commercial methods are used. This could provide additional 

forage over Alternative A. Alternative C has the most potential to improve mountain goat forage 

near escape terrain. 

Mountain goats are expected to persist on the Forest under all alternatives. Forage could 

increase near escape terrain under all alternatives. No treatments are proposed in Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve where the majority of goats occur. 

Northern Flying Squirrel 

Alternative A 

No direct effects are expected in Alternative A because no treatments would occur in the project 

area. MPB activity is expected to reduce dense forest conditions and increase open forest 

conditions. Flying squirrels use a variety of forest conditions including moist dense sites and 

open dyer sites (Duckwitz 2001). Even though habitat may change, flying squirrels are expected 

to continue to occur in the various structural stages. MPB areas may lead to an increased chance 

of stand-replacing wildfire, which would reduce potential habitat for this species. White spruce 

habitat is not expected to change much in this alternative. Downed logs would be abundant at 

MPB-killed trees fall over. 

Alternative B and C 

Direct impacts include a risk of individual mortality due to tree felling. Timber harvest activities 

that occur within or near occupied flying squirrel nesting habitats during the breeding season 

could directly displace, harm, or kill young, non-mobile flying squirrels. Vehicle traffic from 

treatment activities could cause individual mortality. Squirrels could be killed directly or die 

from lack of cover if they are using slash piles when the piles are burned. These impacts are 

expected to occur to individuals and are not expected to lead to population declines. 

Under Alternatives B and C, mature open ponderosa pine habitat (structural stage 4A) is 

expected to increase within the project area, with Alternative C increasing the most. Stands in 

structural stages 4B, 4C and 5 are expected to decrease correspondently under Alternatives B and 

C, with Alternative C decreasing the most. The flying squirrel also prefers spruce habitat which 

is not targeted for treatment during silvicultural treatments and spruce acreage would be 

maintained by Objective 239-LVD. 

Flying squirrels require sufficient standing and downed snags. All non-hazard snags would be 

retained during management activities. The action alternatives would follow Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines pertaining to snags and downed wood. Abundant downed wood is 

expected to remain in both alternatives as MPB-killed trees fall over. 

Summary: The no action alternative provides the most potential pine nesting habitat in structural 

stage 4C for the flying squirrel. Alternatives B and C would decrease preferred structural stage 4B 

and 4C habitat and increase preferred structural stage 4A habitat. No treatments are proposed in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 213 

preferred spruce habitat under the action alternatives. The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2005) determined that there would likely be adequate habitat for maintaining viable 

bat populations if Forest Plan standards are followed, and if conditions move towards structural 

stage objectives. The action alternatives conserve habitat for flying squirrels (Objective 221) by 

following applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, including snag standards 2301a and 

2305 and maintaining mature forest stands on the landscape. All alternatives open mature forest 

conditions (4A) and reduce dense, mature forest conditions (4C). All alternatives are expected to 

be above objective for open mature forest conditions and at or above objective for dense mature 

forest conditions. Flying squirrels are expected to persist under all alternatives. Treatments in 

Alternatives B and C are expected to retain slightly fewer mature forest stands and large trees on 

the landscape. Flying squirrels are most likely to persist under Alternative A, followed by 

Alternatives B and C, respectively. 

Butterflies 

Alternative A 

This alternative is expected to have no direct effects because no new activities would occur. 

MPB activity is not expected to significantly increase meadow habitat. 

Alternatives B and C 

Potential direct effects of timber harvest activities under the action alternatives to both butterfly 

species include limited potential for individual mortality due to management activities adjacent 

to meadows and riparian areas. Direct mortality to adults and larvae from vehicle collisions 

could occur in the action alternatives. Treatments are not expected to increase the amount of 

meadows and riparian areas. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) determined that there 

would likely be adequate habitat for maintaining viable bat populations if Forest Plan standards 

are followed and if conditions move towards riparian and meadow objectives. All alternatives 

conserve meadows and riparian areas habitat (Forest plan Objective 221) through Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. None of the alternatives are expected to increase the amount of 

meadows and riparian areas in the project area. The Atlantis fritillary and tawny crescent are 

expected to continue to persist on the Forest. 

Snails 

Alternative A 

No direct mortality of snails would occur with the no action alternative. The risk of MPB and wildfire 

would increase. MPB are expected to open forest canopies and increase fuel loads as trees fall over. 

If these open conditions occur at snail colonies, they could cause severe drying of sites, increase 

isolation. If fires occur in the increased fuel loads it could kill colonies that are burned over. 

Alternative B 

Direct mortality of unknown snail colonies could occur during timber harvest and road 

maintenance. Alternative B conserves habitat for snails (Objective 221) by active management 

following Forest Plan direction. Active management, which lessens the risk of high intensity fire, 

would potentially benefit this snail. Silvicultural treatments may dry out some mesic sites, while 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 214 

enhancing others. Unknown snail colonies may be impacted in treatment areas over time, however, 

most treatment areas do not occur in typical snail habitat. Known snail colonies would be conserved 

according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103). In addition, BMPs and Forest Plan Standards 

pertaining to watershed, soils, and road construction would help avoid some of these effects. 

Alternative C 

The effects of Alternative C are expected to be similar to Alternative B for most of the project 

area except that Alternative C includes vegetative treatments in Spearfish Canyon and includes 

70 miles of road construction that could potentially affect snail colonies. 

Known snail colonies would be conserved according to Forest Plan direction (Standard 3103)

except in Spearfish Canyon (Management Area 4.2A). Alternative C proposes timber harvest 

via cable logging and use of tractors and skidders in MA4.2A. Some road construction is 

expected associated with these activities. Due to the high occurrences of SOLC snails in 

MA4.2A these actions would not be consistent with Standard 3103. Therefore, a Forest Plan 

amendment is proposed as part of Alternative C, to allow these actions to take place within 

MA4.2A. Approximately 2/3 of MA 4.2A is identified a potential treatment areas. If these areas 

are treated, as much as 2/3 of the available habitat could be affected. Treatments that open the 

canopy, such as thinning and selection harvest, would be expected to open the canopy and cause

the sites to dry from exposure to sun. Snails are known to be sensitive to site conditions and are 

not expected to use these areas until shade and moist conditions return. Ground disturbing 

activities such as road construction, tractors and skidders, and cable logging on snail colonies are 

expected kill snails and alter habitat. These activities are expected remove litter and expose bare 

soil, which would likely be unsuitable for snails until the litter layer developed. 

Sanitation activities (cut and chunk, cut/pile/burn, cut/chip, hand cut/helicopter yarding) and tree 

spraying are consistent with Standard 3103. Sanitation activities would remove trees that are 

already dying so solar exposure would not be increased. They also may retain more shade in 

snail colonies by reducing the amount of trees killed by MPB. Tree spraying would also help 

maintain canopy cover. 

Summary: The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005g) determined that there 

would be adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if Forest Plan standards are 

followed, including snail specific Standard 3103. Snail colonies are expected to be impacted by 

MPB in all alternatives. Unknown snail colonies may be impacted by treatments in Alternatives 

B and C. All known colonies would be managed consistent with Standard 3103 in Alternative B. 

Alternative B follows Forest Plan riparian, hardwood and snail standards including Standard 

3103. This snail is likely to persist on the forest under Alternatives A and B. 

Persistence is more uncertain in Alternative C. In Alternative C, snail colonies would be 

managed according to Standard 3103 on most of the Forest outside of MA 4.2A. There are 

scattered colonies outside MA 4.2. These sites are expected to persist. Colonies in MA 4.2A are 

expected to decline substantially if potential treatment areas are treated with cable logging, road 

construction, tractor logging/skidding, and forest thinning. These species is expected to persist 

on the Forest, but reduced populations may make them more susceptible to natural disturbances. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 215 

Migratory Birds 

Golden Eagle 

Disturbance to nesting birds from timber harvest activities under the action alternatives may 

occur. Disturbance would likely be a temporary displacement during the treatment activities and 

would be localized to the activity location. Hunting success may increase due to the creation of 

more open habitat expected in treatment areas. Additionally, reduced pine overstory in proposed 

cutting areas will likely increase horizontal screening cover, which will benefit long-term (5-25 

years) prey populations and survival and thus, the eagle indirectly. Enhanced habitat for prey 

species will benefit eagles. Potential nest trees may decrease in cutting units. However, nest 

trees are not limiting in the Black Hills. Nesting for this species is primarily on cliffs in the Black 

Hills, but nests are occasionally found in trees. Nesting habitat will be maintained by providing 

adequate numbers of trees across the project area. 

Red-headed Woodpecker 

Timber harvest may have an immediate impact if active nest trees are removed. Reducing the 

amount of mature forest stands with their snag component may negatively affect these birds. Snag 

densities are expected to be above Forest Plan Objective 211 in all alternatives due to MPB activity. 

The increase in open forest conditions expected in all alternatives could lead to more hardwood 

component which may be beneficial to red-headed woodpeckers due to their association with mast 

production (Anderson 2003). The action alternatives will retain all non-safety hazard snags per 

Forest Plan Standards and proposes to enhance 630 acres of aspen. The amount of preferred, open 

pine habitat (structural stage 4A) will increase in the project area with all alternatives. 

Black-billed Cuckoo 

Disturbance to nesting birds from timber harvest activities under the action alternatives may occur. 

Suitable habitat is expected to increase with MPB activity and proposed treatments. Thinning pine 

is expected to encourage more diversity and production in the understory, benefiting this bird. 

Climate Change 

The USFS has embraced the management challenges posed by climate change. The agency’s 

“Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change” (Hayward et al. 2009) provides broad 

direction to guide future management and research to address climate change in all aspects of 

agency work. With this Framework, the agency has attempted to integrate climate change 

throughout its organizational structure. As a result, significant momentum is building from the 

individual Ranger District level up through the Washington Office to actively manage fish and 

wildlife habitat in a way that is mindful of climate change. It is assumed that climate change 

likely could lead to the loss of native species from extensive areas and result in increasingly 

scarce and fragmented populations in many others. Further changes within ecosystems could be 

triggered as invasive species, both plant and animal, fill the "holes" that are left as native species 

are lost. Increases in disturbance owing to fire, insects, and disease could accelerate the 

infiltration of invasive species. The loss of native ecosystems to invasive species affects many 

species as the effects of changing plant communities ripple through the ecosystems. As a result, 

many animal species could be lost as vegetation patterns change, associated changes in the foodweb could cascade and further destabilize ecosystems. Until these changes are better 

understood, it would be difficult to reliably predict the environmental outcomes of forest 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 216 

management activities (Ruggiero et al. 2008, Reid and Lisle 2008). The uncertainty associated 

with climate change and the potential risk associated with novel and untested management 

practices would require altogether new levels of institutional flexibility. The potential impacts to 

species on the Forest are becoming better understood and that effects of any one project such as 

this are not meaningfully measurable, especially at the scale of the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the additive incremental impacts from the action alternatives in relation to 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past actions are reflected in the existing 

condition. This analysis is bounded by the Forest Boundary and the 15 year period required for 

project implementation. Relevant actions on federal and non-federal land assessed in the analysis 

are discussed below. 

The Forest has been affected by wildfires within the last 30 years. Prescribed burning has 

occurred or may occur on throughout the Forest. Several prescribed burns may occur within the 

next five years as identified in the Briggs, Cold Spring, Steamboat, Herman, Pactola, Buttes, 

Calumet and Vestal Project Areas. These burns are specifically designed to reduce ground fuels, 

pine regeneration, thin dense stands, and improve winter forage for big game. These burns have 

created an interspersion of openings and various tree densities while increasing the grass/forb 

understory. Pockets of snags are apparent in the burn areas, along with insect and disease 

components that normally follows a fire. None of the alternatives would incrementally add to 

the effects of these projects because no broadcast burning is included in the alternatives. 

The MPB infestation is expected to increase due to the growing MPB population levels that are 

currently affecting the Black Hills. All alternatives would reduce areas of continuous pine 

structural stages, especially mature and late succession pine, thus reducing patch size of these 

stands. The MPB population has already had an impact across the Forest, increasing edge and 

changes to pine forest structure and size. Alternative A, due to stand densities, could increase 

the intensity and lengthen the duration of the current MPB epidemic. Alternative A would not 

move toward Forest Plan Goal 10. Alternative B and C would move toward Forest Goal 10 for 

managing insect outbreaks by reducing stand densities and reducing the susceptibility of those 

stands from MPB attack. However, in doing so these even-aged treatments along with continued 

MPB effects would create larger areas of structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A where stand and within 

stand heterogeneity is low. Because there is less competition with overstory, pine regeneration 

would flourish in the next 10-20 years. Combined with similar treatments in the analysis area, 

the treatments in Alternatives B and C could add to a loss of heterogeneity across the landscape, 

creating the same conditions (high fire hazard and high insect risk) in the next 20-30 years that 

could affect wildlife. 

Limited use of pesticides (e.g., Carbaryl) to control the effects of mountain pine beetle in the 

recreation areas could occur for the next five to seven years, separate from the proposed action. 

Chemical treatments may also be used on private lands. These treatment would focused on 

maintaining mature pine overstory and provide public safety in high use recreation areas. 

Alternatives B and C would incrementally add to these effects by treating some high value areas 

and legacy trees with pesticides. Chemical treatments may result in localized reductions in insect 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 217 

populations, which could reduce prey for insectivores. These effects are expected to be minimal 

because use of chemicals to control MPB is not effective on a large scale. 

In areas not treated to reduce the susceptibility of MPB attack, increased fuel loading, and steep 

inaccessible slopes may create the conditions that increase the rate of spread, increase severity, and 

intensity of wildfires. A large stand-replacing wildfire, depending on the severity and intensity 

would be detrimental to soil, water, and ultimately loss of wildlife/aquatic habitat. Stand replacing 

wildfires may drastically alter or eliminate some species’ habitat for long periods (e.g., >50 years). 

Alternative A due to the amount of standing dead and downed fuels created by MPB would add to 

the potential for this type of wildfire. Alternatives B and C could reduce the rate of spread, 

severity, and intensity of wildfires by decreasing fuel loadings, increasing natural and planned fuel 

breaks and open crown densities allowing for effective fire suppression. Fuel reduction treatments 

in the project area, along with areas adjacent to the Forest that reduce the potential for large-scale 

wildfire are expected to benefit most wildlife species, the exception would be the black-backed 

woodpecker and pygmy nuthatch that prefer standing dead/burned habitats. 

Present and reasonably foreseeable commercial and non-commercial treatments are expected to 

occur on the Forest as part of the Briggs, Cold Spring, Steamboat, Herman, Pactola, Buttes, 

Calumet and Vestal Projects. The main emphasis of these projects is to protect communities, 

forest resources, and ecosystems from the on-going MPB epidemic and to reduce the potential for 

a large stand replacing wildfire. Post timber sale treatments such as thinning, noxious weed 

treatment, hardwood retention/restoration, and meadow restoration have been planned in the 

project area for the next five years as part of these projects. The result of these current and future 

vegetative management activities include moving much of the dense, mature pine forest toward 

more open stands structural stages. In addition, treatments to protect private land and communities 

from the effects of MPB and wildfire are planned and would likely continue as needed. 

Alternative A is not expected to contribute directly to cumulative effects of past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable vegetative treatments in reducing mature, dense pine structural stages on the 

landscape. However, indirectly forest maturation and predicted MPB mortality estimates are 

expected to reduce mature, dense pine structural stages. The effects of this habitat loss would be 

dependent on the extent and duration of the beetle epidemic. Treatments associated with 

Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute to meeting Forest-wide objectives for early seral 

and open canopied pine structural stages (1, 2, 3A, and 4A) but are expected to contribute to a loss

in denser stand conditions, especially in the older more mature structural stages (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, 

and 5) on the landscape. Cumulatively, all alternatives would further reduce habitat for several 

wildlife species that require late-successional or dense mature stands in the analysis area, which 

could affect their distribution on the landscape. All alternatives whether indirectly or directly 

contribute to the distribution and restoration of other plant communities by varying degrees in the 

analysis area, increasing structural diversity and maintaining seral communities on the landscape. 

Alternative A is expected to maintain snag and CWD at the project scale and is expected to 

contribute to meeting snag and downed wood objectives short-term. Alternative A, based on 

predicted MPB effects, may not contribute to snag objectives long-term. Alternatives B and C 

could further reduce snag distribution and CWD in treated areas, especially adjacent to roads and 

private land if deemed a safety hazard. In addition, silviculture treatments may affect snag densities 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 218 

(recruitment) by decreasing the number of low vigor trees available to become snags. However, the 

action alternatives are expected to contribute to maintaining large snags on the landscape long-term. 

It is possible that areas on the Forest would be designated for firewood gathering. This could 

decrease snag abundance and availability mostly adjacent to accessible areas. However, 

firewood gathering is not expected to affect Forest-wide snag objectives. 

Livestock grazing on Forest and private land would continue on the Forest. Although grazing 

practices have improved from historic conditions, impacts may occur, especially during drought 

conditions. Grazing allotment management plans incorporate wildlife habitat needs, protection of 

riparian habitats and moves toward meeting Forest Plan direction to maintain forage and cover for 

wildlife species. None of the alternatives would add any cumulative impacts to livestock use 

long-term. 

Roads and trails can remove habitat, increase predation, create barriers, or decrease habitat 

quality for some species (e.g., fish, amphibians, reptiles, and land snails). Use of roads by 

humans can also increase disturbance to wildlife, particularly to nesting raptors. High road 

densities increase accessibility, and can facilitate recreation use, wildlife hunting, poaching, and 

illegal removal of snags. Road/trail densities have increased in the analysis area as a result of 

past vegetation management activities, private land development, and recreation. In addition, 

roads have been attributed to increasing sediments into streams. 

Alternative A would not add any additional road/trails to the area that could open up previously 

inaccessible areas, therefore would not add any cumulative effect to the analysis area. 

Alternative B would not add new road/trails to the landscape, but would use existing roads and 

trail. Alternative C would add approximately 70 miles of roads/trails to the landscape which is 

expected to reduce the amount of vegetation available for wildlife habitat by about five acres per 

mile of road (Rowland et al. 2004). Alternatives A and B would not incrementally add to 

disturbance in the long term because all system and temporary roads not on the Forest Travel 

Map will be closed following treatments. All alternatives would maintain road/trail densities 

open to motorized vehicles, both year-round and seasonally. 

Private land development is still occurring, and the trend is expected to continue into the future. 

Habitat changes associated with increased development are expected to decrease prime wildlife 

habitat (riparian areas and grasslands) and could influence wildlife distribution and their ability to 

move across the landscape. Providing secondary access roads (for evacuation during a fire) and 

clearing along these roads to maintain safe egress to private land could increase visibility of 

wildlife and affect movement patterns. As development increases, water availability could be 

reduced, either from wells or water impoundments reducing flows in streams. Low water tables 

could drastically change riparian communities and aquatic habitats. Species most affected are 

those associated with riparian components (e.g., fish, song sparrows, beavers) and grassland 

communities (e.g., grasshopper sparrows, big game). In addition, increased noise, domestic 

animals, and introduction of invasive species could occur, changing wildlife distribution and use. 

Roads on private land are expected to increase, as land is sub-divided. Roads that access private 

land and communities would likely be improved to allow easier, safer access to arterial roads that 

could increase mortality and decrease use in adjacent suitable habitat. Some vegetative treatments 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 219 

are occurring on private land, mostly in conjunction with reducing MPB effects and increasing 

development opportunities. The amount of vegetative treatments on private land is expected to 

slightly reduce wildlife habitat on the landscape. Alternatives B and C are expected to contribute 

to these effects improving secondary access routes and by clearing roads and egress routes. Noise 

created by harvest activities are expected to be short-term and cause a slight change in wildlife 

distribution and use. However, once equipment leaves an area, wildlife use is expected to resume. 

Activities on private land and MPB outbreaks are expected to impact snail colonies. Treatments 

in Alternative B and C are expected add impacts to undiscovered snail colonies. Alternative C is 

expected to add substantial impacts in Spearfish Canyon (MA 4.2A) with the addition of

commercial cable logging, tractor logging/skidding, road construction and forest thinning. 

FISHERIES 

Affected Environment 

Historically fish-species diversity was limited in the Black Hills, with native species including 

creek chub, fathead minnow, finescale dace, lake chub, longnose dace, longnose sucker, 

mountain sucker and white sucker (USDA Forest Service 2005g). The lake chub, finescale dace 

and mountain sucker are designated as Rocky Mountain Region sensitive fish species. The 

mountain sucker is also a Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Black Hills National 

Forest. There are no federally threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate fish species nor any 

designated critical habitat present in the analysis area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a-f). 

Non-native fish species provide recreational fishing opportunities. Trout were first stocked in the 

Black Hills in the late 1880s. Fisheries populations are managed by the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Supplemental stocking of 

hatchery raised rainbow trout is done to meet angler satisfaction in waterbodies that receive high 

angler pressure. Brook trout and brown trout populations are generally self-sustaining, except under 

drought conditions on some streams. A variety of other non-native game fish or bait species are also 

now present due to illegal or incidental releases. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the action 

alternatives (Alternatives B or C) would take place within the MPB Response Project Area. Actions 

such as ongoing Forest protection efforts, fire suppression, noxious weed treatment, and recurring 

road maintenance on system roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. Vegetative 

management would not take place unless authorized by other decisions. 

These past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions however may continue to directly or 

indirectly impact fisheries and their habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005g). Roads would continue 

to be a sediment source to streams and other waterbodies. Instream structures (culverts) at roadstream crossings may be barriers to fish passage. Some remedial actions that improve fish habitat 

may occur under other funded programs. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 220 

The loss of larger ponderosa pine trees (structural stages 3b, 3c, 4b and 4c) due to mountain pine 

beetle infestation is anticipated to be highest under this alternative. The effects of ponderosa pine 

overstory reduction on stream temperatures, flow regimes and water yield are contingent on a 

number of factors. These effects are disclosed in the hydrology section and are anticipated to be 

minor. The potential recruitment of large wood to increase aquatic habitat diversity is greatest 

under this alternative. The level of recruitment would be dependent on mountain pine beetle

killed trees falling into or across streams or the transport of beetle-killed trees during high 

rainfall or flood events into waterbodies. 

In general, this alternative has the highest fire/fuels hazard. Fire can remove riparian vegetation, 

increasing direct solar radiation to the stream surface and leading to warmer summer water 

temperatures (Mahlum et al. 2011, Sestrich et al. 2011). Fire can also consume vegetation and 

organic biomass on the forest floor, changing hydrologic flows, stream quality, and fish habitat 

suitability (Driscoll et al. 2004). 

Many fish species have evolved with natural disturbances (fire, floods or drought) and their 

populations are resilient to these events given adequate connectivity to robust populations 

elsewhere in a basin. This resiliency, however, has been reduced in many watersheds through 

stream habitat loss, degradation or fragmentation. Therefore, the time period for fish populations to 

recover may increase, with the exception of waterbodies in which hatchery-reared fish are stocked. 

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects to fish relate to those inwater activities that may injure or kill fish (all life stages). 

These inwater activities relate primarily to the placement of structures at road-stream crossings. 

Design criteria to use structures, such as temporary bridges, that span the creek channel to 

maintain streambank stability and avoid the placement of culverts and roadfill in the stream 

along with the seasonal restriction to prohibit inwater activities during the fall spawning period 

for brook and brown trout should avoid adverse effects to fish during their spawning, egg 

incubation and emergence period, consistent with the watershed conservation practices. 

Changes in sediment input, water quality and temperature, flow regimes and water yield constitute 

the indirect effects to fisheries via habitat modification. These effects are disclosed in the hydrology 

effects analysis. Activities including cut and chunk, cut and chip, cut-hand pile-burn and pesticide 

spraying are likely to have minimal ground disturbance with no detectable indirect effects on fish 

habitat. The application of pesticides (carbaryl or permethrin) is limited to campgrounds, 

administrative sites and legacy trees. Potential adverse impacts will be mitigated because these 

pesticides will be sprayed by a certified applicator at the approved concentration per label directions 

to avoid wind drift to waterbodies. 

Land management activities, such as timber harvest and road development, pose threats to fish 

habitat if erosion rates and sediment delivery to streams are not managed and habitat diversity is 

diminished (USDA Forest Service 2005g). Alternative B proposes treatment of 48,400 acres (20 

percent of the total acres identified). No new system or temporary roads are proposed in Alternative 

B, though some existing non-system routes could be used then designated as Level 1 (closed) 

system roads. Commercial and products other than lumber (POL) timber harvesting should only be 

a minimal contributor of sediment during implementation when design criteria, Forest Plan 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 221 

standards and guidelines and watershed conservation practices are followed. This is due to the 

localized and minimal ground disturbance within 50 feet of streams and other waterbodies. 

Maintenance and temporary use of roads within the WIZ and at stream crossings have the 

potential to increase sediment because the road surface is disturbed during operations and 

material on the road can be easily mobilized when it rains. There would be a slight increase in 

potential for localized sedimentation from Alternative B in the short term (<5 years) due to 

activities related to road crossings on streams. In the long term (>5 years) sediment potential 

should be reduced as roads are revegetated and sediment sources, also called connected disturbed 

areas (CDAs) are reduced during road improvement activities. 

Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Many of the same types of activities occur as in Alternative B, with several exceptions. New 

road construction (250 miles) and treatment activities in Spearfish Canyon (6,000 acres) are 

proposed that do not occur in Alternative B. The risk of direct effects due to in-water activities 

(structure placement at road-stream crossings) is greater under Alternative C because of the 

additional miles of new road construction and conversion. Ultimately, these effects are mitigated 

through the implementation of design criteria to avoid in-water activities during fish spawning, 

egg incubation and emergence periods. 

The potential magnitude and intensity of indirect effects is greater under Alternative C because it 

proposes more acres of treatment and more miles of road conversion. The amount of ground 

disturbance and acres of treatment near waterbodies is highest under this alternative and 

increases the potential for sediment to enter these waterbodies, which may adversely impact 

fisheries. The addition of 250 miles of new road has the potential to increase sediment input into 

waterbodies, but this is mitigated through design criteria that limits new road construction to 

cross streams at designated points and to avoid construction within the water influence zone next 

to perennial and intermittent streams. The higher miles of road conversion has the potential to 

improve fish habitat at road-stream crossings where sediment input or fish passage is currently a 

concern. Stream fragmentation is not increased because all instream structures at road-stream 

crossings need to pass all fish, consistent with Standard 1203. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded in space as those watersheds with proposed 

treatment areas that have fish-bearing streams and reservoirs. The cumulative effects are bounded in 

time as the next 5-7 years. Both action alternatives attempt to reduce the fire/fuel hazard. Any 

reduction in the severity or acreage burned by a wildland fire would have a positive cumulative 

effect by reducing the potential short-term sediment pulse and water quality impacts that may affect 

fisheries. Alternative C would have the most positive benefit because it treats the most acres. 

Ground disturbing activities (roads and timber harvest) have the potential to increase sediment 

input into fish habitat. Alternative C would have the greatest potential for a negative incremental 

effect because it treats the most acres and constructs/converts the most miles of roads. The 

implementation of design criteria, standards and guidelines and regional watershed conservation 

practices are proven to protect soil, water and riparian resources and meet State nonpoint source 

water pollution requirements. Therefore, habitat suitability in regards to food availability, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 222 

spawning habitat and cover (pool depth, quantity of large woody debris, streamside vegetation 

and overhanging banks, etc.) is not likely to be substantially affected. Alternatives B and C are 

predicted to meet water quality standards and maintain fisheries habitat at levels equal to or 

greater than the no action alternative. Subsequently, recreational fishing opportunities will be 

maintained consistent with Executive Orders 12962 and 13474. Proposed activities are not 

predicted to introduce new or spread existing aquatic nuisance species. Overall, both action 

alternatives will meet Forest Plan Objectives 217 and 219. 

Under both action alternatives, stream connectivity should be maintained or improved because 

no new instream barriers would be constructed (Standard 1203) and existing instream barriers 

may be removed or repaired where non-system roads are converted to system roads. Alternative 

C converts the most road miles. 

Current climate change models predict a warming trend in air temperature. Air temperatures are 

typically used as a surrogate for stream temperatures in regional bioclimatic assessments for 

coldwater fish but this is not a perfect correlation and creates significant uncertainty. Further, the 

confidence in the projections of air temperatures is greater than for precipitation projections, 

which adds more uncertainty. While it may become significantly warmer, total annual 

precipitation may or may not change. One scenario is that more precipitation may fall as rain 

rather than snow, resulting in a shift in the peak stream flow to earlier in the year. If stream 

temperatures increase or flows are reduced, the existing coldwater native and desirable nonnative fish species (trout) may have to tolerate living in water temperatures that are less than 

optimal and/or in some instances the replacement of existing coldwater fish by species more 

tolerant of warmer water. Both action alternatives would have a minor cumulative effect on 

fisheries in regards to climate change because stream habitat connectivity is maintained or 

improved and stream flows or temperatures will not be substantially changed. 

Special Status Species, Federally Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Species 

There are no federally threatened, endangered or proposed fish species known to occur or likely 

to be affected by management activities in the analysis area nor any designated critical habitat 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). 

Region 2 Sensitive Species -- Fish 

The finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus), lake chub (Couesius plumbeous) and mountain sucker 

(Catostomus platyrhynchus) are Region 2 sensitive species that are known to occur on the Black 

Hills National Forest. The mountain sucker is also designated a Management Indicator Species 

(MIS). This analysis assumed that all 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C ponderosa pine stands identified in the 

watersheds occupied by finescale dace, lake chub or mountain sucker are treated, which may 

overestimate the potential for adverse effects to these species, given that Alternatives B and C 

propose treating 20 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the total acres identified in 

Alternative B (242,000 acres) and Alternative C (248,000 acres). 

The finescale dace occurs in the Redwater Creek drainage on the Wyoming portion of the Forest. 

They seem to do best in standing water habitats, such as decadent beaver ponds, even to the point

of being borderline habitat for most trout (McDowell 2004 pers comm.). This species has been 

transplanted to various sites on the Black Hills National Forest, but the only population that 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 223 

persists is in Hemler Reservoir (USDA Forest Service 2006b), which is a small (2.5 acres), 

private impoundment on Redwater Creek authorized under a Forest Service Special Use Permit. 

The lake chub occurs in Deerfield Reservoir, which is a 414-acre impoundment on Castle Creek 

completed in the late 1940s. The dam and water levels are regulated by the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation. The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) manage the 

fisheries within the reservoir. The lake chub population in Deerfield Reservoir is in decline 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). Spawning occurs in the spring in shallow waters over cobble 

substrates, and eggs are given no parental care (Isaak et al. 2003). No spawning migrations 

upstream into Castle Creek or other tributaries to Deerfield Reservoir have been documented. 

Mountain suckers are native to the Black Hills and comprise the eastern-most extent of the species. 

Belica and Nibbelink (2006), Isaak et al. (2003) and Schultz and Bertrand (2012) assessed the 

status of the mountain sucker in the Rocky Mountain Region and the Black Hills. In the Black 

Hills, mountain sucker occur in streams with mostly rocky substrates, but not in lake or reservoir 

habitats. This species is found on the stream bottom and is closely associated with cover (exposed 

roots, undercut banks, logjams, and boulders). Mountain suckers are bottom feeders and their diet 

is primarily simple plants like diatoms and green algae. Mountain sucker adults spawn over gravel 

riffles and use lower velocity, deeper habitats during non-breeding periods and young-of-year 

mountain sucker require shallow low velocity habitats (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). In the Black 

Hills, the spawning period for mountain suckers is probably June and maybe early July (Shearer 

pers. comm. 2006). Schultz (2011) studied the environmental factors affecting long-term trends in 

mountain sucker populations and their thermal tolerance on the South Dakota portion of the Black 

Hills. Factors negatively affecting mountain sucker populations included non-native trout, 

recurrent droughts and stream fragmentation. Overall, results of this study indicate that the 

mountain sucker is currently not limited by water temperature in the Black Hills, but some areas 

that are currently suitable for mountain sucker may be lost due to climate change. Fisheries 

surveys indicate that the population trend for mountain sucker has declined since the 1960s

(USDA Forest Service 2005g, 2009a, Schultz and Bertrand 2012). 

Alternative A –Direct and Indirect Effects 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the action 

alternatives (Alternatives B or C) would take place within the MPB Response Project Area. Past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions however may directly or indirectly continue to impact 

the finescale dace, lake chub and mountain sucker. In general, this alternative has the highest 

fire/fuels hazard. Fire can remove riparian vegetation, increasing direct solar radiation to the 

stream surface and leading to warmer summer water temperatures. Fire can also consume 

vegetation and organic biomass on the forest floor, changing hydrologic flows, stream quality, and 

fish habitat suitability. Many native fish species have evolved with fire, and their populations are 

resilient to fire’s effects given adequate connectivity to robust population segments elsewhere in a 

basin. This resiliency, however, has been reduced in many watersheds through stream habitat loss, 

degradation or fragmentation and the introduction of non-native fishes that threaten native and 

desirable non-native fish persistence through displacement, competition, predation or disease. 

Alternatives B and C - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct effects are associated with inwater activities, such as the placement or repair of culverts at 

road-stream crossings that immediately kill or injure fish. No inwater activities are proposed in 

Deerfield or Hemler reservoirs. Subsequently, there would be no direct effects to the lake chub or 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 224 

finescale dace. There is the potential for some road work on non-system roads that are used for 

management access across streams occupied by the mountain sucker. The design criteria to keep 

heavy equipment out of streams during the mountain sucker spawning, egg incubation and 

emergence period will mitigate adverse direct effects at these stream crossings. 

Activities including cut and chunk, cut and chip, cut-hand pile-burn and pesticide spraying are likely 

to have minimal ground disturbance with no detectable indirect impact on fish habitat. The

application of pesticide is not anticipated to have an adverse impact because application is limited to 

campgrounds, administrative sites and legacy trees. Campgrounds at Deerfield Reservoir are located 

far enough away from the reservoir that overspray is not likely to affect the lake chub. Potential 

adverse impacts are further reduced because the pesticide will be sprayed by a certified applicator at 

the approved concentration following label directions to avoid wind drift to waterbodies. 

Land management activities such as timber harvest and road development pose threats to fish 

habitat if erosion rates and sediment delivery to streams are not managed and habitat diversity is 

diminished (Isaak et al. 2003, USDA Forest Service 2005, Belica and Nibbelink 2006). 

Alternative B proposes treatment of 48,400 acres (20 percent of the total acres identified). No 

new system or temporary roads are proposed in Alternative B, though some existing non-system 

routes could be used then designated as Level 1 (closed) system roads. 

Alternative C proposes the same types of treatment activities as Alternative B but on 50 percent 

(124,000 acres) of the total acres identified. Therefore, the magnitude and intensity of potential 

adverse effects due to sediment input into waterbodies is higher. In relation to timber harvest 

activities, the associated road network has been identified as the most substantial chronic source 

of long-term sediment input into streams and reservoirs (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Alternative C has a higher probability of road-related work because it proposes up to 250 miles 

of system and temporary road construction and the predicted conversion of 46 miles of 

unauthorized routes/legacy road prisms to system roads. 

Alternative C proposes treatment of 6,000 acres in Spearfish Canyon. There is a population of 

mountain sucker in Annie Creek, tributary to Spearfish Creek, which is not affected in 

Alternative B but may be in Alternative C. The Annie Creek watershed is relatively small 

(approximately 2,385 acres) and about 42 percent of the treatment acres (205 acres) are on slopes 

less than 40 percent and would likely use ground based harvest operations (tractor logged) or 

non-mechanized methods (cut and chunk, etc). Seventeen acres of proposed treatments occur 

within 100 feet (Water Influence Zone; WIZ) of Annie Creek, but due to the steeper slopes in 

this drainage the potential for sediment input is greater from upslope treatment activities. The 

design criteria to prohibit mechanized equipment zone within 50-feet of intermittent and 

perennial streams should reduce sediment input. Any sediment that enters Annie Creek would 

have a short-term impact because it is likely to be quickly transported out of the drainage due to 

the high stream gradient, the location of most treatments in the mid- and lower portions of the 

watershed and the short length of stream (1.2 miles) affected. 

For all three species, the implementation of Forest Plan standards/guidelines (1105, 1106, 1112, 

1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1301 and 1306) and regional watershed conservation practices 

(Management Measures 1, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and design criteria (EIS Appendix B) in the water 

influence zone (100 feet of intermittent/perennial waterbodies) mitigate indirect adverse impacts. 

These conservation measures include maintaining some tree canopy for stream shade and bank 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 225 

stability and reducing soil disturbance and sediment input into waterbodies. Any new instream 

structures placed at road-stream crossings will allow for the free movement of fish species 

consistent with Standard 1203. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded in space as those watersheds occupied by 

finescale dace, lake chub or mountain sucker where treatments are proposed and is bounded in 

time as the next 5-7 years. Any sediment input into waterbodies would be additive to sediment 

input from ongoing natural erosion processes. The quantity of sediment input is not anticipated 

to be of a volume that fish habitat is substantially degraded. If a wildland fire were to occur, 

treatment activities are predicted to reduce fire severity resulting in less surface erosion and 

sediment transport to waterbodies. This would have a beneficial effect, especially in the case of 

the finescale dace where due to the relatively small size of Hemler Reservoir, a substantial 

amount of dace habitat could be lost due to sediment input after a wildland fire. The remediation 

of sediment sources at existing connected disturbed areas (CDA’s) and existing fish passage 

barriers at road-stream crossings will have a positive cumulative effect on improving stream 

connectivity and reducing sediment input into streams that may benefit the mountain sucker. 

Alternatives B and C may have a positive incremental impact on habitat connectivity for the 

mountain sucker because no new instream barriers would be constructed and some existing 

barriers could be removed or fixed at road-stream crossings, but the finescale dace and lake chub 

will be largely unaffected. Both action alternatives meet the intent of Forest Plan Objective 221. 

Determination: The determination for the finescale dace, lake chub and mountain sucker under 

the No Action Alternative is “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” 

Alternatives B and C would have “no impact” on the finescale dace and lake chub given the lack 

of direct effects and discountable indirect effects to Hemler and Deerfield reservoirs, respectively. 

The determination for the mountain sucker, under Alternatives B and C is “may adversely impact 

individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing” due to the potential indirect, but minor, effects on habitat suitability. 

Management Indicator Species – Fish 

The mountain sucker is a Management Indicator Species (MIS) and it’s also designated as a 

Region 2 sensitive fish species. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects to this species are 

analyzed in the Fisheries Biological Evaluation. 

This MIS discussion focuses on this project’s effects on this species Forestwide population 

and/or habitat trend and this project’s consistency with the mountain sucker MIS objective in the 

Forest Plan (Objective 238d). 

The Forest-wide population trend for mountain sucker is one of decline when comparing past to 

present abundance and distribution (USDA Forest Service 2010b, Schultz 2011). All alternatives 

will have a neutral effect on the Forest-wide population trend for the mountain sucker given the 

implementation of design criteria, Forest Plan standards and guidelines and regional watershed 

conservation practices to avoid adverse effects to aquatic and riparian habitat. Subsequently, 

habitat quality and connectivity will be maintained consistent with Objective 238d. Reducing the 

fire/fuels hazard resulting from the mountain pine beetle epidemic at the landscape level may 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 226 

have some positive benefits to this species, but factors that are more likely contributing to the 

downward trend in the Forestwide mountain sucker population, such as the negative interactions

with non-native fish (Schultz 2011), are outside the scope of these alternatives. 

BOTANY 

Affected Environment

The Black Hills National Forest is located within a unique ecoregion among 64 terrestrial 

ecoregions in the continental United States (Hall et al. 2002). The Black Hills ecoregion 

encompasses an area of 5,121 square miles (roughly 3 million acres). The varied topography, 

geology, and climate result in a corresponding variety in plant communities, including such diverse 

elements as western ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests, grasslands of the Great Plains, and 

northern white spruce (Picea glauca) forests. Midwest hardwood types are well-represented by 

stands dominated by oak, ash, and elm. The Black Hills Community Inventory by the Nature 

Conservancy’s Midwest Conservation Science Center at the Midwestern Resources Center was the 

first systematic classification to describe the vegetation of the Black Hills by adopting the 

standardized National Vegetation Classification (Marriott et al. 1999, Marriott & FaberLangendoen 2000). Although further refinement of the Black Hills Community Inventory is 

needed, approximately 70 native plant communities have been described in the Black Hills. 

The native plant communities of the Black Hills ecoregion is composed of a great diversity of 

plant species. The Black Hills has floristic influences from four of the North American biomes: 

Cordilleran Forest, Grassland, Eastern Deciduous Forest, and Northern Coniferous Forest. 

While approximately 30 percent of the plant taxa in the Black Hills have their main ranges to the 

west, Midwestern, eastern, and northern taxa are also significantly represented in the Black Hills 

flora (McIntosh 1931). 

The majority of the plant species considered rare in the Black Hills are best described as boreal 

disjuncts (species that were isolated in the cooler, moister forest and riparian areas of the Black 

Hills as the glaciers retreated and the Great Plains environment became established). The next 

closest populations of these species to the populations found in the Black Hills are generally 

found in Canada and the northeastern United States. 

Because the potential treatment areas for the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project span so 

much of the Forest, the Black Hills National Forest in its entirety is considered the affected 

environment for this discussion. 

No Botanical Areas or Research Natural Areas overlap with the Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project Area; however, all of the Botanical Areas and most of the Research Natural Areas (Canyon 

City is the only exception) are adjacent to the project boundary and can therefore potentially be 

impacted by the proposed treatment. Impacts to these special designation areas are addressed in 

the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Botany Report (contained in the project record). 

There are 41 acres of montane grasslands recommended for conservation in the Survey of Black 

Hills Montane Grasslands (Marriott 2000) in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Area. 

Impacts to this ecosystem are addressed in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Botany 

Report (contained in the project record). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 227 

Species Considered and Evaluated - Federally Listed Plant Species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on February 3, 2012 for the states of South Dakota and Wyoming. As of 

this date, there were no threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within these 

states (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2012c, 2012f), nor were there any candidate or proposed 

threatened or endangered plant species known to occur in these states (USDI Fish & Wildlife 

Service 2012a, 2012b, 2012d, 2012e. 2012g). 

Threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species which could potentially occur on the Black 

Hills National Forest were identified and addressed through informal consultation with the South 

Dakota and Wyoming Field Offices of USFWS during the Phase II Amendment development 

(USDA Forest Service 2005). Subsequently, these threatened, endangered, or proposed species 

do not need to be further analyzed and are not mentioned in subsequent sections. 

Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to warrant a 

proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but development of a listing regulation is precluded 

by other higher priority listing activities. Species that are candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) are automatically placed on the Region 2 Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list. The analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included 

as part of the Biological Evaluation for sensitive species. The only candidate plant species known 

to occur on the BHNF, narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare), was officially removed from 

the candidate list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish & Wildlife 2007). However, 

narrowleaf grapefern remains on the Region 2 sensitive plant list and is discussed under the 

Biological Evaluation for Region 2 sensitive species found later in this document. 

No further analysis is needed for species not known or suspected to occur in the project area. It is 

my determination that implementation of any of the three alternatives as described will not affect 

any threatened or endangered plant species or designated critical habitat. Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 Consultation is not required for this project. 

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 

The Forest Service Manual defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified 

by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidence by: 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5, 19). 

All Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur in the Black Hills National Forest were 

considered in the evaluation. Known populations and potential habitat exists in the Mountain Pine

Beetle Response Project Area for several Region 2 sensitive plant species. No further analysis is 

needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur within the project area, and for which 

no potential habitat is present. Table 1 in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Botany 

Biological Evaluation documents the rationale for excluding a species from further analysis. 

Determinations for all other species are found below in the Determinations Section. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 228 

Analysis was conducted on the effects of the alternatives on Region 2 sensitive species that may 

occur or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project area. This analysis considers management activities of all alternatives and associated 

mitigation measures as set forth in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Plan Area Environmental 

Impact Statement. Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre), narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium 

lineare), foxtail sedge (Carex alopecoidea), yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), 

ground cedar (Lycopodium complanatum), lesser round-leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata), 

autumn willow (Salix serissima), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), highbush cranberry 

(Viburnum opulus var. americanum), and great-spurred violet (Viola selkirkii) are the only 

Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur within the project area. In addition potential 

habitat for sage willow (Salix candida) and narrowleaf peatmoss (Sphagnum angustifolium) 

occur within the project area. 

Table 3-34 Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Having Suitable Habitat within the Project Area. 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

KNOWN TO OCCUR IN 

PROJECT AREA

SUITABLE HABITAT

Botrychium campestre Iowa moonwort Y + 

Botrychium lineare narrowleaf grapefern Y + 

Carex alopecoidea fox-tail sedge Y Y 

Cypripedium 

parviflorum

yellow lady’s slipper Y Y 

Epipactis gigantea Stream ochid N N 

Lycopodium 

complanatum

trailing clubmoss Y Y 

Platanthera orbiculata large round-leaved 

orchid 

Y Y 

Salix candida sage willow N Y 

Salix serissima autumn willow N Y 

Sanguinaria canadensis bloodroot Y Y 

Sphagnum 

angustifolium 

narrowleaf peatmoss N Y 

Viburnum opulus var. 

americanum 

highbush cranberry Y Y 

Viola selkirkii great-spurred violet Y Y 

+Based on limited knowledge of habitat requirements for this species, presence/absence of suitable habitat in the 

project area and the habitat category for analysis were not determined. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 

A Species of Local Concern is described in the Forest Service Manual as plant, fish or wildlife 

species (including subspecies or varieties) that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These 

could include species with declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are 

important components of diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as NFS lands within 

the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005g). The list of SOLC was updated in 

2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

Populations of narrowleaf broadlipped twayblade (Listera convallarioides), stiff clubmoss 

(Lycopodium annotinum), five-point miterwort (Mitella pentandra), sweet coltsfoot (Petasites 

sagittatus), northern hollyfern (Polystichum lonchitis), and greenleaf willow (Salix lasiandra var. 

caudata) were confirmed within treatment areas within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project 

Area. Habitat may be present in the project area for four additional plant Species of Local Concern. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 229 

The primary habitat for the ten plant Species of Local Concern which occur or have suitable habitat 

within the project area can be categorized as white spruce and hardwood dominated drainages and wet 

meadows. Any potentially suitable habitat that may exist overlaps with suitable habitat for Region 2 

sensitive plant species. Therefore, design criteria exist in the Botany Biological Evaluation that 

includes potential habitat for plant Species of Local Concern as well. Refer to the “Effects Analysis”

section in the Botany Biological Evaluation (held in the project record) for a discussion of possible 

direct, indirect and cumulative effects to these habitats. No further analysis is needed for species that 

are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. 

Table 3-35 Plant Species of Local Concern with Respect to the Project Area 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

KNOWN TO OCCUR 

IN PROJECT AREA

SUITABLE HABITAT

Adiantum capillus-veneris maidenhair fern N N 

Botrychium multifidum leathery grape-fern N Y 

Carex bella southwestern showy sedge N Y 

Eleocharis rostellata beaked spikerush N N 

Gentiana puberulenta downy gentian N Y 

Listera convallarioides Broadlipped twayblade Y Y 

Lycopodium annotinum Stiff clubmoss Y Y 

Mitella pentandra five-star miterwort Y Y 

Oxyria digyna alpine mountainsorrel N N 

Petasites sagittatus arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot Y Y 

Pinus flexilis limber pine N N 

Polystichum lonchitis northern hollyfern Y Y 

Salix lasiandra var. caudata greenleaf willow Y Y 

Salix lucida shining willow N Y 

Environmental Consequences 

Analysis was conducted on the effects of the proposed action on Black Hills National Forest 

Species of Local Concern that may occur or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs in the 

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project area. This analysis considers management activities of 

all action alternatives and associated mitigation measures as set forth in the Mountain Pine 

Beetle Response Project Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement and can be found in the 

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Area Botany Specialist Report. 

Effects of the Alternatives 

For the purpose of this analysis, cumulative effects are bound in space by the Forest boundary 

because this is the area affected by Forest Service management decisions and contains most of 

the ponderosa pine population in the area. Cumulative effects are bound in time by twenty years 

(ten years prior and ten years into the future) because this encompasses the impacts caused by the 

most recent timber planning efforts and the foreseeable impact of the Mountain Pine Beetle 

Project. 

Past, present, and foreseeable vegetation projects include Briggs (28,916 acres), Cold Springs 

(13,969 acres), Steamboat (24,596 acres), Herman (21,572 acres), Pactola (26,017 acres), Buttes 

(11,441 acres), Calumet (31,781 acres), and Vestal (43,516 acres). The Forest contains 113 

grazing allotments that are contained within this project area (Mountain Pine Beetle Response 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 230 

Project Range Report). Lawrence and Pennington Counties have agreements in place with the 

Forest Service to cut and chunk adjacent to private. 

No field reconnaissance or survey was done specifically for this project; however, all botanical 

survey data on Black Hills National Forest were considered. Forestwide survey specifically for 

Region 2 sensitive plant species and Black Hills National Forest Species of Local Concern 

(SOLC) has occurred since 2001, although the list of Region 2 sensitive species has been revised 

several times, the most recent going into effect June 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011a). The 

information gathered from these surveys provided information on distribution and habitat 

associations for species and helped determine effects of the alternatives. The focus of botanical 

surveys is on identifying and mapping community types and determining the probability of an 

area to support sensitive plant species in addition to locating and recording individual sensitive 

plant species. These surveys often focus on forested habitats, but cover most high potential 

sensitive plant habitat, including riparian and wetland areas. Areas to survey were stratified 

using a combination of aerial photographs, topographic maps, local knowledge, and professional 

judgment during field reconnaissance. Less intensive limited surveys were also conducted in 

lower potential sensitive plant species habitat. All botanical survey data is stored in the Black 

Hills National Forest Database and GIS (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Impacts and risks to 

sensitive plant species on the Forest were evaluated using the best available science and data. 

Of the proposed treatment areas in both action alternatives, 106,700 acres have not been 

surveyed for botanical resources. Even in areas that have been surveyed for plants, it is 

recognized that Region 2 sensitive plants or plant SOLC are not always observed when present. 

Some reasons are that plants may not be in prime growth stage for identification, they may be in 

dormancy, or they may be difficult to see in surrounding vegetation. 

Assumptions for Analysis

• Mountain pine beetle infestation will continue at a rate and pattern similar to the last ten 

years. 

• The timber program on the Black Hills National Forest will continue at a volume and 

intensity similar to the last ten years (25,000 acres harvested per year). 

• Temporary roads will be administratively closed after vegetation management activities, 

but will not be rehabilitated to the point where they no longer appear on the landscape. A 

loss of five acres of habitat will be associated with each mile of construction. 

• Temporary roads will have limited design features to control erosion. 

• Effects of management activities are well understood because they are the same 

techniques used in District level timber projects. 

• Treatments will be fully funded for this project as will the standard post-harvest activities 

(noxious weed treatment and monitoring, Forestwide rare plant monitoring, etc.) 

• Areas that have not been surveyed for botanical resources are occupied (as prescribed in 

FSM_R2_2670_2011-1) 

Alternative A - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A (no action) there would be no direct effects because implementation of 

elements of the proposed action would not take place. Ongoing forest protection efforts and 

recurring road maintenance on system roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. Also, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 231 

the timber project areas generated by the Districts (i.e. Briggs, Cold Springs, etc.) would continue 

as planned, as would analysis of future planned timber projects (Buttes, Calumet, etc.) 

Alternative A would maintain Region 2 sensitive plant and plant SOLC habitat and protect biodiversity 

in the short-term, although over time there would be an increase in the amount of fuel in the area as 

trees are killed by mountain pine beetle and fall leading to an increased risk of large-scale wildfire. 

Low intensity fires, commonly associated with light fuels (grass and small diameter woody 

debris) generally do not burn continuously or with great heat through the moist drainages that are 

suitable habitat for most Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC and therefore do not have as 

large of an impact on these community types. When a fire burns in heavy fuels, the result is a 

smoldering fire. Although smoldering fires have lower temperatures than flaming fires, they 

move slower through an area causing more profound soil impacts and greater vegetative 

mortality (Neary et al. 1999). Lack of fire could also lead to changes to suitable habitat due to 

increased competition with both native and non-native species and changes in community types 

as they pass into late succession. 

With Alternative A, mountain pine beetles could potentially infest ponderosa pine trees in and 

around Botanical Areas and Research Natural Areas (RNA). Mortality of ponderosa pines within 

RNA would not impact their eligibility as research areas because mountain pine beetles are a 

native animal and episodic mortality of pine trees has been occurring in the Black Hills for at least 

as long as recorded history (Shepperd & Battaglia 2002), and is therefore within the range of 

natural ecosystem variation. The Botanical Areas which contain stands of ponderosa pine could 

see a change in community types should mountain pine beetles infest these stands. Depending on 

site conditions, this change could be a temporary loss of ponderosa pine canopy, or coversion to 

another forest type, such as one dominated by white spruce, if soils, exposure, and moisture allow 

for establishment of other tree species. Generally, the values for which these areas were set aside 

are associated with hardwood stands, white spruce stands, wetlands, and meadows with ponderosa 

pine constituting only a small portion of the overstory; therefore the loss of mature ponderosa pine 

within these areas would cause limited impacts to the contributing ecosystems. Effects of this loss 

could include opening in the overstory allowing mid-story trees and shrubs expand into the created 

gap (Sheppard & Battaglia 2002). Expansion of non-native or exotic plant species into these gaps 

could occur as these species are usually pioneer species that thrive in disturbed areas. Mortality of 

larger areas of ponderosa pine in the surrounding landscape, in combination with smaller pockets 

of pine mortality within Botanical Areas and RNAs, could increase the water available locally until 

other plants establish in the area. To the extent that white spruce or hardwood forest types are 

promoted by mountain pine beetle mortality, RNAs and Botanical Areas could benefit, as the rare 

plants and rare community types supporting the special designations of these areas are strongly 

associated with forest types dominated by tree species other than ponderosa pine. 

Alternative A - Cumulative Effects 

If no action is taken on Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project and the timber program on the 

Forest continues at the same rate as it currently operates (see assumptions), most potential 

treatment areas in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project would eventually be treated, but 

without the efficiency built into the proposed action. Without speed and flexibility allowed by 

having analysis completed in advance mountain pine beetle caused mortality could be greater 

than if the infested stands were treated quickly. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 232 

With or without the proposed action, mountain pine beetles would most likely continue to cause 

ponderosa mortality. As the trees die, more sunlight would be allowed through to the understory 

changing the microclimate and ultimately the vegetation composition. In addition, dead and dying 

trees would increase the available fuel which, if the area burned, would cause a more intense fire. 

Fires with high intensity can change the characteristics of the soil making them unsuitable for 

certain sensitive plant species. Given the threats currently affecting the project area, the no action 

alternative, which may cause lesser impacts in the short-term, would result in greater impacts over 

time. The Districts would continue implementing the current and reasonably foreseeable timber 

sales which may decrease the impact of mountain pine beetle caused mortality in ponderosa pine, 

and therefore the impacts to the vegetative composition of the Forest. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives 

Ten species of Region 2 sensitive plant species and six plant SOLC were located in the areas 

designated for treatment in both action alternatives, and two other species lie within close 

proximity to treatment areas. Since both alternatives prescribe the use of Integrated Pest 

Management techniques, the impacts of these activities would be the same for both alternatives. 

Locations of Region 2 sensitive plants and plant SOLC by timber stand number are found in 

Appendix A of the Botany Report (held in the project record). The design criteria which limits 

the type of treatment an area can receive is slope. Slopes less than 40 percent can be treated 

using any of the methods defined in the description of alternatives. All of the Region 2 sensitive 

species or plant SOLC known to occur in the treatment areas occur on slopes less than 40 

percent. On slopes greater than 40 percent, hand falling of trees followed by cut and chunk, 

cable logging, or helicopter logging can be used. Prairie moonwort, narrowleaf grapefern, 

foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaved orchid, bloodroot, and 

highbush cranberry occur in stands that have greater than 40 percent slope. The potential habitat 

for lanceleaf peatmoss and sage willow is most likely found on slopes less than 40 percent. 

Because any of the Integrated Pest Management Activities can occur on any proposed treatment 

area (as long as design criteria are met) with a slope less than 40 percent, and all of the known 

and suspected species can and do occur on slopes less than 40 percent, the effects of treatments 

on slopes less than 40 percent will be discussed in general (not species specific) terms. 

The effects of hand falling trees on slopes greater than 40 percent would be similar to the effects 

of hand cutting on slopes less than 40 percent. Potential impacts include soil disturbance caused 

by personnel working on steep slopes and any slipping of trees after they are felled. Soil 

disturbance may lead to colonization by non-native or invasive plant species as well as rendering 

the area unsuitable for rare plant colonization. Crushing of above ground parts by falling trees is 

also possible. Cutting the felled trees into smaller logs (cut and chunk) or chipping them and 

spreading the chips across the forest floor could bury sensitive plants. Depending on how deep 

the debris is, this layer of debris could insulate underground parts of sensitive plants impeding 

the production of above ground parts. The carbon added to the ecosystem would be the same as 

if the infested tree had fallen naturally, so there would no net increase in available carbon. 

The effects of falling trees and cutting them into smaller logs, chipping them, or piling them for 

burning mechanical or hand equipment on slopes less than 40 percent can include destruction of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 233 

individuals and suitable habitat during tree felling, skidding operations, burial and crushing of 

individuals by slash piles, and trampling by equipment and/or personnel. Opening of overstory 

and expansion of hardwood and meadow communities could occur when encroaching conifers 

are removed. Application of fire to piled woody debris may result in the burning of undetected 

individuals, however most species recover quickly after low- to moderate-intensity prescribed 

burns (Knapp et al. 2007). 

In addition, pile burning removes existing understorey vegetation such as grasses and forbs, 

reducing competition, and opening up habitat for invasion by other species. These effects are 

magnified in areas experiencing intense burns, such as slash piles (Haskins & Gehring 2004). 

Once established, these exotic species can out-compete native vegetation causing a shift in the 

ecology of the area. 

Because some Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC occur in meadows (prairie moonwort 

and narrowleaf grapefern), undetected individuals may experience impacts if materials removed 

from pine slopes are piled or decked in meadows. These impacts include burial by debris, which 

would eventually lead to mortality due to mechanical damage or lack of sunlight. If the piles are 

burned, the heat generated would cause mortality to both above ground and below ground parts. In 

addition, the soil may become hydrophobic and therefore alter the local infiltration rate of the soil 

(DeBano and Krammes 1966). Areas of hydrophobic soils would have a greater risk of erosion, 

including rill formation and raindrop splash (DeBano 2000). These areas also become likely places 

for non-native; invasive species to gain a foothold in the area (see the Mountain Pine Beetle 

Response Project Weed Report in the project record). 

Heavy equipment associated with mechanical treatments can loosen and displace soil, which can then 

collect in drainages and other low-lying habitat which is suitable for Region 2 sensitive plant species 

and plant SOLC. Heavy equipment can also alter the microsite hydrology and fungal communities 

preventing dependant Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC (such as prairie moonwort, 

narrowleaf grapefern, yellow lady’s slipper, and large round-leaved orchid) from establishing. 

Other potential indirect effects result from greater use of existing roads for hauling resulting in 

an increase in dust pollution. Sensitive plant individuals that are undetected along roads could 

experience reduced photosynthetic capacity due to a coating of dust on the leaves. Also, removal 

of timber may also open access to areas previously protected from impacts by livestock and 

illegal off-road vehicle use. New use in areas increases not only the potential for collecting, 

trampling, and other losses of individuals, but also increases the chance for non-native species 

invasion. Equipment used during conversion and maintenance of roads could crush, burry, or 

dig up undetected individuals. 

Dust Abatement: Use of dust abatement (water, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, etc.) 

causes a decrease in airborne dust. Airborne dust can adhere to photosynthetic surfaces 

ultimately causing a decrease in the ability of an individual plant to grow. The addition of salt to 

dust abatement treatments allows the treatment to be effective for a longer period of time; 

however, high concentrations of ions in the soil matrix caused by the addition of magnesium 

chloride or calcium chloride can decrease plant growth and survival (Goodrich et al. 2009). 

These ions usually move down slope from treated roads, but impacts can be observed up slope 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 234 

and relate to application rate (Goodrich et al. 2008, Piatt and Krause 1974). The distance from 

treated road surface that impacts to vegetation would impacted would increase with an increase 

in the surface area to which the treatment was applied, the application rate, and average 

precipitation (Goodrich et al. 2008, Goodrich et al. 2009). On average, chloride ions can move 

down slope from the site of application approximately six meters and magnesium can move three 

meters from application site regardless of the soil type (Goodrich et al. 2009). 

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) growing down slope from application sites could show necrosis of 

leaf margins, crown damage, and mortality depending on the application rate and surface area 

treated upslope from the tree (Goodrich et al. 2009). In coniferous tree species, high 

concentrations of ions in needle tissue can cause an increase in susceptibility to agents such as 

fungus, insects, and mechanical damage caused by frost and snow (Goodrich et al. 2009). In 

grasses, germination generally decreases with increased concentration of magnesium ions present 

in the soil (Ryan et al. 1975). In members of the pea family (Fabaceae), increased concentration of 

salt ions causes leaf burning and a decrease in robustness (Gauch and Wadleigh 1944). 

Salt based dust abatement treatments can result in an increase in sediment in roadside ditches. 

The amount of sediment increase varies with application rate, application frequency, area treated, 

and concentration of ions in the soil, the higher the concentration of ions, the deeper the sediment 

(Goodrich et al. 2009). 

Another potential beneficial indirect effect of the proposed action is the introduction of 

disturbance, such as use of temporary roads and skid trails. These disturbed areas, if 

decommissioned, treated for invasive species, and left undisturbed for a decade could become 

potential habitat for Region 2 sensitive species such as narrowleaf grapefern and prairie 

moonwort as these species are associated with historically disturbed areas. In addition, the 

removal of fuels from the project area would decrease the chance of large-scale wildfire as 

discussed in the effects analysis for Alternative A. 

Impacts to Habitat 

Design Criteria require that consultation with a qualified, professional series botanist occur prior 

to ground disturbance in potential plant habitat. The hope is that this consultation would 

minimize impacts to the habitat and any occurrences of Region 2 sensitive plant species located 

in the potential habitat. If impacts of ground disturbance on potential habitat cannot be avoided, 

the possible impacts to the habitat itself are discussed below. Impacts to Region 2 sensitive 

species and plant SOLC are discussed separately. 

White Spruce

Impacts to white spruce stands should be minimal because the treatment areas target ponderosa 

pine stands. Impacts to white spruce stands outside of treatment areas could occur if landings, 

log decks, roads, or debris piles need to be constructed in order to facilitate timber harvest. 

Potentially, infected ponderosa pine could be removed from white spruce stands that are found 

within larger ponderosa stands. If either of these potential impacts to white spruce stands occurs, 

impacts to the habitat include removal of white spruce and damage to standing white spruce, 

including damage to root structures, during felling and removal of ponderosa pine. Road 

construction in white spruce habitat could alter the local hydrology, create a vector for non-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 235 

native or invasive plant introduction, and create a source of erosion. In addition, magnesium 

chloride or calcium chloride would be used as a means of dust abatement. In addition to the 

impacts discussed in the Dust Abatement section, use of these chemicals can cause needle burn 

or mortality of white spruce along the road, particularly down slope and the risk increases with 

area treated, application rate and frequency, and distance from the treated surface (Goodrich et 

al. 2009). Changes in the overstory of white spruce stands would cause changes to the under and 

midstory, which in turn impact the habitat which certain Region 2 sensitive species and plant 

SOLC require to survive. 

Hardwood Habitat Including Paper Birch, Aspen, and Bur Oak 

Impacts to hardwood habitat including paper birch and bur oak would be limited because the 

treatment areas target ponderosa pine stands. Impacts to hardwood stands outside of the 

treatment areas could occur if landings, log decks, roads, or debris piles need to be constructed in 

order to facilitate timber harvest. Potentially, infected ponderosa pine could be removed from 

hardwood stands that are found within larger ponderosa stands. If either of these potential 

impacts to hardwood stands occurs, impacts to the habitat include removal of hardwoods and 

damage to standing hardwoods, including damage to root structures, during felling and removal 

of ponderosa pine. Road construction in hardwood stands could alter the local hydrology, create 

a vector for non-native or invasive plant introduction, and create a source of erosion. In addition, 

magnesium chloride or calcium chloride would be used as a means of dust abatement. In 

addition to the impacts discussed in the Dust Abatement section, use of these chemicals can 

cause leaf necrosis or mortality of hardwoods along the road (Piatt and Krause 1974), 

particularly down slope and the risk increases with area treated, application rate and frequency, 

and distance from the treated surface (Goodrich et al. 2009). Changes in the overstory of 

hardwood stands would cause changes to the under and midstory, which in turn impact the 

habitat which certain Region 2 sensitive species plant SOLC require to survive. 

Riparian Habitat Including Wetlands and Fens 

Plant species in wetlands, riparian areas, and seeps are likely to be impacted by changes in 

hydrology and water quality. Roads that currently exist in the water influence zone of wetlands can 

cause increased erosion, which can modify stream bank geometry and cause an increase in overland 

flow. Increases in overland flow will have the net effect of maximizing runoff and minimizing 

infiltration. While the increased runoff results in overall greater water yield, the storm water is 

delivered relatively quickly through surface processes rather than through sustained subsurface 

flows, which are often critical to wetland hydrology (Moore et al. 2006). The change in delivery of 

water would potentially change the normal wetland hydrology (e.g. decreasing site creasing oxygen 

available to plant roots and other essential soil organisms). Impacts to fens specifically are 

discussed in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Botany Report. 

While direct impacts to riparian habitat are possible, moist soils and riparian areas are protected 

during timber harvest and new road-building on National Forest land under Best Management 

Practices and Forest Service Manual 2509.25. In addition, magnesium chloride or calcium 

chloride would be used as a means of dust abatement. In addition to the impacts discussed in the 

Dust Abatement section, use of these chemicals can cause leaf necrosis or mortality of forbs and 

grasses along the road (Gauch and Wadleigh 1944, Ryan et al. 1975), particularly down slope 

and the risk increases with area treated, application rate and frequency, and distance from the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 236 

treated surface (Goodrich et al. 2009). Design Criteria prohibit the use of these chemicals 

within 500 feet of fens, which will decrease the impact on these wetlands. 

Meadows 

Impacts to meadows should be minimal because the treatment areas target ponderosa pine stands. 

Impacts to meadows outside of treatment areas could occur if landings, log decks, roads, or debris 

piles need to be constructed in order to facilitate timber harvest. Impacts to potential plant habitat 

if these activities occur within meadows include loss of habitat, alteration of local hydrology, and 

introduction of non-native or invasive plant species. Potentially, infected ponderosa pine could be 

removed from meadows that are found within or adjacent to larger ponderosa stands. If ponderosa 

pine trees are removed from meadows, equipment used during harvest could crush or uproot 

vegetation as well as cause short term soil compaction. Road construction, conversion, or

maintenance in meadows could crush, burry, remove, or uproot vegetation. Roads can also create

erosion channels that further impact soil structure and moisture, both of which are qualities that 

make meadows habitat for some Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC. In addition, 

magnesium chloride or calcium chloride would be used as a means of dust abatement. In addition 

to the impacts discussed in the Dust Abatement section, use of these chemicals can cause leaf 

necrosis or mortality of forbs and grasses along the road (Gauch and Wadleigh 1944, Ryan et al. 

1975), particularly down slope and the risk increases with area treated, application rate and 

frequency, and distance from the treated surface (Goodrich et al. 2009). Changes in meadow 

habitat could alter the habitat quality such that certain Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC 

would no longer be able to survive. 

Alternative B - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Ten species of Region 2 sensitive species and six plant SOLC were located in areas proposed for 

treatment in Alternative B (See Appendix A of the Botany Report for location descriptions). See 

impacts common to both action alternatives above. 

Cable logging is possible on slopes greater than 40 percent. Under Alternative B, this technique 

would not require construction of new roads. This decreases the overall disturbance this activity 

would have on the landscape. The impacts of falling trees on slopes greater than 40 percent is 

discussed in effects common to both action alternatives. The effects of cable logging specifically 

have to do with moving logs once they are felled and the impacts of constructing corridors. Cable 

logging generally requires construction of primary corridors parallel to slope through which logs are 

dragged either up or down the slope to a landing and processing equipment. Secondary corridors 

can be created perpendicular to the primary corridors (cross-slope) in order to move trees to the 

primary corridor. Corridor construction requires removal of all trees within a ten foot swath. Impact 

of this removal include opening the overstory so more light reaches the ground and potentially 

increasing the risk of erosion by making a direct path for water to travel down slope. Design criteria 

require one foot or more of snow before cable logging can be used. This greatly reduces the risk of 

soil disturbance and therefore disturbance of below ground parts of sensitive plants that could occur 

in corridors. If the full suspension technique of cable logging was used, logs would be fully 

suspended and not drug along the ground, greatly decreasing the impact to soil and below ground 

parts of sensitive plant species. Landings and areas needed to process the logs harvested would 

occur in areas previously disturbed (i.e. existing roads and landings) under Alternative B. Use of 

these areas should cause little impact to botanical resources because the areas already exist on the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 237 

landscape. These impacts would most likely be localized soil compaction, crushing or burial of 

sensitive plants (if present), and introduction or spread of non-native or invasive plant species. 

Alternative C - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C includes all actions described in Alternative B and the direct and indirect effects of 

these activities were discussed in the combined section previously. In addition to the treatments 

proposed in Alternative B, Alternative C includes treating Spearfish Canyon using the same 

Integrated Pest Management techniques as well as increasing the area that can be commercially 

or non-commercially harvested. The intent of Alternative C is to allow more aggressive 

treatment of the ponderosa pine stands prior to infestation, meaning that stands could be treated 

prior to infestation in order to prevent beetles from moving into the area as well as reducing 

potential fire hazard. Also, Alternative C allows for the construction of 250 miles of roads. 

The impact to sensitive species with the addition of treatments in Spearfish Canyon is not well 

understood at this time. The results of the floristic inventory of this area are due at the end of 

January 2012 and will reveal a better picture of the botanical resources in this additional 

treatment area. Until this information has been reviewed, it will be assumed that the impacts to 

sensitive species in this area would be similar to those of the rest of the Forest. 

Because the methods used to treat infested trees under Alternative C are the same as Alternative 

B, the impacts would be the same but at a larger scale because 6,000 more acres would be 

subject to treatment. In addition, areas that have not yet been infested with mountain pine 

beetles could be treated if conditions result in favorable mountain pine beetle habitat. 

The conversion of temporary roads to systems roads would require the addition of erosion 

control measures to the existing road prism. The short term impacts of this maintenance would 

be possible mortality by crushing, burying, or removal of sensitive plants. Also, the sediments 

loosened during the construction would move down-slope. Removal of soils and sediments 

upslope creates disturbances that could result in colonization by invasive plant species as well as 

the collection of the sediments in waterways. Sediments moving through waterways, such as 

streams, can cause bank erosion or fill slow spots with sediment and become susceptible to nonnative plant invasion. In the long term, however, the erosion control structures would prevent

more soil and sediments than generated from construction from being flushed down-slope 

making the impacts to waterways greater. Implementation of “Best Management Practices” 

would limit, but not eliminate most of these impacts. 

Construction of roads, as far as this analysis is concerned, means constructing a new road prism, 

resulting in a new scar on the landscape, this includes jump ups, or areas where existing roads are 

expanded in order to accommodate timber harvest (turn around areas, log decks, etc.). One of the 

assumptions of this analysis is that roads, once built, will remain on the landscape because this is 

the standard practice on the Black Hills National Forest (See Assumptions for Analysis section). 

The direct impact of roads and trails is loss of plant individuals, plant occurrences, and plant 

communities. Indirect impacts to plant species and plant communities include increased risk of 

invasive species introduction, leading to increased competition for resources, as well as alteration of 

local hydrology and habitat conditions (such as decrease in canopy cover or change in successional 

stage). Road construction can also lead to increased access for disturbance vectors (including 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 238 

humans and livestock) which lead to increased disturbances such as trampling, cropping, and 

collecting. Other indirect effects include disruption of pollinators and increased dust pollution 

(causes increased sediment, also plugs stomata (gas exchange structures) on plant leaves). In some 

cases, there can be an increase in plant numbers adjacent to roads and trails from a nearby 

occurrence, mainly due to increased water availability from concentrated runoff; however, the roadedge habitat usually includes many non-native species and is not stable. These and other impacts 

from roads and trails generally do not support long-term success of road/trail-side occurrences. 

All new proposed roads have not been completely surveyed at this time because the locations of 

these roads are unknown at this time. Also, these roads may occur outside of treatment areas 

disclosed in Map 2. The risk to sensitive plants that have not yet been documented would be 

lessened by the Design Criteria that requires a review of proposed new routes by an 

interdisciplinary team that includes a qualified (0430 series) botanist. 

Species persistence for Region 2 sensitive plant species was evaluated in the Phase II Forest Plan 

Amendment. Each alternative in this project was evaluated as to whether it is consistent with 

Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines applicable to each species. Where changes are 

proposed to the Forest Plan as a part of this project, those changes were examined to determine 

whether they would influence probability of persistence as determined in the Phase II Amendment. 

The loss of habitat to road construction is unknown, but is often estimated at 5 acres per linear 

mile (Rowland at al. 2004). Roads can promote habitat fragmentation for some species, breaking 

habitat into smaller patches and increase the ratio of edge to forest interior areas. 

The construction of temporary roads also increases the areas open to cable logging. Cable 

logging is possible in Alternative C on slopes greater than 40 percent, regardless if roads already 

exist on the landscape. The impacts of falling trees on slopes greater than 40 percent is discussed 

in effects common to both action alternatives. The effects of cable logging specifically have to 

do with moving logs once they are felled and the impacts of constructing corridors. Cable 

logging generally requires construction of primary corridors parallel to slope through which logs 

are dragged either up or down the slope to a landing and processing equipment. Secondary 

corridors can be created perpendicular to the primary corridors (cross-slope) in order to move 

trees to the primary corridor. Corridor construction requires removal of all trees within a ten foot 

swath. Impact of this removal include opening the overstory so more light reaches the ground 

and potentially increasing the risk of erosion by making a direct path for water to travel down 

slope. Design criteria require one foot or more of snow before cable logging can be used. This 

greatly reduces the risk of soil disturbance and therefore disturbance of below ground parts of 

sensitive plants that could occur in corridors. If the full suspension technique of cable logging 

was used, logs would be fully suspended and not drug along the ground, greatly decreasing the 

impact to soil and below ground parts of sensitive plant species. 

Landings and other flat surfaces required on ridge tops above units or in valleys below units 

harvested using the cable method could cause mortality during area preparation (clearing the site 

using heavy equipment) and changes in local hydrology caused by increasing the size of existing 

roads could make habitat down slope less suitable to sensitive species. Impacts would most 

likely be localized soil compaction, crushing or burial of sensitive plants (if present), and 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 239 

introduction or spread of non-native or invasive plant species. Roads constructed above or on 

steep slopes also increase the possibility of mass movement (see Soils section). 

Although Forest Plan direction and design criteria are in place to limit the risk of mass movement, it 

can still occur. Mass movement can threaten sensitive plant populations located above or below the 

movement area. If management activities occur on unstable slopes and mass movement occurs, the 

debris flow could bury sensitive plant populations located down slope. Movement of soils below a

population of sensitive plant species has the potential to destabilize the substrate in which the 

population occurs and alter the hydrological environment, both of which could change the habitat 

making it no longer able to support the population of sensitive plants. 

Alternatives B and C Cumulative Effects 

Past, current, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project Area are discussed in the beginning of this section. 

Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational 

activities and other management activities have occurred and will continue on the Forest. These 

activities will likely occur on private lands as well. All may affect Region 2 sensitive plant 

species and plant SOLC through direct mortality, habitat alteration, or spread of invasive species. 

The annual impact to botanical resources on the Forest due to timber harvest activities would 

remain similar to previous years if the assumption that the volume taken from the Forest would 

remain the same as previous years holds true (see assumptions). 

Private land within and adjacent to the project area would most likely experience treatments 

similar to those used on National Forest Lands. Thinning activities used to create defensible space 

and fuel breaks around private property and structures within the Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project Area are anticipated. Livestock grazing is also a current use on privately held land. 

Management of national and state parks adjacent to the Forest is assumed to have a similar effect 

on Region 2 sensitive plant populations and plant SOLC. Other federal, state, and private lands 

offer suitable habitat for Region 2 sensitive plants and plant SOLC. In fact, only sage willow, 

autumn willow, and narrowleaf peatmoss have not been confirmed from other federal, state, 

and/or private lands adjacent to Black Hills National Forest. 

Privately owned lands within the Black Hills Ecoregion may also provide suitable habitat, but 

resource management by companies and private citizens depends on a number of factors (e.g., 

desired goals, market prices, development potential) making it difficult to predict future trends in 

private habitat diversity and quality. Potential habitat for Region 2 sensitive plants may occur on 

private lands across the Black Hills. Continued urban development in the Black Hills will likely 

continue to affect habitat, including white spruce communities and paper birch/hazel forest, thereby 

increasing the importance of stands on Forest Service lands. Lawrence and Pennington Counties 

have signed an agreement with the Forest Service to cut and chunk adjacent to private property. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 240 

Because Alternative B excludes harvest from the botanically rich Spearfish Canyon and 

generally less aggressive harvest goals, it will have slightly less of a cumulative impact on 

Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant SOLC. 

Determinations of Effect and Rationale 

The determination of effects on Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC were made as the 

result of the information gathered in the pre-field review, field reconnaissance, survey results, 

and effects analysis for all action alternatives. The basis for these determinations was effects 

from proposed activities on known populations and impacts to populations that could occur in 

areas that are unsurveyed for Region 2 sensitive plant species. The determination language is set 

forth in Forest Service Manual 2670. 

Objectives, standards, and guidelines have been identified in the Forest Plan Phase II to conserve 

Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC found on the Black Hills National Forest. This 

project will follow the objectives, standards, and guidelines that are applicable to those species 

and habitats found in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Area. 

The project area was partially surveyed for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant SOLC and 

several populations were located and mapped; however 106,700 acres (44% of Alternative B and 

43% of Alternative C) have not been surveyed for botanical resources. Forest Service Manual 

direction states that if resources presence is not known, and surveys are not feasible, then 

presence of Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC should be assumed (USDA Forest 

Service 2011a). Alternative B proposes a total of 48,400 acres of treatment and Alternative C 

proposes a total 124,000 acres of treatment. Since the exact location of treatments that will be 

implemented cannot be known at this time, the best surrogate is a comparison of case scenarios. 

 

Most Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC found on the Black Hills National Forest are 

globally secure, with the exception of prairie moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern (NatureServe 

2011). This, combined with the rangewide presence of these species, means that if all of the 

occurrences of these species on the Forest were extirpated, the species would most likely survive 

and most likely not cause a trend to Federal listing. 

For Alternative B, 48,400 acres of treatment are permitted, 106,700 acres are unsurveyed and 

assumed occupied, and 10,702 acres known to be occupied. With this alternative, treatment 

could occur in all 10,702 acres of occupied habitat as well as impacts to known occurrences 

outside of proposed treatment areas. That being said, if all of the populations known to occur 

within the treatment areas (ignoring the populations outside of treatment areas, for which Design 

Criteria exist to limit the impact), viability on the Forest would decline for prairie moonwort, 

narrowleaf grapefern, foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, bloodroot, and highbush cranberry 

simply because such a large percentage of the populations would be disturbed by treatment 

activities. Also, all of the proposed acres for treatment could occur in unsurveyed and assumed 

occupied habitat. If we assume that all 106,700 acres of unsurveyed habitat contain populations 

of Region 2 sensitive species or plant SOLC, treatment in these areas could remove 40 percent of 

the total known or assumed presence acres within the project area. Such a large impact would 

cause a decline in the viability of sensitive species within the project area and most likely on the 

Forest. This represents the “worst case scenario” for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 241 

SOLC under Alternative B. Conversely, the treated acres could occur in the 124,500 acres 

without the potential for Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC conflict. This would be the 

“best case scenario” for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant SOLC under Alternative B. 

For Alternative C, 124,000 acres of treatment are permitted, 106,700 acres are unsurveyed and 

assumed occupied, and 12,250 acres known to be occupied. With this alternative, treatment 

could occur in all 12,250 acres of occupied habitat as well as impacts to known occurrences 

outside of proposed treatment areas. That being said, if all of the populations known to occur 

within the treatment areas (ignoring the populations outside of treatment areas, for which Design 

Criteria exist to limit the impact), viability on the Forest would decline for prairie moonwort, 

narrowleaf grapefern, foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, bloodroot, and highbush cranberry 

simply because such a large percentage of the populations would be disturbed by treatment 

activities. Also, all of the proposed acres for treatment could occur in unsurveyed and assumed 

occupied habitat. If we assume that all 106,700 acres of unsurveyed habitat contain populations 

of Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC, treatment in these areas could remove 100 percent 

of the total known or assumed presence acres within the project area. Such a large impact would 

cause a decline in the viability of sensitive species within the project area and most likely on the 

Forest. This represents the “worst case scenario” for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant 

SOLC under Alternative C. Conversely, the treated acres could occur in the 129,000 acres 

without the potential for Region 2 sensitive species and plant SOLC conflict. This would be the 

“best case scenario” for Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant SOLC under Alternative C. 

Table 3-36 Comparison of Potential Treatment Impacts on Acres of Known and Assumed Occurrences of R2 

Sensitive Plant Species 

Unsurveyed 

Acres 

Known Sensitive 

Occupied Acres 

Total Sensitive 

Acres 

Treatment 

Acres 

Scenario with the 

Most Impact* 

Scenario with the 

Least Impact* 

Alternative B 106,700 acres 10,702 acres 117,402 acres 

48,400 

acres 

48,400 acres 0 acres 

Alternative C 106,700 acres 12,250 acres 118,950 acres 

124,000 

acres 

118,950 acres 0 acres 

* to both assumed and confirmed present Region 2 sensitive species 

Design criteria are described at the beginning of the Effects of the Alternatives section and are an 

integral part of the effects determination. Any deviation from these criteria will require further 

analysis and a revised effects determination. Some mitigation measures not included here are 

Forest Service standard operating procedures. An example would be the standard provisions of a 

Timber Sale Contract and road design specifications. Other mitigation measures not included 

here are additional Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines too numerous and lengthy to include 

here (including but not limited to those relating to water, soils, riparian areas, travel and 

transportation, noxious weeds, and livestock grazing). Project implementation will incorporate 

all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, with the exception of those identified for site-specific 

amendment in the Record of Decision. 

Assuming the worst case scenario for both action alternatives (the conservative approach), with 

implementation of the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment and all of the standards and guidelines 

adopted therein, as well as project specific design criteria, a determination of “Likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” is made for the 

following species for both action alternatives: 

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 242 

Narrowleaf grapefern Botrychium lineare 

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea 

Yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum 

Large round-leaf orchid Platanthera orbiculata 

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis 

Highbush cranberry Viburnum opulus var. americanum 

A determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of 

viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability 

range-wide” is made for the following species for the proposed action: 

Trailing clubmoss Lycopodium complanatum 

Sage willow Salix candida 

Autumn willow Salix serissima 

Great-spurred violet Viola selkirkii 

Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects 

Design criteria are described at the beginning of the Effects of the Alternatives section and are an 

integral part of the effects determination described in the previous section. Any deviation from 

these criteria will require further analysis and a revised effects determination. 

Additional mitigation would include avoiding treatment in the stands known to contain Region 2 

sensitive plant species (listed in Appendix A of the Botany Report). In addition, survey for 

botanical resources would be conducted during an appropriate time of year to determine Region 

2 sensitive species presence in stands unsurveyed for botanical resources (listed in Appendix B). 

The mitigation measures included herein apply to both action alternatives. The determinations of 

effects for each species are contingent upon, to varying degrees, implementation of mitigation 

measures. If mitigation measures are fully implemented, along with the implementation of the 

Forest Plan Phase II Amendment and all of the standards and guidelines adopted therein, and 

project specific design criteria, a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not 

likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a 

loss of species viability range-wide” is made for the following species for the proposed action: 

Prairie moonwort Botrychium campestre 

Narrowleaf grapefern Botrychium lineare 

Foxtail sedge Carex alopecoidea 

Yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium parviflorum 

Trailing clubmoss Lycopodium complanatum 

Large round-leaf orchid Platanthera orbiculata 

Sage willow Salix candida 

Autumn willow Salix serissima 

Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis 

Highbush cranberry Viburnum opulus var. americanum 

Great-spurred violet Viola selkirkii 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 243 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for each 

alternative to the Social Environment (Travel Management, Scenic Quality, Recreation Use, Heritage, 

and Social). 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Background 

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan was 

signed on May 7, 2010 and implementation began with publication of the Motorized Vehicle Use Map 

effective December 1, 2010. The Travel Management Plan will help meet the increasing demand for 

recreational travel opportunities and provide a range of quality experiences for other Forest users, 

while offering many recreational opportunities over time. The ROD designated 707 miles of system 

trails of various types Forest-wide, as well as 548 miles of roads open to all vehicles. These roads and 

trails were designated to provide diverse motorized recreation opportunities in off-highway settings 

rather than roaded settings, to meet user interests and best manage public safety risks, disperse users, 

and reduce crowding and conflicts with other users. Motorized cross-country travel is prohibited, 

other than for dispersed camping and game retrieval along selected routes. 

The Travel Management Plan recognizes that the total number of off-highway vehicle miles included 

in the decision will not likely be available in a given year, with some trails being closed for project 

work or seasonal closures. The ROD also acknowledges that certain designated routes may not be 

available in any particular season or year because of contractor or timber purchaser operations, public 

safety, or resource concerns, leading to reduced miles available for OHV operation. See 

Transportation section for information on roads/trails. 

SCENIC QUALITY 

Affected Environment 

The Pine Beetle Response Project Area is within the boundaries of the Black Hills National Forest. 

Scenery is important to people that live and work in the area, and to those visiting the area. The 

main difference between the Black Hills and the surrounding landscape (to the north, east, and 

south) is the vegetation, specifically trees, and the landform, canyons and ‘hills’. People enjoy the 

natural beauty of these two landscape elements – whether it is the shade, the forest canopy above, or 

the green carpet of trees that blankets the hills – people value this forested landscape for its beauty. 

Landscape Visibility is the portions of landscapes visible from travel ways and use areas are 

important to constituents for their scenic quality, aesthetic values, and landscape merits. Travel 

ways and use areas are identified and classified during the Forest-wide planning process, in order to 

determine which observer locations, and their importance, to use in the landscape visibility analysis. 

Concern Level 1 travel ways that lead to important scenic features, residential areas, resorts, 

recreation areas, unique natural phenomena, wilderness trailheads, national parks, state and county 

parks, attract higher percentage of users having high concern for scenic quality, thus increasing the 

importance of those travel ways (USDA-FS 1995, Chapter 4, pg. 8). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 244 

The majority of the views from roads in the planning area are limited to the Foreground and 

Middleground distances. Approximately 32% of the USFS lands within the planning area are 

viewed from Concern Level 1 Corridors (where people have the highest concern for scenery) 

including U.S. and State Highways, main trails (Mickelson, Centennial, and Black Elk Wilderness 

trails), recreation facilities (campgrounds picnic areas), and communities. 

Approximately 59% of the USFS lands within the planning area is viewed from Concern Level 2 

Corridors (where people have the moderate to high concern for scenery in this area) including: 

County Roads, other trails, and other private lands. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are management objectives that were adopted from the scenic 

class values. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually 

perceived to be “complete”. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes 

that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal 

(USDA-FS 1995, Chapter 2, pg. 1). Within the Pine Beetle Response Planning Area, 

approximately 1% have a VERY HIGH SIO, 14% have a HIGH SIO, 41% a MODERATE SIO, 

44% a LOW SIO, and less than 1% a VERY LOW SIO. 

Existing Scenic Integrity represents the current status of a landscape. It is determined on the basis of 

visual changes that detract from the scenic quality of the area. Direct human alterations may be 

included if they have become accepted over time as positive landscape character values in the 

planning area. Existing scenic integrity is the current visual state, which is measured in degrees of 

deviation from the natural appearance of the landscape character type. These ratings give an 

indication of the present level of visual quality and visual evidence of management activities. The 

frame of reference for measuring achievement of scenic integrity levels is the valued attributes of the 

existing landscape character unit being viewed. In natural or natural appearing character, this is 

limited to natural or natural appearing vegetative patterns, features of water and rock, and landforms. 

Since the 1874 arrival of the Custer Expedition, which traveled through this area, the region has 

been recognized as a scenic wonderland. The construction of the roads and highways were avenues 

for commerce to come into the area, and also provided access for the citizens of this nation to see 

the scenic wonders of this area. The construction of recreation facilities including lakes (thru manmade dams), campgrounds and trails, also marked this area as a destination. The national 

designations of the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, and the on-going work at Crazy Horse Memorial, 

Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway, the Mickelson Trail, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, 

Harney Peak, and other features have focused national attention upon the natural scenic qualities of 

the surrounding area. 

Apparent human alterations in the form of recreation facilities (campground, boating facilities, 

picnic areas, etc.), open roads and trails (such as the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, Mickelson 

Trail and Centennial Trail, US, State, and County Highways, etc.) that provide access for 

commerce, to homes and recreation facilities, have generally been accepted over time as part of 

the positive cultural landscape character attributes. Within the planning area, forested areas are 

predominantly populated by Ponderosa Pine, Oak, Aspen and other hardwoods, and Spruce 

(generally limited to streams and wet areas) communities. Water features are limited to narrow, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 245 

quiet, low-flow intermittent streams. Lakes and ponds are not natural features in the region, as a 

result all the lakes within the Forest are all human-made, and receive a high level of summer use. 

Diversity contributes to scenic qualities of an area including: large tree character, hardwoods, 

spring and fall color, visibility of wildlife, and wildflowers. Although vegetation removal 

treatments can create some of the textural diversity, in some cases fire is needed to stimulate the 

vegetation variety (color and texture). With the continued suppression of wildfires, only 

management ignited fires, under specific conditions, can stimulate these desired results. Prior to 

2000, these fires have been limited, resulting in dense forest stands that choke out many plant 

species, limit tree growth – so desired large-tree characteristics are not developing, and are 

contributing to the high levels of tree mortality from the Mountain Pine Beetle insect. Specifically, 

Covington and Moore (Brown and Sieg, 1996), reviewing their own and many other studies, list 

post-settlement changes in ponderosa pine community structure and function can be directly or 

indirectly attributed to fire exclusion. These changes include: 1) overstocked patches of saplings 

and pole-sized trees; 2) reduced tree growth and increased mortality, especially of the older trees in 

a stand; 3) stagnated nutrient cycling; 4) increased irruptions of insects and diseases; 5) higher fuel 

loads, including increased vertical fuel continuity (“ladder fuels”); 6) decreased stream flows; and 

7) less wildlife habitat for species dependent upon herbaceous vegetation.

Over the past ten years, vegetation treatments in the form of overstory removals and seed cuts, 

that the general public accepts to be ‘created openings’ have occurred on approx. 40,000 acres of

the 865,000 acres of the ‘suitable timber base’ (USDA-FS 1997b), or 5%. It can take from 20 to 

35 years for trees to grow up and fill in these areas, so they no longer appear as created openings. 

Other vegetation treatments have also occurred that reduced the density of the trees across the 

landscape (i.e. - commercial thinning). 

Communities and private land are interspersed with National Forest lands, creating a challenging 

wildland fire – urban interface condition across the Black Hills landscape. As a result, wildfires 

have been rapidly extinguished, limiting the role natural wildfire has in this fire-dependent 

ecosystem. When wildfires escape beyond initial containment, large areas often burn in the 

thousands of acres and kill the many of the mature trees. As a result, the diversity of vegetation 

and stand structure is limited to that accomplished through prescribed fires and cutting/removal 

of vegetation. Large wildfires have occurred within the Forest over the past 11 years. Approx. 

10% of the forested areas have moved from dense forest conditions to open grassland and opencanopy forest conditions due to wildland fires. 

Mountain Pine Beetle activity has rapidly expanded over the past 11 years in the Black Hills 

National Forest. Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) activity has resulted in the death of pine trees. To 

date, over 400,000 acres have been affected by MPB (USDA-FS 2012). 

Overall the appearance of trees attacked by MPB changes from green, to light green as the tree 

slowly dies, during these phases the tree still appears ‘alive’ to most observers. The “red” stage is 

the most visible – when the tree is dead and the needles are red in color. Eventually, the needles will 

fall off (usually 1-2 years), and the trees appear gray in the landscape. Currently the MPB are 

spreading into more heavily traveled portions of the Forest and are much more visibly to the general 

public. In addition, due to the limitations of logging equipment to less than 40% slopes, vegetation 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 246 

is going un-managed and natural processes are taking place on these steeper slopes. Trees are 

evident in the green / red / gray stages across the Forest. Trees killed and down from MPB activity 

is not readily apparent along hiking trails, except in the Black Elk Wilderness. However, this will 

change within the next 2-7 years, as trees on steep slopes (greater than 40% slope), visible from US 

and State Highways, are coming under attack of MPB. A landscape covered by green forest was 

identified as the single best predictor of public acceptance of Scenic Integrity (Visual Quality 

Classes), in a Canadian Public Perception study of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack. Across a 

landscape, as the green forest diminishes and turns red, then grey, the public will less like the 

landscape they are viewing (British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range 2010). Generally the 

MPB killed trees were mostly evident from county and Forest roads. Within the past few years this 

activity has become more evident in the landscapes when viewed from communities, recreation 

facilities (i.e. – campgrounds – public and private), trails, highways, and private lands outside 

communities, from Federal, State, County highways, recreation areas, Mickelson Trail, communities 

and private lands surrounding them. The majority of the concentrated MPB activity has been from 

Deadwood to Custer, and west toward the Wyoming border. During the 2011 MPB survey, an 

additional 23,680 acres were found to be effected from the previous year (USDA-FS 2012). 

Environmental Consequences 

Analysis Method 

Scenery assessment illustrates how the features of the landscape can be inventoried and analyzed 

so managers can compare and evaluate vegetation management treatments based on an 

understanding of how people value their environment. 

Four primary steps were followed in the scenery assessment of the Planning Area, including: 1) 

Identify the landscape character; 2) Identify the key scenic features (identified in scenic class and

scenic attractiveness Forest GIS layers), and landscape visibility of the area (such as from Level 1 

and 2 corridors); 3) Compare the existing scenic integrity with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP 

Scenic Integrity Objectives assigned to this area; 4) Evaluate the expected level of scenic integrity 

resulting from the Alternatives. Where needed, determine design criteria to meet scenic integrity 

objectives. All National Forest land within each planning area is analyzed following these steps. 

Due to the time of year, access, and the scale of this project, field review was conducted on only a 

few potential treatment locations. Review was conducted of areas that are representative of 

topography found across the Forest that includes areas where MPB attacked pine trees, where no 

vegetation treatment occurred, as well as locations where MPB treatments occurred - and their 

effectiveness at meeting Scenic Integrity Objectives (given the level of MPB activity prior to the 

vegetation treatments). These findings are the basis for the Scenic analysis of the proposed 

treatments in the Action Alternatives. 

Alternative A - Direct / Indirect Effects 

Between vegetation management, wildfires, and MPB activity, the appearance of the Black Hills 

National Forest has been very dynamic. An example of the level of change is evident in the 

following two pictures. In 2009 approximately one-tenth of the vegetation on this mountain had 

MPB activity. Two and one half years later, more than one-half the vegetation on the mountain 

had been killed by MPB activity. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 247 

Figure 3-13, February, 2009 – Hwy. 16/385 looking north (approx. 1500 ft. north of the entrance 

into Crazy Horse Memorial.) Mountain top in photo is approx. one-mile in distance. Trees killed by 

Mountain Pine Beetle appear red-brown along the horizon – right slope of the mountain (S.Keegan).

Figure 3-13 MPB Activity Middleground 

Figure 3-14, September, 2011 – Hwy. 16/385 looking north (from approx. the same location as 

the previous photo). Subsequent spread of Mountain Pine Beetle – evident from the appearance 

of the red-brown beetle-killed trees in the photos – in the past 2 1⁄2 years (S.Keegan).

Figure 3-14 MPB No Treatment Middleground 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 248 

The effect of Mountain Pine Beetle activity (killing mature trees) is spreading across the Forest 

(planning area) and readily apparent from roads and trails, and is expected to continue. 

Groups of insect killed trees would allow openings in the dense canopy that will provide 

opportunities for new vegetation growth. This new growth will provide visual diversity of 

texture and color in the landscape. Where large areas of insect-killed and down trees are present 

there is a potential for rapid development of a wildfire. Should that occur, visually we can 

expect to see open areas where, due to high temperatures close to the ground, pioneer species 

will likely be the first plants to re-colonizes these areas with vegetation, as there would be 

limited seed sources. In these locations, immediately after the fire, the burned areas will appear 

as forms in the landscape, particularly when snow covered. During non-snow covered periods, 

differences in live tree / dead trees/ pioneer species will visually be evident through variations in 

color and texture from coarse (live trees) to fine (pioneer species). Where fire does not occur, 

the down material will create a strong horizontal element and light color in the landscape, 

particularly evident in the Immediate Foreground and Foreground views. In the Middleground, 

the color will dominate the landscape. Examples of this were readily apparent in the Battle 

Creek fire (2002) and the Jasper Fire (2001) areas along Highway 16, and are only now 

beginning to dissipate. In each distance zone, the landforms themselves will be evident in the 

landscape. Variety of vegetation, and color, will be limited and will evolve slowly over time. 

Once any new vegetation grows up above the level of the down material, variations in color and 

texture will be evident – creating patterns in the landscape. 

Existing conditions and natural processes of trees growing and regenerating will continue. 

Projections by the Regional Insect and Disease Scientist are that the Mountain Pine Beetle activity 

would continue to spread within the Black Hills National Forest. Locations would include visible 

areas with a High, Moderate, or Low SIO. Areas on the Forest that have shown wide spread levels 

of MPB activity appear to have 70-90% of the larger (commercial-sized) trees killed. Where MPB 

activity continues, vegetation patterns across the landscape would continue to change from densely 

forested, with few openings, to an open landscape with few clumps of scattered trees. 

Within 3-5 years the trees snap off, or fall, creating openings in the forest. In the foreground and 

middleground, the color and texture of the down trees will dominate the landscape. In the

background, the forms of these open areas will dominate the landscape. The remaining trees will 

likely provide the seed source for new trees. Seedlings will spout over time. A dense canopy of 

seedlings, approx. 10 feet tall, covering these same areas can be expected in 20-30 years. Long 

term as the new forest grows up through the dead/down decaying trees; the new growth will help 

these areas to blend into the landscape. This is a natural process, but it will likely be widespread 

across the Forest. 

During this time, the dead/down trees will breakdown, providing a receptive fuel bed for wildfires. 

The densely growing seedlings will provide vertical fuel structure. This combination will supply a 

wildfire with a readily available fuel source. Wildfires would have the ability to rapidly spread 

during hot and dry conditions. When fires burn for a long period of time and concentrate the heat

in one location – such as under a pile of dead/down logs, the structure of the soil can be broken 

down (observed in the Jasper Fire area), as well as sterilized. This damage can allow the soil to be 

easily eroded, contribute to a loss of nutrients, inhibit native plant growth, and encourage non-
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 249 

native species (see Soils section). The effects of erosion create soil-vegetation color contrasts that 

can be short or long-term, and detrimental to the scenic integrity of an area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Wildland fire is an essential ecological process in this ecosystem, which should increase plant and 

scenic diversity. However, due to the private lands and homes scattered throughout the project 

area, fires would continue to be extinguished as quickly as possible. No prescribed broadcast 

burning would occur within the potential treatment areas. Outside the potential treatment areas, 

prescribed broadcast burning would continue to be used in controlled conditions, to achieve those

ecological processes, while protecting adjacent private lands. As a result, the forest will continue 

to grow densely, becoming thicker and reducing visible open space. Views into the forest would 

become more limited as the trees grow more densely – reducing visual diversity, including 

wildflowers, shrubs, hardwoods, and open meadows. Should wildfires burn into stands of densely 

packed growing trees, smaller trees can act as “ladder fuels” moving the fire up into the crowns of 

the trees, resulting in groups of fire killed trees. If fires spread beyond initial containment, such as 

in drought and / or high wind conditions, they can spread into hillsides of densely packed trees. 

[Although the average life expectancy of a dead tree (snag) is 15 years (Lentile 2000a, pg.25), firekilled trees life expectancy has been observed at less than 10 years (Jasper, Battle Creek, and other 

large fires).] As a result, large open hillsides could be evident within 10 years of an event. 

With Mountain Pine Beetle killed trees, the amount of dead and down material would provide a 

large quantity of ‘fuel’. The effect of a wildland fire in this material would be similar to that 

observed in long duration burning, as observed in other large fires. Where there was not a large 

quantity of fuel, plant germination was observed to have occurred within 7 days of the fire when 

seeds were present in the soil/duff layer. With the wide spread MPB activity evident, should 

wildfires occur, and spread into areas of large quantities of fuel, results similar to those observed, 

would be evident over large areas – open areas that would take time to re-establish plants. If this 

type of an event occurred, the form of the land would dominate the view. Rock formations that 

this area is noted for would be more visible (see the Battle Creek Fire area). During periods 

when the ground is snow covered, these areas will be highly visible in the landscape. Positive 

vegetative elements that provide color, variety, and texture in the landscape, including large trees 

would no longer be present. The scenic quality would be greatly reduced until vegetation 

patterns are re-established in the landscape. 

In areas where no disturbance occurs, the vegetation will grow into a thick dense forest, with 

competition for light, water, and nutrients. In some areas, the dense conifers are out-competing 

the hardwoods for these necessary components for plant growth. This dense vegetation provides 

the greatest potential for disturbance (fire or insect) that could rapidly change the visual 

appearance of the vegetation across the landscape. The dense vegetation may shade out shrubs, 

wildflowers and other low growing plants – reducing visual diversity. 

Alternatives, B and C - Effects Common to Both Action 

When vegetation treatments occur in an area before the MPB becomes widely established and 

can affect a high percentage of the trees, options exist to treat the vegetation in a manner than 

still maintains a natural appearance. An example of this is evident along Highway 16/385, 

approx. 2 miles north of Custer, vegetation was thinned (Goat Timber Sale) to meet timber 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 250 

objectives while being sensitive to view from the highway. The treated area mimics natural 

vegetation patterns (approx. 60 BA) that can be found along a forest/meadow ecosystem. The 

slash was cleaned up to a normal level, and the overall result meets a High SIO (note: the less 

dense spacing of the trees has moved the treated area toward an ecological condition as if fire 

had played its natural role), and at the same time meets the basal area thinning recommendation 

to reduce the potential effect of MPB infestation. 

When vegetation treatments occur in an area after the MPB becomes widely established and 

affects a high percentage of the trees, options to treat the vegetation are limited, and the results 

generally do not maintain a natural appearance. An example of this is evident along Highway 

16/385, approx. 5 miles north of Custer, vegetation was treated (Atlantic Bug project) in an 

attempt curtail the MPB activity and maintain some live trees in the landscape - by removing live 

trees that have been infested with MPBs (“green hits”). Unfortunately, almost all the trees had 

MPB in them. The photos below are “before” and “after” treatment. [Note: the camera angle and 

location in the “before” picture does not display many dead (‘red’) trees, as the majority are 

located beyond the trees along the edge of the highway corridor; however, many of the live 

(“green”) trees in the photo are infected with MPBs.] 

Figure 3-15 Before Treatment of MPB Stand 

February, 2009 – Hwy. 16/385 looking northwest (approx. 1.3 miles north of the entrance into 

Crazy Horse Memorial.) into the Atlantic Bug project area. Trees attacked by Mountain Pine 

Beetle still appear green in the immediate foreground (S.Keegan, USFS).

Figure 3-16 Post Treatment of MPB Stand 

September, 2011 – Hwy. 16/385 looking northwest, from approx. same location as previous 

photo. Removal of MPB attacked trees (S.Keegan).

Another example of a vegetation treatment that occurred in an area before the MPB became 

widely established was also along Highway 16/385 approx. 7 miles north of Custer (Quincy 

Bug). This project was also aimed at removing live trees that were under attack from MPB. 

This area was in the early stages of the MPB activity, the stands were able to be thinned before 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 251 

the majority of trees were attacked by the MPB. After treatment, this area still has a natural 

appearance. Figures 3-17 and 3-18 below are photos of that project. Note: the camera angle and 

location display one forest stand where the MPB activity has limited visibility - some dead 

(‘red’) trees are evident, and many of the live (“green”) trees in the photo are infected with 

MPBs. “Before” Treatment Figure 3-17, November, 2009 – Mtn. Pine Beetle have killed trees 

(red trees) and moved into the surrounding forest (S.Keegan). 

Figure 3-17 MPB Activity Before Thinning 

After Treatment Figure 3-18, September, 2011 – Trees with MPB have been removed, and the 

tree density has been lowered to a 60 Basal Area (S.Keegan).

Figure 3-18 Thinning Recently Infested Trees 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 252 

Thinning trees to an even spacing can result in a managed, un-natural appearance. Thinning 

trees to an un-even spacing can result in a natural appearance that is in harmony with the 

landscape character, often resulting in a higher SIO being achieved. Treatments where more 

large trees remain, generally maintain a natural appearing landscape character. Treatments that 

leave few large trees would be the most visible. Both Alternatives B and C would treat recently 

infected trees in the Proposed Treatment Areas (PTA), prior to the MPB killing large numbers of 

trees. Alternative B would treat only the infected trees, allowing the potential for MPB to 

become established in an adjacent area that is not treated. Alternative C would treat the infected 

trees, and potentially the rest of the surrounding forest, with a goal to limit future MPB 

infestation in the same area and maintain the visually desirable trees - though widely spaced - 

over the forested landscape. At the same time, the removal of trees would limit the large 

quantity of fuel that would occur – if the trees remained and the MPB killed them. The 

treatments may enhance the large tree component, when present, by reducing competition for 

nutrients, and reduce susceptibility to MPB attacks. A variety of vegetation structure, smaller 

and larger trees, increasing numbers of hardwoods, grasses and shrubs should result from this 

thinning. Overall, the variety of vegetation, at the stand level, should be very positive from a 

scenery standpoint. The resulting more open forest structure should promote views into the 

forest to view large diameter trees, spring and fall color, and wildlife. 

Direct Effects 

“In general a specific integrity level can be achieved by decreasing the visual contrast of the 

deviation being viewed. Several approaches may meet integrity levels: 

• Usually the most effective way is to repeat form, line, color, texture, pattern and scale 

common to the valued landscape character being viewed. For example, in natural or natural 

appearing landscapes such deviations as created openings can sometimes be added by 

repeating size, shape, edge effect, surface color and pattern from natural openings common to 

the landscape character.... 

• If repetition is accurate and well designed the deviation may blend so well the change is not 

evident (HIGH). It may only borrow well enough to be noticeable but visually subordinate 

(MODERATE). 

• Another approach is to borrow form, line, color, texture, pattern and scale from similar but 

different valued landscapes outside that being viewed. For example, it may be possible to 

borrow the size, shape, edge effect, surface color, and pattern of natural openings and repeat 

them in continuous textured landscapes where they do not presently exist.... 

• Because these are introduced elements from landscape character outside the one being 

viewed these are usually evident (MODERATE) if not dominant (LOW) (USDA-FS 1995a, 

Chapter 2, pg. 5). 

Naturally healthy forests necessarily are comprised of deadfall, dead standing trees, insect 

infestations, windfall, various intensity wildfire events, and effects from tree disease (i.e. – 

natural openings from tree root rot), can all create patterns in the vegetation that is readily 

apparent in the viewed landscape. 

Fire has been excluded from its natural role, openings have been limited to meadows – some 

quite large. The National Forest lands (the planning area) is densely populated with trees 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 253 

(predominantly ponderosa pine). These treatments, should follow natural insect patterns, and 

create vegetative patterns that will likely be natural in appearance. 

Commercial treatment prescriptions would result in the removal of trees [generally 5-inch and 

greater Diameter Breast Height (DBH)] within a stand. Commercial thinning can result in a 

uniform appearance of the remaining forest stand (both in size and spacing). The vertical lines 

of the remaining tree boles will be more evident. The visibility of larger diameter trees will add 

variety of color (orange and black bark on the tree boles), and allow more light on the 

understory. When higher numbers of larger trees remain, a natural appearance can still be 

achieved. The understory, trees generally less than 5-inch DBH, where present, would still be 

present and potentially help blend treatments into the viewed landscape by reducing vegetation 

and color contrasts in summer and winter. In the Foreground and Middleground, textural 

differences will be the most evident. In the Background, textural changes may be evident, but 

form, lighting (shadows), time of day (sun orientation), and seasonal (color) differences can have 

the greatest effect on how evident vegetation treatments will appear. 

Sanitation treatment removes trees currently infested with mountain pine beetle. The forest after 

treatment could be very open to a somewhat closed canopy, a range of 10 to 70 BA. A 10 BA 

results in a heavily managed appearance, that meets a LOW SIO (or less), depending upon the size 

of the unit. While a 70 BA results in a natural appearing condition meets a High SIO. When 

treatment is in an area with widespread MPB activity, a Low SIO will likely be achieved. When 

then treatment is in an area with isolated pockets of MPB activity, a High SIO could be achieved. 

The visual effect is totally dependent upon the amount of MPB activity present. The results of this 

treatment cannot be projected due to the unknown level of MPB activity in a given area to be treated. 

Cut and Chunk treatment cuts down trees currently infested with mountain pine beetle, and cuts 

them into chunks (i.e. 12”-18” long pieces), and leaves the pieces scattered on the forest floor. 

This is a labor intensive treatment utilizing chainsaws - no large mechanical equipment will be 

present. As a result no soil displacement or geometric patterns in the vegetation would be 

created. However the ‘chunks’ would be evident. The color of the cut wood is a pale whiteyellow; when sunlight shines on the fresh cut wood, it has been observed to be highly visible in 

the immediate foreground. This effect may be highly visible for 1-2 years, until the surface of 

the wood weathers to a dull gray, which may be less conspicuous in color. This treatment will 

likely be used in areas where there are few MPB infected trees, and on slopes greater than 40% 

which could include widespread areas of MPB infected trees. It is on the steep slopes that this 

treatment has the greatest potential to be highly visible. In these locations, the gray weathered 

pieces of cut up chunks could be evident when understory trees are widely scattered. The visual 

effect is totally dependent upon the amount of MPB activity, and the understory, present. The 

results of this treatment cannot be projected. 

Roads - Reconstruction, whether ‘System’ or ‘Non-system - temporary’, has the same effect on 

the scenic landscape. Road reconstruction smoothes the road surface removes vegetation and 

debris, cleans associated ditches, and can widen the road surface. If the existing cut and fill 

slopes is not treated/changed: on flat ground the only apparent change would potentially be the 

color of the exposed earth, on steep ground the loss of vegetation along the road cut or fill slope 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 254 

can result in the road once again dominating the landscape. Any road reconstruction along the 

edge of private land has the potential to be highly visible. 

Logging systems – Ground based logging methods include using skidders and dozers to move logs 

to landing site. Skidding logs on, or across, slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil leaving 

trails that can be quite visible – creating lines or unusual color contrasts in the landscape. These 

skid trails will be evident until cleanup activities (slash treatment and seeded areas germinate) are 

completed. Skidding is normally limited in operation to dry or frozen conditions, which reduces 

potential for soil disturbance. On gently rolling terrain, disturbance is generally kept to a minimum 

– however it is dependent upon the quantity of logs moved along the same skid trail. 

The Skyline Logging method is used in steep terrain where ground based logging systems (skidders, 

forwarders, etc.) cannot be used. This system removes trees in corridors. Depending upon whether 

the logs can be fully suspended in the air, or must drag the logs up the slope, will determine the level 

of impact of this logging system. In locations where the logs are fully suspended, there are no 

impacts to the soil or ground vegetation from the logging system, except at the landing site. In 

locations where logs are not fully suspended, but dragged up the slope, soil is disturbed in vertical 

‘lines’ that normally are highly evident, last for a long duration, and do not mimic natural patterns in 

the landscape. Long skyline corridors, bringing up a large quantity of logs in each corridor, can 

result in earth being displaced down to mineral soil than can create strong color contrasts with the 

surrounding vegetation. The openings created in the vegetation (due to the limitations of the logging 

system) can be geometric in shape if the majority of the vegetation is removed from the landscape 

(less than 50BA). The roads, where the skyline logging equipment is operated from, is located at the 

top of the logged unit, and can also be highly visible. Visibility of the drag marks and the road is 

totally dependent upon the amount of vegetation remaining across the landscape. In areas where 60 

BA or higher is maintained on the landscape, and skyline corridors are kept to a minimum width, 

impacts from this logging system can be kept to a minimum. Limited remaining vegetation, and logs 

being dragged up the slope, can create color contrasts and vegetation patterns that can be visible for 

a long duration (10 – 30 years). In locations where the viewer is directly in-line with the skyline 

corridors, there is a high probability - in the best of conditions, some effects will still be obvious. If 

this method is employed in locations where widespread Mountain Pine Beetle activity is occurring, 

and full suspension cannot be achieved, this logging system will result in a high level of visual 

impacts and only a Low or Very Low SIO could be achieved. If this method is employed in 

locations where scattered Mountain Pine Beetle activity is occurring and a 50 BA or greater can be 

maintained and full suspension can be achieved, this logging system could result in a moderate level 

of visual impacts and a Moderate SIO could be achieved.

Helicopter logging method can be used in any terrain, but for this project it would likely only be 

employed in steep terrain. This system creates no additional impacts (i.e. – soil disturbance color 

contrasts or linear openings in the vegetation) beyond openings creates by removing the 

vegetation and the log landing site. This method removes the trees directly from where they’ve 

fallen. The shape of treatments (textural changes) created in the vegetation thru helicopter 

logging is not limited like other loggings systems. Ground-based systems normally do not 

operate on slopes 40% or greater. The upper edge of a unit logged with a ground based can 

result in a straight horizontal edge where it encountered a steeper slope. Skyline systems result 

in straight edges along the edges of treated areas, often creating a square pattern in the vegetation 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 255 

when 40 BA, or less, is remaining. This pattern is most evident when snow is present on the 

ground. As a result, helicopter logging has the greatest potential to mimic natural vegetative 

patterns in the landscape, and meet the desired future condition in recreation areas and other 

areas of high scenic importance. Helicopter logging, completed in approximately February 

2011, on St. Elmo Peak in a location highly visible from US Hwy. 16/385, appear as natural 

(irregularly shaped) openings and a variety of stand densities (texture) were achieved. The 

logged area is so natural in appearance most people would not realize any vegetation 

management occurred. This logging method was also used in Custer State Park with similar 

results. In both cases a high level of Scenic Integrity was achieved as soon as the logging was 

completed. Due to the cost of this logging system, it is rarely used, and only employed in 

locations with high resource sensitivity. 

Log landings - locations where logs are brought, piled, and then loaded onto trucks and removed 

from the site. The size of these landings and amount of disturbance (vegetation removed and 

often soil displaced) will vary by location, depending upon the type of logging system employed 

(forwarder, etc.) and the volume of logs being brought to that landing. Once logging is

completed, these landing sites are cleared of debris and reseeded. Based upon observations of 

past activities, the length of time before the site appears as a natural opening is generally 1 to 4 

years, depending upon the level of disturbance, any remaining debris (slash), and how quickly 

grasses take over the site. 

By-products of vegetation removal - tops and limbs not utilized for commercial products or fuel 

are left on the ground, or piled throughout the area of the vegetation treatment. Stumps would 

likely be evident throughout the treatment areas. As a result of the treatment, slash is in 

quantities usually well above natural levels - creating strong contrasts (the slash reflects light) in 

color and texture. On steep slopes stumps can be highly evident, as they too will reflect light; on 

flat terrain grasses can grow up and hide them. With both byproducts, it is the quantity present 

that determines how natural the forest will appear after treatment. Additional slash treatments 

such as piling and burning, crushing, or moving to a large landing for treatment, can all greatly 

reduce the visual impact from the slash. 

When slash is hand piled, it is usually then burned within 1-2 years. Burning of slash is 

dependent upon weather condition and aids in containing the fire. Generally, these conditions 

occur within two years of the time the slash is placed on the ground. Once the dried slash is 

burned, circular burn marks are clearly evident on the ground. Normally, these burn marks are 

no longer visible once new grasses and other vegetation grow up the following spring. Once all 

clean-up has occurred, areas that were piled and burned generally meet a Moderate to High SIO. 

When slash is machine piled, it is usually then burned within 1-3 years. Machine piling has the 

potential to displace soil and grass vegetation. Since the piles are larger, the area affected by the 

radiant heat is also greater. After piles are burned, unconsumed slash is normally buried, soil is 

raked in, and the disturbed area is re-seeded. One growing season after the seeding is completed; 

usually the only evidence of the machine pile is the grass covered opening. Once all clean-up 

has occurred, areas where machine piling occurred generally meet a Moderate SIO. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 256 

When Whole Tree Yarding is employed, the tops and limbs are removed and stacked at the 

landing site, creating large decks of tops and limbs, potentially 100-400 feet long. These piles 

are burned. As part of the cleanup personnel come in and mix these areas with soil and reseed 

them. Approximately two years after this work is completed, the areas appear as open grassy 

areas, and meet a Moderate to High SIO – depending upon the size of the opening. 

Lop and Scattering tops and limbs can leave large quantities of down material across the 

landscape – at levels much higher than natural occur (except when there is a large quantity of 

trees that are killed by insect, disease, or fire). This slash treatment creates negative visual 

elements in the landscape that dominates the foreground. This treatment method meets a Low 

SIO in the foreground of trails and roadways (see photo below), and a Low to Moderate SIO in 

the middleground. 

Concentrations of treatments – There are concentrations of potential treatments areas along 

major highways, where the public has a high interest in scenery, can be found in various areas 

around the Forest. Examples include: US Hwy16 between the Keystone ‘Wye’ and Three 

Forks, US Hwy 16A between Keystone Wye and Keystone, Hwy 40 between Keystone and 

Hayward, US Hwy 385 between Custer and Wind Cave National Park, Centennial Trail between 

Elk Creek and Forbes Gulch, US Hwy 85 between I-90 and Deadwood, around Cook Lake and 

Campground, Crow Peak Trail, Mickelson Trail between Rapid Creek and Irish Creek, Rimrock 

and Little Spearfish Trails. Treatments in these areas occur when MPB activity is low, changes 

in the vegetation patterns would be limited and a natural appearing condition could be 

maintained. If MPB activity is high, changes in the vegetation patterns from the treatments will 

likely be readily apparent, and, due to the concentration of units, may dominate the landscape. 

In each alternative, any of the proposed treatments could be used on any unit. In these

Alternatives, the goal of the vegetative treatments is to remove the MPB infested trees from the 

forest; however, this may not be possible in all areas due to steep slopes, rocky terrain, or too few 

trees to make removal economically viable. As a result, more ‘cut and chunk’ treatments would 

occur in these areas, and more down trees would remain on the landscape. How well these 

treatments blend into the characteristic landscape, and meet the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO), is 

based upon the slope, aspect, scale of the treatment and the vegetation remaining on the site. 

Indirect Effects 

Skidding logs on, or across, steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil creating 

opportunities for noxious weeds and invasive plants to become established in treated areas. 

Burning piles of tree tops and limbs can sterilize the soil, also creating opportunities for their 

establishment. These invasive plants often have shapes that distinctive (i.e. – Mullen) and are 

recognized by the general public non-natives that are competing with native plants. These plants 

are often readily apparent in the Immediate Foreground. As the quantity of these weeds increase 

in the landscape, they out-compete native plants, resulting in the visual quality decreasing. 

Efforts are made to minimize this potential, so it is difficult to predict where, how wide spread, 

and the duration this will effect scenery. 

Thinning and reducing the overall density of ponderosa pine vegetation can lead to an increase in 

the amount of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods increasing in the landscape. This could 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 257 

increase the variety of colors evident now, and in the future, across the landscape. In addition, there 

is a potential for hardwoods to increase in thinned stands (other than where we are specifically 

managing to encourage hardwoods), creating a greater amount of fall color in across the landscape. 

 

Alternative B - Direct Effects 

Within the 242,000 acres of possible treatment locations: 

Areas seen from Level 1 Roads: 71,697 acres or 1/3 the area 

Areas seen from Level 2 Roads: 135,269 acres (note: portions of these acres are also visible 

from Level 1 Roads) or 1⁄2 the area 

Scenic Attractiveness: Distinctive 14%, Typical 39%, Indistinctive 47% 

Scenic Class: Class 1 - 13%, Class 2 - 51%, Class 3 - 23%, and Class 4 - 13%. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives: High 12% (or 2% of the Forest), Moderate 42% (or 8% of the 

Forest), Low 46% (or 9% of the Forest) 

Commercial Thin treatment will result in maintaining the majority of the large overstory trees, 

while reducing the overall density of pine trees. This treatment would reduce susceptibility of 

stands to MPB infestation by reducing overall basal area within sites. Remaining stand densities 

will vary from 40 to 70 ft2/ac Basal Area (BA). In the foreground distance zone, a 40 BA 

generally achieves a Low SIO, while in a middleground and background distance zones it can 

achieve a Moderate SIO, depending upon the size/scale to the unit, topography and viewer 

location residual large tree component and hardwoods present. Areas of up 1,000 acres can be 

thinned in these Action Alternatives. In the all distance zones, a 70 BA should achieve a High 

SIO. When a unit has a range of BAs, the variety in vegetation textural differences, can create a 

more natural appearing vegetated landscape. 

Products Other Than Logs (POL) Thinning removes 5 to 8.5-inch diameter trees and will open 

up views into the Forest, as the spacing of the trees would range from 18 to 22 feet. This 

treatment often leaves a moderate level of vegetation debris on the forest floor, reducing grasses 

and shrubs, and dominating Foreground views. Once the slash is cleaned up, this treatment 

should meet a Low to Moderate SIO, depending upon the size of the unit and proximity of the 

viewer. In the middleground and background, large diameter trees should be more dominant in 

this landscape also resulting in a Moderate to High SIO. 

This Alternative proposes to treat 20% of the above acreage (242,000), or 48,000 acres, over a

five to seven year period. This represents less than 4% of the Black Hills National Forest. This 

is a rate of 9600 acres per year. In 2011, areas affected by the MPB more than doubled this rate 

(approximately 21,000 acres) (USDA-FS 2011a). 

This Alternative would utilize existing system roads and temporary roads. As a result to no new 

road templates would be constructed in the landscape. Given the mortality of the vegetation, due 

to the MPB activity, existing roads will be more evident in the landscape. Use of existing roads 

to implement this alternative, will likely remove any grass, shrubs, and trees that have grown into 

the road template over time from the original road construction. The color contrast of the road 

surface will be evident, and the ‘line’ created by the linear form of the road template will again 

be evident in the landscape. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 258 

Summary: Twelve percent of the potential treatment areas have an assigned High Scenic

Integrity Objective. 42% of the potential treatment areas have an assigned Moderate Scenic 

Integrity Objective. More than half the treatment areas are readily apparent from roads, 

recreation facilities and communities. If MPB get into these areas, and treatment can take place 

when the MPB activity is low, the result will likely reduce further potential MPB activity as the 

Basal Area is reduced and comes in line with the recommendations. 

Effects of vegetation management will be evident however they should replicate textural patterns 

that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning, and surrounding, area. 

Locations where the MPB activity is high, and effect areas larger than 5 acres, treatments could 

dominate the landscape. This will be most apparent in Foreground views and treatments will 

likely not meet the assigned SIO. As the high level of MPB activity will continue to kill the trees 

in the area, we may see 10% of the trees survive (Allen 2011a). The primary differences, that 

affect the scenic resource - between Alternative A and B, include: 

• Alternative B would remove MPB infected trees creating openings that are rapidly 

apparent, while Alternative A will create openings slowly over time. This may also 

facilitate new seedlings rapidly filling in these open areas. 

• Alternative B may preserve some trees on the landscape, potentially at a higher rate than 

Alternative A. As seen in the Bugtown project, a forested landscape was able to be

maintained that provides vegetative color and texture that is in character with scenery in 

the Black Hills. 

• Slash will be created by both Alternatives in approximately the same amount on the 

landscape; however, Alternative B will reduce the level of slash present by piling and 

burning a large portion of it. The heavier levels of slash, turning gray over time, in 

Alternative A, will form a uniform appearance that will visually dominate the landscape; 

while the lower levels that would occur through Alternative B would break up the 

continuity of slash and create opportunities for other vegetation (grass, flowers, shrubs, 

and seedlings) to be more evident in the landscape. 

Short-term effects that will be evident in the landscape include displaced soil (until vegetation is 

re-established in seeded areas such as closed roads, skid trails, decking areas, and landings 

. 

Long-Term effects include those from skyline logging, when full suspension cannot be achieved. 

Trees in thinned areas may not receive additional MPB activity, hence maintaining a forest landscape 

in treated areas. With the removal of pine trees, a greater quantity and variety of hardwoods may be 

evident in the landscape, until new ponderosa pine vegetation becomes established (20-30 years). 

The proposed treatments within this Alternative have the potential to preserve some trees in areas 

that are valued for their scenic beauty. The benefits of treating forested areas to reduce the 

potential of further tree mortality, due to MPB activity, is greater than the negative effects that 

occur with most logging activity - from a Scenic Resource perspective. Skyline logging is the 

one activity with the greatest potential for negative effects on the Scenery, particularly in the 

Foreground and Middleground distance zones. This logging system would not meet the High or 

Moderate SIO. Aside from the effects of this logging system, the Scenic Resource could receive 

greater long-term benefits from this Alternative, than Alternative A. 

 

Alternative C - Direct Effects 

Within the 248,000 possible treatment acres: 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 259 

Areas seen from Level 1 Roads: 74,665 acres 

Areas seen from Level 2 Roads: 137,273 (note: portions of these acres are also visible from 

Level 1 Roads) 

Scenic Attractiveness: Distinctive 15%, Typical 39%, Indistinctive 49% 

Scenic Class: Class 1 - 15%, Class 2 - 50%, Class 3 - 25%, and Class 4 - 11%. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives: High 13% (or 3% of the Forest), Moderate 42% (or 8% of the 

Forest), Low 45% (or 9% of the Forest) 

The effects of this Alternative are similar to Alternative B, with three key differences that effect 

the Scenic Resource: 1) new road construction, 2) inclusion of Spearfish Canyon Management 

Area – MA 4.2A, and 3) thinning of vegetation across the landscape may occur. 

Roads – Construction. ‘System’ or ‘Nonsystem’ new road construction has the same effect on 

the scenic landscape. A ‘road prism’, created thru cutting and filling material, to create a linear 

flat surface for vehicles and equipment to travel on. The grade along this linear surface is 

determined by the type of vehicles, but general does not exceed 18% along the centerline. As a 

result, when a road is viewed from across a canyon, it often appears as a horizontal ‘line’ 

crossing the landform. The steeper the side-slope, the taller the cut and fill slopes, the more 

vegetation is removed, and the greater the potential of soil–vegetation color contrasts to 

dominate the landscape. On flatter side-slopes, with low cut and fill slopes (i.e. – 1-2 feet), there 

is less potential for soil-vegetation color to dominant the viewed landscape. When the viewer is 

in a superior position looking down on the road, the surface material can provide a strong color

contrast to the surrounding vegetation that dominates the landscape. Roads construction could 

occur, with a potential of 250 miles of roads being constructed. When new roads are constructed 

along a ridge line or mid-slope, and the vegetation will be skyline logged below, the potential for 

color contrast and the “line” of the new road introduced, to dominate the landscape is high. 

Review of old roads in the Black Hills, the road prism is still evident more than 60 years later. 

Only when trees grow over the prism is it hidden from view. When roads are constructed in the 

foreground or near middleground, at the top of units, on steep side slopes they could be evident 

long term. In rolling terrain, the topography may hide roads from view. Given the mortality of 

the vegetation due to the MPB activity, new roads, as well as existing roads previously hidden 

from view, could be evident in the landscape. With the removal of vegetation, and mortality 

from MPB, existing and new roads could become visible in all distance zones, including areas of 

High, Moderate, and/or Low Scenic Integrity. 

In Spearfish Canyon Management Area – MA 4.2A, Forest Plan direction dictates: “In areas where 

there are special features, design roads and trails to blend with the landscape ...” Standard 4.2A9101 (USDA-FS 2006, pg. III-53, 56). This Alternative would allow skyline logging. Under 

situations where the access road for the skyline equipment would be constructed on flat terrain, the 

road could be built to meet this standard. In situations where the access road for the skyline 

equipment would be constructed on a side slope, the road could not be built to meet this standard. 

To utilize this method, roads would need to be constructed along the canyon rim or within the 

canyon, potentially in highly visible locations. Depending upon the location needing treatment, 

the road constructed to provide access for the equipment for this logging method may not comply 

with this Forest Plan Standard. In this case a Forest Plan Amendment would be needed to allow 

road construction in highly visible areas to access some potential treatment areas. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 260 

The Desired Future Condition for Spearfish Canyon Management Area – MA 4.2A states: 

“Management activities are likely to be less evident, be of short duration and be more natural in 

appearance than in many other areas of the Forest”. Roads constructed on steep side slopes are 

highly evident, and can be visually evident for 70 years or more (as observed along Highway 244 

and other locations within the Black Hills National Forest). Due to the nature of the soils, 

vegetation, and slopes (see Soil and Botany sections), the potential to return a road prism to the 

original landscape appearance may be low. The soil color contrast from the construction and recontouring may still dominate the landscape. As well as re-contouring to the original landform 

may not be possible in all locations (i.e. – full bench construction), which could also dominate

the landscape. This would not move the area toward the Desired Future Condition. To reduce 

these long term effects, roads constructed within the Spearfish Canyon area could be recontoured and put back to mimic their original condition. The success of this rehabilitation 

effort would depend on ability to put back the soil into the original contours, the soil type and 

ability to quickly re-establish grass and plants to mimic the original ground cover vegetation. 

Consider the following additional Design Criterion for Spearfish Canyon Management Area – 

MA 4.2A, and the surrounding area viewed from the Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway: 

Roads prisms and landings constructed for skyline logging should be re-contoured and 

returned to their natural condition, when logging activities are complete. These re-contoured 

roadways should be re-vegetated with grass and plants native to the area, in a manner similar 

to their original condition. 

This Alternative proposes to treat 50% of the potential treatment area, or 124,000 acres over a 5 

year period. This represents approx. 10% of the Black Hills National Forest. This is a rate of 

24,800 acres per year. Areas affected by the MPB increased by 23,680 acres from 2010 to 2011. 

The rate of potential treatment in this Alternative would be similar to the current rate of MPB 

spread (USDA-FS 2012e). 

Summary: Thirteen percent of the potential treatment areas have an assigned High Scenic 

Integrity Objective. Forty-two percent of the potential treatment areas have an assigned 

Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective. Alternative C adds the Spearfish Canyon Management 

area as a potential treatment area, an area highly valued by the local and regional community for 

its natural scenic beauty. The construction of roads to provide access for skyline logging, to 

remove MPB attacked trees or thin timber stands, in Spearfish Canyon could create long-term 

negative impacts to the scenic resource, by introducing horizontal ‘lines’ and soil ‘color’ 

contrasts that could dominate the viewed landscape and detract from the existing natural 

appearance. Vertical ‘lines’ from dragging logs up the canyon walls could also be evident if full 

suspension skyline logging cannot be achieved. These drag marks could also be visible for a 

long term depending upon soil type, steepness of slope, and potential for erosion. These effects 

could be readily apparent from the Scenic Byway and private lands both within and adjacent to 

the Management Area. The use of helicopter logging method has the potential to alleviate these 

concerns by removing MPB infested or thinned trees, without constructing roads or dragging 

trees up the slopes. Helicopter logging has the greatest potential to meet the High Scenic 

Integrity Objective assigned to this Management Area, as observed on St. Elmo Peak and Custer 

State Park. Due to the potential long term impacts of road construction and skyline logging, that 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 261 

could impact the natural scenic beauty of Spearfish Canyon (Management Area - 4.2A) in some 

areas, a Forest Plan Amendment could be required to utilize skyline logging in some situations. 

Like Alternative B, effects of vegetation management would be evident however they should 

replicate textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning, and 

surrounding, area. This Alternative has a greater potential to treat Foreground and Middleground 

views than Alternative B. The primary differences, that affect the scenic resource - between 

Alternative C and B, include: 

• Alternative C could remove MPB infected trees creating openings, similar to Alternative 

B. In addition, under Alternative C, vegetation in the surrounding area could be thinned 

up to 1000 acres. This effort could reduce the Basal Area to a level that may reduce

further attacks by MPB in the remaining trees, and preserve some ‘green’ vegetation on 

the landscape. 

• Alternative C could remove a larger amount of slash over a larger area, potentially 

breaking up the continuity of slash that may be present across the landscape. This

Alternative could also provide opportunities for other vegetation (grass, flowers, shrubs, 

seedlings) on a wider scale than Alternative B. 

Short-term effects (slash soil displacement, etc.) could be similar to Alternative B, but on a wider 

scale. Long-term vegetation effects should be similar to Alternative B in areas where existing 

MPB infested trees are removed. However, in areas where MPB is not widespread and the 

stands are thinned, positive long-term benefits may be achieved if MPB does not attack these 

remaining trees, and a forested setting can be maintained. Long term negative effects from road 

construction and skyline logging could be evident in Spearfish Canyon. 

The scale of the proposed treatments within this Alternative has a greater potential to preserve 

some trees over a wider area that is valued for its scenic beauty, than Alternative B. The benefits 

of treating (thinning) forested areas to reduce further tree mortality from MPB (in areas of high 

scenic importance) and potentially preserve green trees on the landscape could be greater, than 

the negative effects that can occur with most logging activity - from a Scenic Resource 

perspective. Skyline logging is the one activity with potential for greater negative effects on the 

Scenery, particularly in the Foreground and Middleground distance zones, which would include 

all of Spearfish Canyon. Areas logged with this logging system, likely would not meet the High 

or Moderate SIOs, due to the limited vegetation treatment options because of the MPB activity. 

The Scenic Resource could receive greater long-term benefits with this Alternative, than 

Alternative B. However, if this Alternative is selected, I recommend only allowing skyline 

logging in Spearfish Canyon when access roads could be constructed on flat terrain and full 

suspension of the logs can be achieved - to protect the unique scenic character of the Canyon. 

Cumulative Effects 

Understanding past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, is necessary in order to evaluate 

potential cumulative effects of the various alternatives. 

Methodology includes: 

1) Review activities that are known to have occurred, or planned, within the planning 

area. 

2) Review past activities in the field and determine their effect on scenery. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 262 

3) Review planned activities - the location both on topographic maps and aerial photos, 

then determine the potential cumulative effects. 

The boundary on the ground for analyzing cumulative effects is primarily that of the planning area. 

This identified area is the landscape that is evident in the foreground and middle ground from the 

main travel routes, with particular attention to recreation facilities, recreation trails, and the 

communities, due to viewer’s stationary position or slower pace while moving through the landscape. 

The time boundary for this analysis extends from 1980 (when the start of recent vegetation 

management activities took place) to 2048 [completion of management activities (approx. 2018), 

followed by 5 years for pine seedlings to become established, and approx. 25 years for trees to 

grow up and visually ‘fill’ open areas]. This time period includes known management activities, 

and activities that are planned but have yet to be accomplished. 

Fire suppression over the past century has played a role in the increased density of the vegetation 

on the forest. Likewise, much of the Forest was pre-commercially thinned by the Civilian 

Conservation Corp in the 1930’s and 1940s; however we do not know what portions of the 

Forest that effort included. The construction of the Needles Highway (SD 89) in 1919 and the 

Iron Mountain Road (US 16A) in 1933, the road up Spearfish Canyon (US 14A), the carving of 

Mount Rushmore and Crazy Horse, the establishment of numerous national parks in the 

surrounding area, has focused the public’s attention on the Black Hills, its communities, and 

established the area as a recreation destination, for its natural scenic beauty. 

Large wildfires have occurred within the Forest Boundary on a frequent basis, since 2000. The 

effects of the large fires are readily apparent from major highways and communities. These fires 

have introduced large landscape-level changes in the vegetation. From vast created openings due 

to stand replacing fires, to a ‘patchwork’ matrix of open and forested areas. The fires have shown 

that this ponderosa pine ecosystem is fire-dependant, and not static, but dynamic. Due to the 

intermix of private land and National Forest lands, and the better understanding of the fire 

potential in this ecosystem, the need and desire to manage the vegetation in the wildland urban 

interface, for public safety, has greatly increased. Vegetation treatments to reduce high fire 

severity (see Fire and Fuels section) have included shaded fuelbreaks, thinning mature and 

understory trees, removing dead and down fuel mechanically, and prescribed fire, together have 

changed the appearance of the Forest and near private lands, over the past 10 years. The 2000, the 

Forest was a fairly uniform appearance of dense vegetation (in forested areas) along main 

highways and around private lands. The combination of vegetation treatments and wildfire over 

the past 11 years have created a variety of vegetation conditions that are much more evident to the 

local and visiting public - potentially modifying how people think the Black Hills should “look”. 

When people view the Illingworth photos taken during the 1874 Custer Expedition (Grafe and 

Horsted 2002), and the view the variety of vegetation conditions today, they may realize how 

dynamic this ecosystem can be. The ‘scenery’, the landforms maybe static, but the vegetation can 

be dynamic, in the level of change that can occur to the scenic resource. 

From 2000 to 20011, commercial vegetation treatments have been conducted across the Forest. 

Generally the treatments have met their assigned SIO. Approx. 5% of the suitable timber has been 

treated with overstory removals or seed cuts that are the most visually evident treatments, from a 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 263 

scenery perspective. Some vegetation treatments that were implemented to reduce the further 

spread of MPB did not meet their assigned Scenic Integrity Objectives, due to the high level of 

MPB activity and tree mortality already present. Due to the adjacent seed source around these 

areas, new trees should become established, and have a visual impact in approx. 15-25 years. Then 

a forested appearance may again be evident. In other areas that were treated ahead of the MPB (i.e. 

Bugtown project), have maintained a natural appearance and appear to have limited potential for 

further MPB activity. The desired scenic character of the forest still exists in these areas. 

Reasonably foreseeable (commercial, non-commercial, prescribed fire) vegetative projects within 

the Forest include projects where NEPA has been completed. This includes the following projects: 

Briggs (28,916 FONSI), Cold Springs (13,969 ROD), Steamboat (24,596 ROD), Herman (21,572 

Preparing FONSI), Pactola (26,017 ROD). Other projects where NEPA is in progress -Buttes 

(11,441 Preparing for Scoping), Calumet (31,781 Scoped), Vestal (43,516 FEIS). 

Other foreseeable actions include vegetation treatments that extend across property lines, such as 

with Custer State Park and private land owners, to address MPB activity. As a result, natural 

appearing vegetation textures may be evident across land ownership boundaries. 

The visual effects of the MPB activity is quite evident between Custer and Hill City, in the 

central portion of the Black Hills (Deerfield area), in to the northern portion, and in isolated 

pockets throughout the Forest. The general spread of MPB, could become more widespread and 

visually dominant along US and State highways in the coming years. In some areas which 

remain untreated, such as slopes 40% or greater, the full range of effects from the MPB could be 

evident. The ‘red-needle’ stage (tree recently died), is the most visually dominant, and generally 

lasts 1-2 years, becoming less dominant as the needles fall. As the trees decay and fall, openings 

would be created. These openings could change the character from a uniform appearing 

landscape ‘carpeted’ with pine trees, to a complex matrix of openings, decaying dead trees, live 

‘green’ pine trees, and expanding areas of hardwood trees. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the range of potential treatments could produce a variety of 

vegetation conditions – some natural appearing, while others ‘managed’ in appearance, or, as if 

fire may have play its natural role. Due to the insect activity, and treatments adjacent to private 

land, the current view of the forest from individual homes could change from their current 

condition. Views of these treatments could be evident from Concern Level 1 and/or 2 routes 

(US, State, County Highways, trails), due to the juxtaposition and topography of potential 

treatment areas. There are concentrations of potential treatments areas along major highways, 

where the public has a high interest in scenery, in various areas around the Forest. Examples 

include: US Hwy16 between the Keystone ‘Wye’ and Three Forks, US Hwy 16A between 

Keystone Wye and Keystone, Hwy 40 between Keystone and Hayward, US Hwy 385 between 

Custer and Wind Cave National Park, Centennial Trail between Elk Creek and Forbes Gulch, US 

Hwy 85 between I-90 and Deadwood, around Cook Lake and Campground, Crow Peak Trail, 

Mickelson Trail between Rapid Creek and Irish Creek, Rimrock and Little Spearfish Trails. If 

treatments in these areas occur when MPB activity is scattered, and limited additional MPB 

recurs, changes in the vegetation patterns could be limited and a natural appearing condition 

could be maintained. If MPB activity is concentrated, or re-occurs in previously treated areas, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 264 

changes in the vegetation patterns from the treatments could be readily apparent, and, due to the 

concentration of treatment areas, may dominate the landscape. 

Trees of 5-inch DBH or greater could be removed. The removal of 12-inch diameter trees would 

take approx. 120 years to replace from seed. [“It takes approx. 120 years to grow a 12-inch 

diameter ponderosa pine tree, equating to 1/10th of an inch (of growth in diameter) per year on 

average” (Cook 2006).] After vegetation treatment is completed, the resulting appearance may 

change little for the first 10 years. Any treatments would result in fewer trees across the 

landscape – but the risk of MPB infestation and fire to the remaining trees may be reduced. In 

potential treatment areas, MPB-killed trees could be present. These trees would not be removed 

(unless needed for safety reasons during logging operations) but would follow a natural decay 

process. Pockets of MPB-killed trees could create an opening in the fabric of vegetation, in less 

than 10 years. In 10 years, vegetation across entire landforms may transition from open areas 

(MPB-killed pockets), to scattered trees (treatment areas), to dense stands (untreated areas). 

Forest wide, Alternative B could comprise approx. 40% of the vegetation treatment over the next 

5-7, while Alternative C could comprise 84%. The rate of potential treatment, per year, under 

Alternative B would be approximately 9600 acres [less than half the rate of MPB spread this past 

year, 23,680 acres (USDA-FS 2012e), while under Alternative C it would be 24,800 acres. 

Visible effects of the MPB may continue in any case, though under Alternative B, potential 

treatment might only treat approximately half the current level of MPB annual expansion; while 

under Alternative C, potential treatment might keep pace with the rate of MPB annual expansion. 

Alternative B would generally modify the vegetation in pockets across the landscape – 

surrounding MPB active areas, while the surrounding area would not be treated. Vegetation 

across the landscape could take on an appearance similar to ‘moth-eaten holes in fabric’. 

Alternative C could modify the vegetation similar to Alternative B, and in addition, thin the 

vegetation across the landform. In both Alternatives, management activities could be readily 

apparent. The variety of treatments could create a variety of vegetation patterns, colors, and may 

improve opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Due to the wide-scale breadth of the 

MPB beetle activity, and level of tree mortality, the forest is rapidly changing from a dense forest 

with few large openings (from wildfire), to large landscape-wide areas where 90% or more of the 

trees are dead (Deerfield area). With this rapid and dynamic vegetation change due to the MPB, 

what we consider the “natural appearance” for this landscape may also need to change. The 

treatments proposed are an effort to maintain some of the desired forest character that has helped 

defines the natural beauty of this landscape. These treatments will take time to appear natural – 

but long term, if hardwoods do increase, they will improve the visual diversity in the landscape. 

Piling and burning, will reduce fuel levels toward natural levels – a positive ecological and 

scenic characteristic associated with frequent fires in a pine ecosystem, and potentially make 

these areas less prone to high severity fires (when they do occur). 

Alternative B treatments could meet a variety of Scenic Integrity Objectives from Low to High, one 

to three years after being completed. However in some areas, due to the high levels of MPB activity 

prior to treatment, the SIOs for these areas likely may not be met. In addition, additional MPB 

activity may occur in dense stands surrounding original treatment areas – perpetuating MPB effects 

or additional treatment effects. In locations where skyline logging occurs, SIOs may not be met. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 265 

Alternative C treatments could meet a variety of Scenic Integrity Objectives from Low to High, 

one to three years after being completed. However in some areas, due to the high levels of MPB 

activity prior to treatment, the SIOs for these areas may not be met. When skyline logging is 

used in these areas, SIOs may not be met. In Spearfish Canyon, skyline logging, and the roads 

constructed for access, could dominate the landscape and take away from the outstanding natural 

scenic beauty the Canyon is known for. 

RECREATION USE 

Introduction: 

The project area encompasses the entire Black Hills National Forest in Wyoming and South 

Dakota, excluding the congressionally-designated Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, Black Elk 

Wilderness, Research Natural Areas (RNA’s), and designated botanical areas. 

The arrival of the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s helped to improve roads, bridges, 

and trails to access the area and improve the resources of the region. By the 1960’s, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, and other recreational activities, such as cabins and hiking trails, had 

been developed to provide places for people to recreate. 

Today, visitors to the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming enjoy a variety of recreational 

opportunities such as developed and dispersed camping, picnicking, driving along scenic byways, 

hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, wilderness experience opportunities, fishing and 

hunting opportunities, rock climbing, water-related activities, winter activities, interpretive and 

educational sites, fire lookout towers, and observation sites. Motorized users of the Black Hills 

make use of an extensive road and trail system with a variety of off-highway vehicles; such as allterrain vehicles, utility vehicles, jeeps, and off-highway motorcycles as well as highway legal 

vehicles, such as passenger cars, trucks, vans, buses, motor homes, and touring motorcycles. 

From a recreation standpoint the setting is ideal for recreational activities in the Black Hills 

National Forest. It provides mostly un-fragmented and undeveloped public lands for recreating 

in a forested setting. For the most part there are very few paved roads and limited commercial 

services. Terrain is varied across the project area, at times flat or rolling and park-like with 

broad open meadows interspersed with aspen and pine stands. The northern part of the project 

area experiences heavy winter snowfall. This makes it excellent for winter recreation, but limits 

passenger vehicle access and may limit timber harvest activities during the winter season. This 

area offers the most consistent conditions for a groomed snowmobile trail system on the Forest. 

It is relatively easy to experience a sense of solitude in this primarily motorized area. There is 

evidence of historic and continuing management actions, mainly timber harvesting and grazing, 

which blend with the natural setting. 

Primary recreational use of the project area combines both dispersed and developed recreation 

opportunities, and includes driving for pleasure, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, motorized 

and non-motorized trail use, snowmobiling, and dispersed and developed camping primarily 

associated with a vehicle. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 266 

There are several developed recreation campgrounds in or adjacent to proposed treatment areas 

and two developed recreation complexes associated with water; Cook Lake on the Sundance 

Ranger District, and Deerfield Reservoir located on the Mystic Ranger District. These complexes 

are part of Management Area 8.2, covering approximately 339 acres. These developed recreation 

complexes, along with seven isolated developed campgrounds are operated under a campground 

concession special use permit during the high use full service season (Memorial Day to Labor 

Day). Other small isolated developed campgrounds in high priority treatment areas, but not in 

Management Area 8.2, include Comanche, Oreville, Ditch Creek, Custer Camp, Rod and Gun, 

Timon, Reuter, and Beaver Creek. All are concession operated except Beaver Creek. 

Recreation use field surveys , mostly associated with the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) effort and the Forest’s Outfitter Guide Needs assessment, were conducted forestwide 

beginning in 2003, again in 2009, and during the summer of 2010 and 2011. 

The Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan included extensive field surveys 

during analysis, which include GIS map data of all motorized system trails in the project area. 

Other information used for this analysis was obtained from occupancy and use information from 

the Forest’s concession permittee, Forest Recreation Management, Inc. out of Hill City, SD, and 

personal observations by recreation personnel working on a regular annual field basis in the 

project area. 

Desired Future Condition: Generally, few signs of people away from roads or trails are 

evident. There is little or no evidence of recent human activity or development. Overall, the 

landscapes of these areas are scenic and natural. Management provides for a variety of 

uncrowded, motorized recreational activities in areas that appear natural. Challenging offhighway motorized opportunities exist on area trails. 

Vegetation may be altered through a variety of management activities, including the use of 

prescribed fire from management and natural ignitions in order to enhance recreational opportunities, 

to provide vistas for people to view surrounding areas, or to meet objectives for wildlife habitat. 

Altered areas are small and are not generally evident to people visiting the area. 

Affected Environment: 

The project area is an important part of the Black Hills area, a key recreation destination in South 

Dakota and Wyoming. The natural and cultural diversity which characterizes the project area 

provides the basis for a wide variety of recreational activities and is vital to the area’s recreation and 

tourism industries. Interspersed within and in close proximity to the project area are four National 

Park units including Devil’s Tower National Monument, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, 

Jewel Cave National Monument, and Wind Cave National Park. Custer State Park along with 

historic towns and settlements also lie within and adjacent to the area. 

Since the Black Hills National Forest is a popular recreational destination, visitors to the project area 

utilize motorized access to a high degree. In 2004, the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) 

survey for the Black Hills estimated that 1.2 million people visit the National Forest annually. 

“Driving for pleasure” was identified as one of the top five activities, and as the second highest 

reason people visit the Forest. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 267 

In 2006, based on the NVUM survey information, the Forest Supervisor developed a recreation strategy 

for the Forest, characterized by a recreation “niche” statement. “Access for the Ages”, focusing the 

Forest’s recreation management on user-friendly family recreation, specialized campgrounds, roaded 

recreation opportunities, and system trails connecting communities, was formulated. 

Visitors to the project area enjoy recreational opportunities including developed and dispersed 

camping, picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, fishing and hunting opportunities, 

rock climbing, water-related activities, winter activities, interpretive and educational sites, fire 

lookout towers, other observation sites, and on- and off-highway motorized use. 

To provide a variety of recreational experiences for the visitor, the Forest utilizes a classification 

system, referred to as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), in its planning efforts. ROS 

is a planning and management tool that categorizes recreation opportunities into six settings, 

ranging from primitive to urban. The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

identified four of the six settings for its management emphasis including primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural. The roaded natural 

category was further expanded to add another category called roaded natural non-motorized to 

provide the Forest with additional diversity. A breakdown of acres and percent of the proposed 

treatment area within each of the ROS classifications can be found in the table 3-37 below. 

Within ROS classes, visitors can expect to find a variety of recreational activities, including 

developed and dispersed, motorized and non-motorized opportunities. 

Table 3-37 ROS Classification Acres and Percent 

Management Area Acres Description ROS class & Percent of all Action 

Alternatives 

3.31 4,411 Backcountry Motorized SPM 1.6%

3.32 3,120 Backcountry Non-Motorized SPNM 1.0%

4.1 4,184 Limited Motorized Use and Forest 

Products RNNM 2.2%

4.2A (Alternative C 

only) 5,583 Spearfish Canyon RN less than .05%

5.1 103,965 Resource Production Emphasis RN 45.4%

5.1A 21,360 Southern Hills RN 6.8%

5.2A 2,604 Fort Meade VA Hospital Watershed RN, SPNM less than .01%

5.4 91,691 Big Game Winter Range RN 37.6%

5.43 4,642 Big Game and Resource Production RN 1.4%

5.6 7,085 Forest Product, Recreation, Big 

Game RN 2.9%

8.2 339 Developed Recreation RN less than .01%

Developed Recreation: All but four of the Forest’s 30 campgrounds are managed by a private 

company under a recreation concessionaire special use permit from mid-May to mid-September 

annually. 

These facilities are designed for semi-primitive family camping opportunities and many have 

some American Disability Act accessible site designs. Most day use areas and picnic sites are 

operated for the same season, mid-May to mid-September, by the recreation concessionaire. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 268 

Hunting and Fishing: Hunting and fishing are also popular dispersed recreation activities in the 

project area. Trout fishermen are frequently observed at Spring Creek, Rapid Creek, Spearfish 

Creek, Iron Creek, Palmer Creek, Grizzly Creek, Horsethief Lake and Lakota Lake, and other 

points throughout the project area. The outdoor undeveloped setting of the Project Area provides 

both motorized and non-motorized quality hunting opportunities not commonly found in other 

areas surrounding the Black Hills. 

The area is popular with fall big game and fall/spring turkey hunters. Weekend hunting parties 

typically overnight camp at some of the isolated campgrounds or along roadsides where disperse 

camping is allowed. District recreation personnel knowledgeable of the project area report there 

are occasional weekend horse camps each summer. These are small 2 to 4 horse riding groups, 

camping beside the road, who ride the roads, two tracks, and trails found in the Forest. Mountain 

bike riders are observed riding during the day on the multitude of roads in the Jasper Fire Burn 

Area and other portions of the project area. This is evidenced by vehicles with bike racks, 

parked at trailheads and road turnouts. 

Campfires are allowed at dispersed camp sites in the Forest in Wyoming. Campfires are not 

allowed at dispersed camp sites in the Forest on the South Dakota side; they are only allowed in 

developed campgrounds or day use sites with fire rings. 

System Trails: There are several hundred miles of National Forest system trails throughout the 

project area, both motorized and non-motorized. The Centennial Trail and the Mickelson Trail, 

both designated as National Recreation Trails, are located in the project area. Both are long 

distance through-routes approximately 100 miles long. Both begin in the southern Black Hills 

and end in the northern Black Hills. The Centennial Trail, with segments managed by several 

land management agencies including the Black Hills National Forest, begins in Wind Cave 

National Park and ends at Bear Butte State Park north of Sturgis, SD. The Mickelson Trail, 

managed and administered by the State of South Dakota and following an abandoned railroad 

grade, begins near Edgemont, SD and ends at Deadwood, SD. 

Two other of the Forest’s non-motorized system trails are designated as National Recreation 

Trails (NRT), the Flume and Lost Cabin trails. NRT designation for trails located on National 

Forest land comes from the Secretary of Agriculture, and recognizes their unique values to 

provide the highest quality hiking experience. National Recreation Trail designation is a 

recognition given to existing trails that have been nominated and meet the requirements for 

connecting people to local resources and improving their quality of life. The National Trail 

System Act of 1968 authorized the NRT designations, which are now part of a continuing effort 

to promote community partnerships and to foster innovative ways to encourage physical fitness. 

The system trails in the project area require regular annual trail maintenance and reconstruction. 

Maintenance is conducted by district trail crews and volunteers working mainly during the 

summer months. Occasionally, trail contracts are awarded to re-construct priority sections of 

trails in need of improvement to meet Forest Service standards. 

In Wyoming, the motorized trail system is managed to accommodate Off Highway Vehicle’s 

(OHV) less than 50 inches in width. In South Dakota, the motorized trail system has a variety of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 269 

trail types that are managed to accommodate either Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) less than 62 

inches in width, highway legal vehicles such as pickups or sedans, off-highway motorcycles, 4-

wheel drive rock crawler jeeps, and snowmobiles. The snowmobile trail system is closed by 

regulation to wheeled traffic from December 15th to March 30th annually. 

The project area was part of the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Planning effort, 

implemented in December 2010. Motorized OHV system trails have been designated, marked 

and mapped in the project area. In January each year, the Forest’s detailed Motor Vehicle Use 

Map (MVUM) which identifies, open system roads and motorized trails, is published. Also in 

January, the Forest’s annual motorized trail permit, for use in South Dakota, becomes available 

and is required for use of the motorized trail system in South Dakota. The Forest’s motorized 

trails in Wyoming are enrolled in that state’s ORV trail program. Use of the Forest’s Wyoming 

motorized trails is limited to ORV’s 50 inches or less in width and requires purchase and display 

of a Wyoming ORV sticker annually. 

The states of South Dakota and Wyoming snowmobile trail systems incorporate several hundred 

miles of very popular and regionally important snowmobile trails located on National Forest land 

in the project area. 

National Scenic Byways: The Forest has two national byways within its boundary, the Peter 

Norbeck National Scenic Byway in the southern part of the Forest and the Spearfish Canyon 

National Forest Scenic Byway in the northern part. Driving these byways for pleasure is one of the 

most popular recreation activities in the project area and of economic importance to nearby 

communities. Over three million visitors annually drive the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway as the main 

access from Highway 244 to Mount Rushmore Memorial. 

Spearfish Canyon Scenic Byway is a 20-mile drive popular with the traveling public. It provides 

spectacular scenery, historic mining remnants, and an all-season paved highway. This Byway, designated 

by the Chief of the Forest Service in 1989, allows public access to numerous outdoor recreational 

activities. This section of U.S. Highway 14A, from the city of Spearfish to Cheyenne Crossing, receives 

high recreational use throughout the year, but especially during the summer and fall. 

The scenery along Spearfish Canyon is unique and often spectacular. The narrow canyon walls rise 

sharply from the stream and highway carved from the bottom of the canyon. A forest of white spruce, 

ponderosa pine, aspen, birch and oak covers most of the hillsides and parts of the canyon walls. Above 

these slopes, the skyline is topped with an extensive ridge of vertical limestone cliffs and rim rock. 

Spearfish Canyon is historically important to the northern Black Hills because it has provided 

mineral ore to the local mines, railway passenger transportation, and hydroelectric power and 

drinking water to nearby communities. Remnants of some of these mines and mining communities 

are still present and can be viewed 

Recreation Special Uses: Recreation special use permits authorize the private use of public lands. 

The Forest administers several hundred recreation special use permits across the project area, 

including 159 privately owned recreation cabins; three resorts including Sheridan Lake and Pactola 

Lake marinas and Wonderland Cave, and three organizational camps. These recreation special use 

permits, involving privately owned structures, are authorized for successive twenty year periods. 

The Forest also authorizes outfitter guide activities such as hunting, fishing, horseback riding, 

nature hikes, mountain biking, cave tours, scuba diving, and several other outdoor pursuits 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 270 

throughout the project area. Recreation event permits are issued for temporary use activities such 

as jamborees, mountain man rendezvous, school and college courses, youth camps, challenge and 

endurance races, and motorized and non-motorized trail events, to name just a few. 

Summary: The project area is a key tourist attraction for the Black Hills area and provides an 

important recreation setting in all seasons, whether it is summer OHV use, fall big game hunting, 

winter snowmobiling, or spring turkey hunting. Some developed recreation camping occurs at 

all of the developed campgrounds to a moderate and at times high level of use. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A: 

Developed Recreation: Generally, the effects for Alternative A are visual due to the known 

mountain pine beetle infestation in the project area. This area is experiencing extensive overstory 

mortality of ponderosa pine. Red (dead) trees are currently visible. These will eventually lose 

needles, becoming less visible from a distance and the dead trees will likely fall to the ground in 

three to five years. 

Recreation sites currently receive regular tree inspections for public safety. During this process 

trees deemed unsafe are removed before the recreation site is opened to the public or the site is 

closed to the public until the tree hazard is removed. There has been an increase in hazard tree 

removal due to mountain pine beetle mortality in many of the campgrounds over the last three to five 

years. This process is likely to increase as mountain pine beetle populations continue to expand 

into recreation sites. The effects to the public are increased short term closures to recreation sites 

to mitigate and remove hazardous trees and the loss of site vegetation, shade, privacy screening, 

and the mature forested setting many recreationists seek. 

Trails: Effects of Alternative A on trails would be an increased amount of maintenance required 

to remove trees along and across system trails in the short term, three to five years. It is projected 

that the area will experience extensive overstory mortality. In the past five years, some 

experience with high tree mortality from mountain pine beetles along several system trails has 

already been seen. These effects include:

• Increased effort by trail crews to clear trails of fallen dead bug-hit trees. It appears that 

there is very little increase for the first one to two years after trees are hit by mountain 

pine beetles. Within three to five years however most of the mountain pine beetle hit 

trees fall to the ground. After five years the incidence of dead trees falling to the 

grounds slows dramatically.

• Effects to the public during the period of trees blocking trails include that most trail 

users walk over or drive around trees across trails and more horse riders carry an axe or 

bow saw with them to minimally clear trails themselves. Less physically capable or 

prepared trail users tend to turn around and return to the trailhead when faced with a 

tree blocking a trail.

• Trail workers spend more time performing maintenance, opening and clearing 

trails during the period of high-incidence of falling dead trees across trails.

• Increased information provided to the public is required via electronic and trailhead 

postings so they know to expect a higher incidence of blocked trails.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 271 

• An increase of the chance for a catastrophic wind event that would fall a large amount 

of dead and dying trees at one time requiring trail closures until the area was cleared.

• Trail users stay on the cleared trails more often versus cross country travel in high tree 

mortality areas because cross-country travel is more difficult due to the presence of 

deadfall. 

Recreation Special Uses: The Black Hills National Forest has 45 permitted outfitter and guides 

and numerous temporary recreation use permits issued each year that use all or portions of the 

project area. With the implementation of the No Action alternative, the future of recreation special 

uses would be similar to the trail systems. The more mountain pine beetle tree mortality, the more 

trees could fall across system roads and trails, and into permit areas of operation. These permit 

holders use sections of the roads and trails in the project area to offer a service to visitors of the 

Black Hills National Forest. Many permittees also assist with trail maintenance in partnership 

with the Forest Service. If there is an increase in trail deadfall there will be more need for trail 

and tree clearing partnerships. The effect of widespread mountain pine beetle tree mortality to the 

trail system may cause a shift to other less affected areas and trails within the project area. 

Recreation Residences: There are 159 recreation residence cabins under special use permit, 

three resorts, and three organizational camps located throughout the project area. Many of the 

special use permit holders will notice the impact of a No Action alternative. The effects will be 

similar to that experienced already by recreation residence permit holders in Sunday Gulch 

Recreation Residence Tract where mountain pine beetles have been prevalent for the past six 

years. This has resulted in extensive tree mortality of the overstory and loss of a forested 

setting around these privately owned recreation residences. Expected impacts to permittees 

include: 

• Increased requirements based on Forest Service permit inspections for permit holders to 

remove dead and dying trees deemed hazardous to private property, life, and to prevent 

increased wildfire risk. The required removal of hazard trees has resulted in increased 

direct costs to permittees.

• More power outages and electric line maintenance required to prevent deadfall across 

utility lines where they are present.

• More deadfall blocking access roads and parking areas to recreation residences 

particularly during the winter months when traffic volumes are low and road maintenance 

is minimal.

• Increased risk of deadfall causing damage to the privately owned structures and risk to 

life and property.

• In and around some permit areas, permittees may see a change in tree type from 

ponderosa pine to more aspen and shrub species (spruce will be the climax species). 

Common to All Action Alternatives B and C 

Developed Recreation: Timber harvest operations may increase noise, dust, and traffic from the 

logging operation and post sale activities from August 1to May 1. This effect would be 

considered short- term (less than five years). Vegetative treatments and post sale activities, 

including herbicide spraying, within and immediately adjacent to all developed recreation sites 

will discourage and display recreation use temporarily. Developed recreation site features could 

be damaged and there could be an accumulation of debris in and around campsites. Recreation
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 272 

site access and interior road surfaces might be rutted. 

There would be changes to the landscape during the life of the project. Effects would come 

from the mountain pine beetle epidemic, as well, as the timber harvest activities, changing the 

appearance of the landscape. 

As the incidence and risk from mountain pine beetle mortality increases in developed recreation 

settings there could be more alternative prevention techniques employed to save individual and 

groups of trees within recreation sites. Non-timber harvest methods could include techniques 

such as individual tree insecticide spraying; single tree removal of infested trees before flight and 

the use of semiochemical baiting. The effects to the public could be an increase in the amount 

of very short term recreation site closures to accomplish this type of work. 

Trails: Motorized system trail locations could be used temporarily as access routes for treatment 

activities; non-motorized system trails are to be protected during presale, sale, and post sale 

activities, following Forest Standard 9301. Proposed activities could directly impact the existing 

motorized trail system, depending on the exact location and timing of treatment activities. The 

proposed post-harvest activities include re-contouring for water drainage, seeding and reinstalling motorized system trail structures back to a pre-treatment condition. Additional work to 

restore affected motorized system trails to a more sustainable trail design beyond pre-treatment 

conditions is dependent on the availability of additional trail maintenance funds. Converting 

temporary roads back to a motorized trail condition will take time to re-vegetate; repair drainage 

structures removed or destroyed, and control soil erosion that occurred related to hauling. 

Although these effects are temporary, this could detract from the recreational value of the trails 

during this time. Affected motorized system trails would need to be closed for the duration of 

the timber sale and post sale activities. For safety reasons, hikers and equestrian users would 

encounter temporary reroutes of protected non-motorized system trail sections in and adjacent to 

active treatment units, especially while harvest activities are taking place during the summer 

season. Typically the reroute would only be needed for a short duration, either one or two field 

seasons of use from the start of a treatment activity. Use of the protected non-motorized trail 

sections would quickly resume back to pre-treatment original condition without any restoration 

work needed, as compared to use of a motorized trail section. 

Centennial Trail # 89 is part of the National Recreation Trails program. This national recognition 

is reserved for an elite class of trails. The Centennial Trail begins at Wind Cave National Park 

and ends at Bear Butte State Park for a total 111 miles. With possible trail and trailhead closures, 

this would mean that there would be a need for trail users to be provided a temporary reroute to 

complete the Centennial Trail through-hike. 

Recreation Special Uses: Outfitters and Guides - The project area has 45 permitted outfitter and 

guide special use permits. These permits allow many types of outdoor activities, including 

services such as guided hunting, fishing, horseback riding, nature hikes, mountain biking, cave 

tours, scuba diving, and several other outdoor pursuits throughout the project area and taking 

place in all four seasons. Recreation event permits are issued for temporary use activities such as 

jamborees, mountain man rendezvous, school and college courses, youth camps, challenge and 

endurance runs, and motorized and non-motorized trail events, to name just a few. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 273 

Direct effects to these permittees are similar to the direct effects to the Trail System. All affected 

trail sections may be closed to the outfitters season of operation, usually from May to September. 

It is possible that commercial and public trail use may be curtailed on affected trails based upon 

trail condition inspections, (i.e. education of service days for outfitter and guides, closed trails for 

resource protection), because of poor trail conditions caused by vegetative management activities 

during the winter months. 

Reconstruction efforts to bring a motorized route back to system trail condition after vegetative 

treatments will require some short term trail closures to accomplish this work. 

Recreation Residences, Resorts, and Organizational Camps - The activities proposed in the 

action alternatives would not occur on designated recreation residence lots. Treatment activities 

would occur adjacent to some recreation residence lots. Vegetative treatment noise and dust, 

logging traffic and smoke from prescribed burns or burning of slash piles would occur, but only 

during implementation of the activity. Evidence of mechanical treatments, such as skid trails, 

slash piles, temporary haul roads and landings would be visible from some lots; however, these 

impacts would decrease over time as disturbed ground is revegetated. 

Increased harvest equipment and vehicles on Forest system roads which provide access to 

recreation residences, resorts, and organizational camps would displace and inconvenience some 

permittees and clients. 

Alternative A and B - Direct and Indirect Effects 

Timber harvest operations and treatment activities may increase noise, dust, and traffic from the 

logging operation from August 1to May 1, as described in common to all alternatives. Trailheads, 

picnic grounds, and some system trails would be closed temporarily during harvest operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the project area. The time boundary for the 

cumulative effects analysis is estimated from 2000 to 2020. Past, present and future activities 

within the Pine Beetle Response Project area boundary include timber thinning and other 

treatment activities, including road construction and reconstruction.

Use of system motorized trail locations as temporary roads for hauling or skidding timber would 

negatively impact use of those system trails due to the length of time necessary to reconstruct 

them back to a system trail. Temporary roads and skid trails may encourage the public to use 

unauthorized areas for various recreational activities.

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the potential to 

cause erosion control problems for the trail system, which could cause short-term cumulative 

effects. Erosion causes trail maintenance to increase. 

Although the project would take several years to complete, there would be no adverse long-term 

cumulative effects to the recreation resource as a result of implementing any of the alternatives, 

including no action. Long term cumulative effects are completing the vegetation treatments for 

preventing additional Mountain Pine Beetle tree mortality, benefiting the recreation resource. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 274 

HERITAGE 

Introduction 

Cultural resources provide information about past human behavior and activities. They are 

found in a variety of physical forms that include, but are not limited to, material objects, 

archaeological sites, historic architecture, traditional cultural properties, and cultural landscapes. 

Cultural resources also include sacred sites which may include non-tangible properties not 

represented by artifacts or other cultural features or objects. Cultural resources are nonrenewable assets that frequently consist of ephemeral materials susceptible to irreparable 

destruction or deterioration. 

Methods: A variety of methods have been employed in this analysis, each of which contribute in 

unique ways toward the objective of identifying historic properties and sacred sites that may be 

susceptible to adverse effects as a result of the undertaking. The following subsections outline 

the different means employed to reach the conclusions drawn for this analysis. 

Assumptions: The following assumptions apply in our assessment of effects to cultural 

resources as a result of the MPBRP: 

• Cultural resources are managed according to existing laws, regulations, agency policies, 

and programmatic agreements. 

• The Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic will continue at current levels or increase over time 

on National Forest System lands managed by the Forest. 

• All cultural resources identified within the area of potential effect for all alternatives are 

considered historic properties for the purposes of this undertaking, unless they have 

previously been determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 

consultation with the SHPO or through other agreed on procedures (36 CFR §60.4; 36 

CFR §800). 

Historic Properties: The effects analysis in the Cultural Resources section refers repeatedly to 

the concept of a “historic property”. The term, where employed, has a specific meaning under 

the NHPA: 

(l)(1) Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, 

structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, 

records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term 

includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. (36 CFR 

§800.16(l)(1))

According to the definition above, not all cultural resources qualify as historic properties, 

consequently, not all cultural resources are subject to protection measures or mitigation treatments. 

A note on Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) is warranted. A TCP consists of a cultural 

property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community. The entity evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP must be a tangible 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 275 

property; that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object as defined in 36 CFR 64.4. (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 1994). TCPs are managed under the authority of the NHPA. 

Because TCPs are managed under the same authority (NHPA) as historic properties and TCPs 

are, by definition, also eligible to the NRHP, the term “historic properties”, where employed 

throughout this document, is inclusive of TCPs. 

Area of Potential Effect: The Area of Potential Effect (APE) must be identified before an 

assessment of effects can be completed. An APE is defined in the NHPA implementing 

regulations as: 

... the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or 

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of 

an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking. (36 CFR §800.16(d)) 

The Forest has identified roughly 250,000 acres that qualify as potential treatment areas (PTA) 

where activities designed to reduce Mountain Pine Beetle infestation may occur (i.e., at-risk stands 

where environmental conditions result in favorable mountain pine beetle habitat). Activities 

indirectly associated with treatment prescriptions, however, may occur well beyond the boundaries 

of the polygons that have been identified as timber stands particularly susceptible to Mountain 

Pine Beetle (MPB) infestation. It may be necessary, for example, to construct or modify access 

roads in order to access the infested timber stands. Other activities that may occur beyond the 

polygons identified include, but are not limited to, the development of landings and staging areas. 

Due to the relatively unpredictable spread of the Mountain Pine Beetle, it is not possible to 

specifically identify where either direct or indirect activities may be located. Consequently, for 

purposes of this undertaking, the APE incorporates the majority of the 1.2 million acres of federal 

lands that constitute the Black Hills National Forest. Exceptions may include planning areas that 

are currently under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, areas where forest 

management activities are already planned as a result of recent NEPA decisions, and/or locations 

designated as special management areas, e.g, Resource Natural Areas and Botanical Areas. 

Records Inventory: It is standard practice to conduct a review of existing records prior to initiating 

field survey, an exercise often referred to in the vernacular as a “Level I” or “Class I” inventory. 

Complete literature reviews will be conducted during the implementation phase once specific project 

areas have been identified—and according to stipulations included in the programmatic agreement 

developed for this project. All previously recorded sites within the specific project areas will be 

identified, and site records and project reports will be referenced from the Forest’s extensive paper 

files. Heritage Resources personnel will also access the Archaeological Resources Management 

System (ARMS) database managed by the Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD, and the 

Wyoming Cultural Resources Office (WYCRO) database. The data archived in those repositories will 

then be compared with the Forest’s data and any necessary updates or corrections will be completed. 

For purposes of this specialist report, the Heritage Program’s GIS spatial database was referenced to 

quantify the number of historic properties currently known to exist within the project area. The 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 276 

same geodatabase provided information needed to determine which areas of the project area had 

previously been surveyed for cultural resources and which had not. I-Web, the U.S. Forest Service’s 

official database for tracking cultural resources, was also used to obtain site and survey information. 

Field Survey: No new field survey has yet been conducted for this project. Without knowing 

specific locations where treatment activities will be located, field reconnaissance has not yet 

been prescribed. Field survey will be completed prior to implementation activities and according 

to stipulations and conditions in the programmatic agreement being developed for the project. In 

those cases where programmatic agreement stipulations may not apply, applicable cultural 

resources laws, rules, and directives will be followed. 

Traditional Knowledge: Input from Tribal representatives is an important component of this 

project. Certain types of cultural resources can be difficult to identify by means of standard 

archaeological survey. Traditional knowledge can provide unique insight into physical features or 

geographic areas that are of particular spiritual or sacred significance to Native American cultures. 

Tribal input has been solicited throughout the course of this project. Tribes have been notified of 

NEPA-related actions coincident with all public scoping and consultation efforts. Tribal 

governments have been asked to review the project proposal and the proposed treatments in 

order to solicit indigenous knowledge of spiritual-use areas, traditional cultural properties, or 

sacred sites that may not be readily identifiable. The need for active management of pine beetle 

infested areas has also been presented to Tribal representatives at formal government-togovernment meetings hosted by the Forest (summary provided below). Regarding Section 106 

of the NHPA, Tribal authorities have been invited to voice their concerns and share traditional 

knowledge by participating in the development of a programmatic agreement that will be used to 

comply with NHPA mandates for this project (see next section). 

Programmatic Agreement: The Forest is developing a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the 

Wyoming and South Dakota SHPOs in order to fulfill the Forest’s Section 106 obligations for 

this project. A PA is desirable because of the multi-state scope and similar and repetitive nature 

of the project (pursuant to 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(i)). A PA is also warranted because the effects 

of the project cannot be fully determined prior to signing an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) Record of Decision (pursuant to 36 CFR §800.14(b)(1)(ii)). 

A PA is a legal document that can result in a number of benefits to the signing parties. They 

may, for example: 

• Streamline the consultation process by eliminating the need for case-by-case consultation 

for routine and/or repetitive activities. This would be particularly beneficial to the 

MPBRP since similar treatments would be prescribed repeatedly for infected stands as 

they are identified; 

• Provide a negotiated list of exempt undertakings, or undertakings that are likely to have 

minimal or no effects on historic properties; 

• Standardize methodologies, treatments, protection, and monitoring measures; 

• Save state and federal agencies and tribal governments money by reducing the amount of 

time and effort needed for consultation and review efforts. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 277 

The Forest extended an invitation to all Tribes that have expressed a historical or traditional 

interest in the Black Hills to participate in the development of the PA. One Tribe has formally 

accepted the Forest’s invitation. As of March 2012, a draft of the PA is being written, but it has 

not yet been signed or executed. 

Indicators 

The “at risk” category used in this analysis consists of historic properties and sacred sites with 

identified or potential direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse effects. The NHPA implementing 

regulations define an adverse effect: 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any 

of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in 

the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 

Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, 

including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of 

the property's eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include 

reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. (36 CFR §800.5(a)(1)) 

The Forest has identified one primary indicator that is used to determine the potential for adverse 

effects to historic properties and sacred sites: The number of at-risk historic properties and/or 

sacred sites within the Area of Potential Effect. 

Affected Environment 

The purpose of this section is to summarize the existing condition based on the most current data 

available. In the vernacular of the cultural resources legal framework cited above, the affected 

environment will, by definition, be located within the Area of Potential Effect. It has been 

established, based on criteria cited above, that the APE for this project cannot currently be 

delineated with certainty. The APE may ultimately incorporate any portion of the 1.2 million 

acres of NFS lands. Of that number, however, 248,000 acres have been identified as higher 

probability areas due to timber stand conditions that are more favorable for MPB infestation. 

The potential affected environment for cultural resources can, therefore, be presented in two 

tiers: 1) higher probability areas where activities directly associated with MPB treatments are 

more likely to occur and 2) lower probability areas where any activities associated with MPB 

treatments are expected to be of a more indirect nature, e.g., access roads and staging areas. The 

manner in which the data are presented in this section reflects this division. 

To date, a total of 2,094 historic properties have been identified forestwide on NFS lands 

managed by the Black Hills National Forest. That number includes only those properties 1) 

listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP, and 2) those properties whose NRHP significance 

has not yet been formally evaluated. The total excludes all isolated finds (not eligible for the 

NRHP by definition) and those cultural resources formally determined not eligible for the NRHP 

with SHPO concurrence (pursuant to 36 CFR §63). 

Of the 2,094 historic properties identified to date, 538 are located within the 242,000 acres 

specifically identified in Alternative B as timber stands particularly susceptible to MPB 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 278 

infestation. Nine additional historic properties have been identified in the Alternative C APE, 

increasing the total number of previously identified historic properties located in those 248,000 

acres to 547. 

Table 3-38 Historic Properties Identified To-Date within Project Area. 

Previously Identified Historic Properties in Area of Potential Effect*

Alternative B 

(242,000 acres of high probability) 

Alternative C 

(248,000 acres of high probability) 

Forestwide 

(roughly 1.2 million acres) 

Pre-contact 

Post-contact 

Multicomponent 

Undetermined 

Total 

Pre-contact 

Post-contact 

Multicomponent 

Undetermined 

Total 

Pre-contact 

Post-contact 

Multicomponent 

Undetermined 

Total 

258 221 37 22 538 258 229 38 22 547 963 880 145 106 2,094 

* Categorized according to the general time period ascribed to each site. 

The APE includes several sacred sites and traditional cultural properties that have been identified 

by various American Indian tribes. 

Ultimately, the quantity of historic properties that exist within the APE will be greater than the 

2,094 cited in Table 3. While a relatively large percentage of the Black Hills National Forest has 

been surveyed for cultural resources, a number of areas remain un-inventoried. Approximately 

70 percent of the 248,000 acres identified as high-probability stands for MPB infestation have 

been surveyed for cultural resources. The percentage of the entire forest that has been surveyed 

is roughly the same, between 70 and 75 percent. In some cases, the methods and reporting 

criteria utilized by personnel that conducted the older field surveys may not be adequate based 

on contemporary standards. Consequently, it may be necessary to resurvey certain areas in order 

to obtain current and more accurate data. 

The type of historic properties that are found in the affected environment include a large variety 

of both post Euro-American contact and pre-contact cultural resources. A partial list of sites 

types dating to the period prior to Euro-American contact includes rock art (in the form of 

pictographs and petroglyphs), lithic quarries, artifact scatters, stone circles, and other Native 

American architectural features such as rock cairns and rock alignments. Equally important are 

sacred sites identified by Native American communities. The post-contact period materials are 

dominated by mining-related features such as prospector pits, mine shafts, drifts, and structures. 

Logging features such as long, linear flumes built to transport water and industrial materials are 

not uncommon. Other cultural resources identified on Forest lands attest to the presence of 

homestead-era settlements and cattle ranching. 

The disclosure of sensitive data related to the specific location and/or character of a historic 

property is regulated pursuant to stipulations in 36 CFR §800.11(c) and Section 304 of the 

NHPA, in addition to 43 CFR §7.18 and Section 9 of the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act. Accordingly, information disclosing cultural resource site types and locations are not 

available for general distribution. 

Environmental Consequences 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal land-managing agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties (defined above). In this section, we identify 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 279 

those activities associated with the project proposal that may have the potential to adversely 

affect historic properties and sacred sites. Due to the current undelineated geographic scope of 

the APE, however, it is not possible to quantify or predict with confidence which specific 

historic properties may be affected. Location-specific site identification and effects analyses will 

be completed during the implementation phase. Consultation with the corresponding SHPOs 

will be conducted as per stipulations in the PA being developed for the project. Tribal

consultation will be completed for any areas that may be targeted for MPB treatment 

prescriptions, although it may be more practical and expeditious to consult on multiple timber 

stands in a single consultation package. 

A variety of vegetative treatment options have been proposed in the action alternatives, each of which 

would maximize efficiency under different environmental or topographic conditions. Each treatment 

is designed to play a specific role in the effort to reduce the spread of MPB across NFS lands. A 

breakdown of the techniques proposed in each alternative is provided in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2. 

The techniques proposed in both action alternatives (but often with disparate stipulations) include 

the following: 

• cut and chunk, chipping, and cut-pile-burn, and cut-pile-burn with equipment would be 

scattered across the landscape and generally adjacent to or along private property and roads. 

• Insecticide spraying (i.e. carbaryl) would generally occur in developed campgrounds, FS 

facilities, and on scattered legacy trees and would use chemicals appropriate for a forested 

environment. 

• Semiochemical use would be limited along the ‘leading edge’ of the BHNF MPB Strategy. 

Semiochemical techniques to attract MPB may occur generally southwest of Custer, SD 

adjacent to Custer State Park and generally west of Spearfish, SD towards the SD-WY State 

line; north of Sundance in cooperation and coordination with Forest Health entomologists 

and the States of SD and WY. 

• Helicopter and cable logging would occur in areas of high value and generally on slopes 

greater than 40 percent. Cable units would utilize existing roads. 

• Generally, commercial and non-commercial treatments to remove infested trees with 

associated thinning to remove recently infested and non-infested trees would occur across the 

landscape on slopes less than 40 percent on up to 1,000 contiguous acres. 

Both action alternatives would also permit different combinations of road maintenance, road 

construction, or road upgrades necessary to implement certain treatment options. These associated 

activities also have a potential to result in adverse effects to historic properties: 

• Conversion of existing, unauthorized roads/routes to system roads. 

• Construction of new system and/or temporary roads. Unlike Alternative B, a limited 

amount of new road construction would be permitted under Alternative C. While this is not 

technically a treatment, it is a ground-disturbing activity with the potential to result in 

adverse effects to historic properties and sacred sites. 

The effects analysis that follows lacks specific quantitative data regarding the number of historic 

properties and sacred sites present in the APE and, more importantly, the number of properties 

considered at-risk. This omission is unavoidable due the fact that no specific activity areas can 

be identified for MPB treatment. Under other circumstances it would be possible to provide 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 280 

good-faith estimates of the number of historic properties currently identified—and potentially atrisk—under each alternative. By necessity, the analysis that follows provides a relative, as 

opposed to, quantitative assessment of the action alternatives. 

Alternative A – Direct/Indirect Effects 

The Forest would undertake no treatment activities under the No Action alternative, however, the 

No Action alternative would not meet the stated purpose and need. Alternative A has the

potential to have both favorable and unfavorable effects on historic properties and sacred sites. 

The potential for direct effects on historic properties and sacred sites due to ground-disturbing 

implementation activities would be eliminated in the No Action alternative. 

The potential for indirect effects to historic properties and sacred sites is significant should the 

No Action alternative be selected. Taking no action to reduce the MPB infestation would result 

in a substantial increase in tree mortality and subsequent fuel loads on the forest floor, thereby 

escalating the threat of large-scale wild fire. The intense heat produced by wildl fires sustained 

by heavy fuels loads can result in adverse effects to historic properties, including the potential for 

complete obliteration (Sturdevant 2009). The latter is particularly true of rock art (Tratebas et al. 

2004) and historic structures. The ignition of ground fuels can also create post-fire soil and 

sediment conditions unfavorable to the preservation of historic properties. When surface 

vegetation is incinerated, a common byproduct is increased soil erosion. Hydrologic regimes 

change, resulting in the exposure and transportation of previously undisturbed soils which can 

entrain and relocate subsurface cultural artifacts. In addition to the artifact assemblages suffering 

possible physical deformation or destruction, the stratigraphic context - of critical importance for 

accurate archaeological interpretations - is disturbed or destroyed. 

Alternatives B and C 

Alternatives B and C each outline actions that the Forest would take to combat the MPB epidemic. 

The alternatives are analyzed concurrently, but distinctions are emphasized. All of the treatments 

prescribed for the action alternatives are enumerated in Table 2-xx in Chapter 2. 

Alternative B is designed to reduce the threat from recently detected MPB infestations. The 

alternative is reactive in the sense that infested trees would be treated once infected stands are 

identified - but before the beetles disperse to other trees. Some surrounding (non-infested) trees 

at risk of infestation may also be thinned under Alternative B. The extra acreage would be 

justified to reduce stand densities and the associated threat to ecosystem components, including 

forest resources. The additional thinning would also reduce the potential for large-scale wild fire. 

Alternative C constitutes a more proactive response to the Forest’s published Purpose and Need 

(USDA Forest Service 2011). The alternative specifically responds to public comments which 

advocate a more aggressive approach in which the Forest treats high-risk stands on a landscape 

basis. Alternative C would permit treatment of timber stands in advance of visible MPB 

infestations. More liberal prescriptions regarding construction of new road would also address 

concerns about safety and roadways access. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 281 

The quantity of acres considered particularly susceptible to MPB infestation differs somewhat 

between the action alternatives. A total 242,000 acres has been identified in Alternative B as 

opposed to 248,000 acres in Alternative C. 

One notable difference between the two action alternatives is the number of acres of timber harvest 

that would be permitted. The cap for Alternative B would be up to 48,400 acres over a five-year 

period in contrast to Alternative C which expands the limit to 124,000 acres over the same period. 

The corresponding volume of sawtimber and products other than logs (POL) that could be 

harvested is significantly less in Alternative B (14,520 CCF) than Alternative C (37,200 CCF). 

Another difference between the two action alternatives involves cable logging; the maximum 

acreage available for cable logging in Alternative B - although no limit is prescribed - would be 

less than Alternative C due to the prohibition on the construction of any new access roads (a 

crucial component of cable logging). The acreage that would be available for cable logging in 

Alternative C (again, no limit is prescribed) would be greater than Alternative B because the 

construction of new access roads would be permitted. 

Although new road construction would be prohibited under Alternative B, as many as 5 percent 

of non-system temporary roads may be converted to system roads to provide additional access to 

infected timber stands. A certain degree of ground disturbance may be anticipated in order to 

bring temporary (non-system) roads up to USFS standards. Alternative C increases the 

maximum to 15 percent for the same purpose. New road construction would be permitted under 

Alternative C, up to a maximum of 250 miles. Substantial ground disturbance would be 

anticipated for new road construction. 

Direct Effects 

Based solely on the quantity of acres identified as high-probably areas for beetle infestation, the 

potential for direct effects between the two action alternatives would be minimal. Alternative B 

does not include Spearfish Canyon, but the probability of identifying cultural resources on the 

steep slopes of the canyon would be low. To date, only nine additional historic properties have 

been identified in Alternative C compared with Alternative B (Table 3). 

The treatment options proposed for the two action alternatives, as opposed to the total quantity of 

acres, constitute the greatest differences in potential adverse effects. The greatest difference 

between the two action alternatives is the maximum number of acres (and by extension, volume 

CCF) where commercial and non-commercial timber harvest would be permitted. Compared with 

the No Action Alternative, Alternative B has significantly greater potential to directly affect historic 

properties and sacred sites. When action alternatives are compared, Alternative B has significantly 

fewer opportunities for direct effects. Alternative B would limit the acres available for sawtimber 

and POL harvest to 20 percent (48,400) of the total 242,000 acres. Alternative C would make nearly 

3x (124,000) the number of acres available for treatment. The potential for direct effects to historic 

properties is greater in Alternative C because the treatment options are more aggressive. 

Of the two action alternatives, Alternative B would also provide fewer opportunities for direct effects 

due to 1) the lower number of acres where cable logging would be permitted, 2) the prohibition on 

new road construction, and 3) the lower limit on the number of existing roads that could be converted 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 282 

to system roads. Each of these activities necessitates some degree of ground disturbance with a 

corresponding potential to disturb historic properties and Native American sacred sites. 

Should Alternative B be selected, the areas targeted for MPB treatment would be subject to 

review by Heritage Resources staff to determine the potential for adverse effects. In all 

likelihood, past experience suggests it would be possible to develop and implement protection 

measures for the majority of the historic properties located in the APE, thereby eliminating the 

potential for adverse effects. Nevertheless, the risk of direct effects to historic properties due to 

treatment prescriptions would be fewer in Alternative B than action Alternative C. Stipulations 

in the anticipated PA will outline options and procedures for protecting historic properties and 

sacred sites. Where such preventative measures cannot be identified and an imminent threat to 

those properties is anticipated, the terms of the PA would no longer apply and the Forest would 

follow mandates outlined in 36 CFR §800.6 which are designed to resolve adverse affects.

Indirect Effects 

In contrast to direct effects, the indirect effects of selecting Alternative B over Alternative C 

have the potential to result in greater potential risk to historic properties. Although the actual 

ground disturbance due to treatment prescriptions would be fewer in Alternative B, the number 

of acres left untreated for MPB infestation would be significantly greater than it would under 

Alternative C. Assuming beetle infestations continue at current or elevated rates, the number of 

mortality trees that may be anticipated under Alternative B would be significantly greater, 

eventually resulting in a corresponding increase in fuel loads and, by extension, greater potential 

for damage to historic properties as a result of catastrophic wild fire. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the analysis area include 

vegetation management projects, recreation, road construction and maintenance, range 

improvement projects, mining activities, and a host of other projects, each of which are 

anticipated on NFS lands. These activities have occurred in the past, are ongoing, and in all 

likelihood will continue to occur in the foreseeable future. 

The geographic scope of the cumulative effects analysis is limited to the Forest’s administrative 

boundary because impacts to cultural resources accumulate at their specific locations, 

irrespective of actions in surrounding areas. 

Cumulative effects are not anticipated under the action alternatives because the NHPA and 36 CFR 

§800 regulations outline procedures for protecting historic properties from impacts caused by 

federal actions (undertakings). Adverse effects can frequently be avoided or minimized through 

the implementation of appropriate site-specific protection measures through consultation with the 

ACHP, the appropriate SHPOs, Tribal governments, and the public as appropriate. 

A total of 2,094 historic properties have been identified on the Forest as of early 2012. Additional 

cultural resources not yet identified unquestionably exist. It has been estimated that 11,000 cultural 

sites (archaeological and historic) may exist on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005:III-409), 

producing a theoretical site density of one site for every 110 acres. If present trends are maintained, 

roughly 15–25% of the sites identified on the Forest may be eligible for the NRHP. Based on these 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 283 

data, an estimated 2,750 historic properties may ultimately exist on public lands within the Forest 

boundaries. Any further attempts to quantify cumulative effects would be highly speculative. 

Consultation 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: The Forest informed the ACHP of its intent to develop 

a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Wyoming and South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPOs) in order to fulfill the Forest’s Section 106 obligations for the Mountain Pine Beetle 

(MPB) epidemic. The letter was dated November 18, 2011. The ACHP responded to the Forest’s 

invitation on December 8. The ACHP concluded that Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement 

in Reviewing Individual Section 106 Cases, of the regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 

CFR Part 800), does not apply to this undertaking. Consequently, the ACHP would not be 

participating in the development of the PA at the present time. 

State Historic Preservation Officers: The Forest has consulted on this project with the SD and 

WY SHPOs multiple times as a result of the mutual agreement to develop a PA for this 

undertaking. At the time of this writing, the PA had not been completed, but consultation with 

both SHPOs will continue until the agreement is executed. Consultation with the SD and WY 

SHPOs will continue during the implementation phase based on the stipulations outlined in the PA. 

Tribal Consultation: The Forest regularly consults with Tribal governments regarding projects 

authorized under the NHPA and the NEPA. Sixteen different Tribes from five states have 

expressed traditional cultural, spiritual, or geographical interests in the Black Hills. 

Tribal consultation has been conducted for this project on a number of occasions and via 

multiple means. The Forest typically organizes two meetings annually with Tribal 

representatives to discuss project proposals that may be of interest to Tribal authorities. The 

MPBRP was on the agenda for two separate meetings, each of which were hosted by the Wakpa 

Sica Reconciliation Center in Ft. Pierre, SD. The first meeting was held on June 22, 2011, prior 

to the Notice of Intent being published in the Federal Register (August 8, 2011). A second 

meeting was held on September 15, 2011, after the Notice of Intent was distributed. 

Tribal governments were subsequently consulted again when it was determined that a 

programmatic agreement would be necessary for the MPBRP. Letters of invitation to participate 

in the development of the PA were sent on November 14, 2011. One response was received by 

the Forest. A representative of the Yankton Sioux Tribe responded with email dated December 

14, 2011, stating that they would like to participate. No other comments were received. 

Although the PA has not yet been completed at the time of this writing, consultation on the 

contents will continue with all interested Tribes. 

The PA developed for this undertaking will primarily affect consultation between the Forest and 

the South Dakota and Wyoming SHPOs. Tribal authorities will continue to be consulted when 

specific project locations associated with MPB treatments have been identified. This will permit 

Tribal representatives to submit location-specific comments where desirable. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 284 

Standard 7103 of the Forest’s LRMP recognize American Indian traditions of gathering herbs, 

medicinal and edible plants, and other materials for religious purposes and it makes provisions 

for those who wish to gather such plants and materials. Section 8105 of the 2008 Farm Bill 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide free of charge to federally recognized Indian 

tribes any trees, portions of trees, or forest products from NFS lands for non-commercial 

traditional and cultural purposes. Section 8104 of the same Bill grants the Secretary of 

Agriculture the authority to temporarily close specifically identified NFS land from public access 

to protect the privacy of tribal activities for traditional and cultural purposes. Continued Tribal 

consultation during the implementation phase of the MPBRP will ensure that these practices 

continue with the least amount of interruptions. 

Tribal consultation for the MPBRP will continue throughout the planning phase while the EIS is 

being developed. Tribal officials will also be completed during the implementation phase when 

more specific data is available as to project locations and potential effects to historic properties and 

sacred sites. 

Public Consultation: The public was informed of the Forest’s intent to develop a PA via legal 

notices published in the Custer Chronicle newspaper (November 16, 2011) and the Rapid City 

Journal (November 18, 2011) newspapers. The purpose of the PA was briefly outlined and 

members of the public were invited to solicit comments and/or express their interest in participating 

in the development of the PA. The Forest also posted a similar notice on the Forest’s external 

website under the MPBRP project folder. No responses were received from the general public. 

SOCIAL 

Affected Environment 

The MPBR Project includes seven counties within the analysis area: Custer, Fall River, 

Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington Counties in South Dakota; and Crook and Weston Counties 

in Wyoming. Rapid City is the regional trade center and second largest city in South Dakota. 

The project area encompasses 56 ‘at risk’ communities, approximately 300,000 acres of private 

lands, subdivisions, and businesses. Forest resources play an important role for the people living 

in and adjacent to the project area. The Forest provides great scenery and abundant dispersed 

recreation in a setting that is close to town, or for some, right out their back door. Social and 

Economic elements are summarized in the Economic Affected Environment section in the Phase 

II FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a), which includes a description of employment, income, 

recreation, and tourism. 

Population Demographics 

Population is an important variable to consider because the ability to attract and retain 

individuals to live and work within an area is critical to the survival of a community and its 

economy. Population statistics only account for permanent residents. However, seasonal 

workers, who are often missed in the April census count, and second home owners who are not 

counted, are temporary residents that are also important to the local economy and community. 

The examination of population trends is important to the understanding of the overall nature of 

an area. The use and occupation of the Black Hills is increasing due to population growth and a 

fairly diverse and flexible economy. In general, the resident population for the seven counties 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 285 

has been increasing from approximately 162,000 in 2000 to 176,000 in 2010, 8.6 % increase. All 

counties except Fall River County, SD, show population growth between 3 and 15 percent over 

the 10 year period. Fall River County, SD saw a 5% decline in population (Figure 3-17). 

Figure 3-19 Percent Change in Population 2000-2010 

11.1%

-5.0%

8.6%

3.7%

10.6%

14.8%

6.4% 5.9%

10.5%

8.6% 8.0%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Custer 

County, SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade 

County, SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook 

County, WY

Weston 

County, WY

South Dakota Wyoming County 

Region

U.S.

Percent Change in Population, 2000-2010*

Ethnicity 

Population changes relate not only to the number of residents in the region but also to their 

ethnicity. The seven counties within the analysis area demonstrate low ethnic diversity with the 

exception of Pennington County, SD. Rapid City, located in Pennington County, has a greater level 

of diversity often associated with larger cities. Table 3-39 below represents the average population 

by county and study area by race for 2010. 

Table 3-39 Population by Race 

Population by Race, 2010*

Custer County, 

SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade County, 

SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook County, 

WY

Weston County, 

WY South Dakota Wyoming County Region U.S.

Total Population 8,085 7,078 23,670 25,156 97,922 6,761 7,066 799,462 545,579 175,738 303,965,272

White alone 7,668 6,442 22,396 23,116 82,275 6,735 6,696 692,330 498,326 155,328 224,895,700

Black or African American alone 0 51 0 156 1,041 0 4 8,874 4,135 1,252 37,978,752

American Indian alone 284 228 631 573 8,367 11 46 68,215 12,786 10,140 2,480,465

Asian alone 0 67 225 188 1,137 6 60 7,126 4,138 1,683 14,185,493

Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Is. alone 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 241 242 7 491,673

Some other race alone 0 70 72 341 845 0 129 7,125 11,752 1,457 16,603,808

Two or more races 133 219 346 782 4,257 6 128 15,551 14,200 5,871 7,329,381

Percent of Total

White alone 94.8% 91.0% 94.6% 91.9% 84.0% 99.6% 94.8% 86.6% 91.3% 88.4% 74.0%

Black or African American alone 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 12.5%

American Indian alone 3.5% 3.2% 2.7% 2.3% 8.5% 0.2% 0.7% 8.5% 2.3% 5.8% 0.8%

Asian alone 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 4.7%

Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Is. alone 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Some other race alone 0.0% 1.0% 0.3% 1.4% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 0.9% 2.2% 0.8% 5.5%

Two or more races 1.6% 3.1% 1.5% 3.1% 4.3% 0.1% 1.8% 1.9% 2.6% 3.3% 2.4%

In accordance with environmental justice direction, this information was used to determine if the 

study area includes minority populations that may require additional outreach. Minority 

populations are identified where either: (a) the minority population of the study area exceeds 50 

percent or, (b) the minority population percentage of the study area is meaningfully greater than the 

minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis. With the low level of ethnic diversity within the study area, no minority populations have 

been identified in accordance to environmental justice thresholds. 

Wildland-Urban Interface 

Most of the MPBR Project Area within the seven counties is categorized as wildland urban 

interface (CWPP’s). Through the collaborative efforts of the CWPP’s, 56 at-risk-communities 

are identified, totaling approximately 27,000 structures (see Fire/Fuels Section). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 286 

Individuals that chose to live within the WUI or secluded areas are lured by solitude and the 

opportunity of being close to nature. Problems brought about by the influx of people are not just 

wildfire-related. Development of subdivisions and private lands within the project area are complete 

with forest insect/disease outbreaks, vegetation management, and urban forestry concerns (i.e. 

electricity, roads, etc.). Many new residents moving to the area carry expectations of urban services 

with them. Residents with tenure have a strong tradition of multiple-use of resources and expect a 

balance of goods and services from these resources. Wherever there are people living in or adjacent 

to wildland areas there is a concern about the threat of wildfire. 

Communities by nature of their location, play a key role in mitigating wildfire hazard. The 

resources, authorities and people share in the responsibility with adjacent landowners and 

managers, for developing healthy and disaster resilient communities. Without significant action by 

communities to mitigate hazards (i.e. homes, yards and private forested lands that are highly 

ignitable), there would continue to be high probability for large-scale wildfire in the wildland 

urban interface in spite of actions on Federal lands. 

These same communities are also concerned with the mountain pine beetle epidemic that is 

currently expanding within and adjacent to the project area. As trees are killed, they fall to the 

ground adding dead, dry fuels within an area already rated as having high wildfire hazard. These 

dead falling trees also have the potential to damage fences, structures, power lines, and block 

access. 

Subdivisions and home construction building permits on private lands within and adjacent to the 

project area have increased steadily and demands for public access roads and utility lines across 

the project area will continue to exert additional pressure on the Forest and the need for WUI 

treatments. Housing characteristics for the seven counties indicate approximately 88 percent of the 

housing units are occupied. An estimated five percent of housing units are for seasonal, 

recreational, or occasional use, often a proxy or indicator of second home ownership. From 2006-

2010, Fall River County, SD had the highest estimated percent of vacant housing (23%), and 

Pennington County, SD had the lowest (9%) (ACS, Census 2011). The housing market, compared 

to the National level, has remained strong for most of the seven counties. 

Human Health and Safety 

Public safety is more often affected by the choices people make on their own while visiting the 

project area, or by the consequences of natural events, like wildfires, flooding, wind and hail 

storms. Despite being in close proximity to many communities, the project area is rural forested 

and in places semi-remote. Hazards exist in the form of natural and human-caused conditions. 

Wild animals and insects, like ticks which may carry lyme disease, are present. Weather-related 

events can be life threatening, and probability of a wildfire is a risk every month the year. Most 

human activities in the Forest, including hunting, hiking, mountain biking, boating, and driving a 

vehicle, carry some inherent risk. 

Vegetative treatments that reduce the existing MBP epidemic and potential of a large scale wildfire 

from occurring also help to protect human health and safety. Fuel treatment areas are marked and 

signed to make travelers aware of individuals and actions associated with the activity. Smoke 

from hand pile and/or equipment pile burning and wildfire could be a nuisance and may pose a 

threat to human health and safety. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 287 

There is an extensive road system throughout most of the project area for fire suppression. A main 

concern is the ability of the Forest Service and local volunteer fire departments to gain road access, 

that important arterial and access roads are not closed, in order to suppress most fires while they are 

still small in size (see Fire/Fuels Report discussion on access). 

Income 

The sources of a region’s personal income provide some insight into the economy of the area. For 

additional identification of potential environmental justice concerns, low-income populations in 

the project area are considered. Table 3-40 and 3-41 highlight income information related to 

poverty and use of programs for low-income individuals and families. 

Table 3-40 Demographics Indicators for Low-Income Populations for the Project Area 

Custer County, 

SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade County, 

SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook County, 

WY

Weston County, 

WY South Dakota Wyoming County Region U.S.

People 9.7% 17.4% 15.3% 10.1% 14.0% 7.8% 7.9% 13.7% 9.8% 13.1% 13.8%

Under 18 years 10.9% 11.3% 15.8% 12.1% 20.7% 10.8% 10.1% 17.3% 12.4% 17.4% 19.2%

65 years and older 11.7% 21.3% 8.1% 10.1% 7.6% 8.0% 10.1% 11.3% 6.3% 9.0% 9.5%

Families 4.3% 11.4% 8.4% 6.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 8.7% 6.2% 8.4% 10.1%

Families with related children < 18 years 7.8% 19.3% 15.5% 8.3% 16.9% 10.8% 13.2% 13.9% 10.6% 14.9% 15.7%

Married couple families 3.3% 3.3% 2.2% 5.2% 3.0% 3.6% 1.0% 3.8% 2.9% 3.2% 4.9%

with children < 18 years 4.8% 1.8% 3.9% 6.2% 5.1% 3.9% 1.3% 5.1% 4.4% 4.8% 7.0%

Female householder, no husband present 11.2% 45.0% 41.8% 17.8% 29.6% 28.6% 30.5% 31.6% 26.1% 30.0% 28.9%

with children < 18 years 12.5% 53.5% 46.1% 18.6% 36.2% 33.7% 45.9% 37.8% 32.5% 35.7% 37.4%

Percent Below Poverty Level by Age & Family Type~, 2010*

~Percent below poverty level by age and family type is calculated by dividing the number of people by demographic in poverty by the total 

population of that demographic. 

Table 3-41 Household Earnings 

Number of Households Receiving Earnings, by Source, 2010*

Custer County, 

SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade County, 

SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook County, 

WY

Weston County, 

WY South Dakota Wyoming County Region U.S.

Total households: 3,654 3,014 10,651 9,714 39,939 2,769 3,097 315,468 217,688 72,838 114,235,996

Labor earnings 2,703 2,122 8,263 8,030 32,905 2,177 2,452 257,172 181,426 58,652 91,045,812

Social Security (SS) 1,241 1,071 3,223 2,611 10,671 827 955 88,860 56,410 20,599 31,387,932

Retirement income 746 544 2,012 1,518 7,275 547 524 42,832 35,555 13,166 19,998,762

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 65 51 135 330 1,226 43 81 8,561 5,459 1,931 4,626,547

Cash public assistance income 24 69 207 172 1,091 66 32 7,883 3,618 1,661 2,816,127

Food Stamp/SNAP 123 278 657 632 4,686 100 88 26,885 10,764 6,564 10,583,720

Percent of Total^

Labor earnings 74.0% 70.4% 77.6% 82.7% 82.4% 78.6% 79.2% 81.5% 83.3% 80.5% 79.7%

Social Security (SS) 34.0% 35.5% 30.3% 26.9% 26.7% 29.9% 30.8% 28.2% 25.9% 28.3% 27.5%

Retirement income 20.4% 18.0% 18.9% 15.6% 18.2% 19.8% 16.9% 13.6% 16.3% 18.1% 17.5%

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 1.8% 1.7% 1.3% 3.4% 3.1% 1.6% 2.6% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 4.0%

Cash public assistance income 0.7% 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% 2.7% 2.4% 1.0% 2.5% 1.7% 2.3% 2.5%

Food Stamp/SNAP 3.4% 9.2% 6.2% 6.5% 11.7% 3.6% 2.8% 8.5% 4.9% 9.0% 9.3%

^ Total may add to more than 100% due to households receiving more than 1 source of income. 

* The data in this table are calculated by ACS using annual surveys conducted during 2006-2010 and are representative of average characteristics 

during this period. 

For this analysis, the project area population has been compared to both the States of Wyoming, 

South Dakota and to National averages. Review of poverty statistics and income sources within 

the project area counties is similar to the States and national statistics. It is unlikely the project 

area includes low-income populations.

Economic Elements 

The majority of employment and income in South Dakota and Wyoming is nonagricultural. 

Employment for the seven counties is relatively diverse and therefore less vulnerable to 

economic disruptions. The area is less reliant on manufacturing and professional/technical 

services and somewhat more reliant on accommodation and food services (tourism). Table 3-43 

is representative of employment by industry for the period 2006-2010. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 288 

Table 3-42 Employment by Industry 

Employment by Industry, 2010*

Custer County, 

SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade County, 

SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook County, 

WY

Weston County, 

WY South Dakota Wyoming County Region U.S.

Civilian employed population > 16 years 3,792 3,010 12,182 12,058 49,340 3,215 3,707 410,156 284,148 87,304 141,833,331

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 572 341 585 870 1,194 839 921 29,841 34,195 5,322 2,634,188

Construction 315 111 1,160 971 4,035 384 345 26,665 24,932 7,321 10,115,885

Manufacturing 152 59 669 922 3,252 156 290 41,192 14,729 5,500 15,581,149

Wholesale trade 22 22 114 312 1,267 45 124 11,625 6,254 1,906 4,344,743

Retail trade 174 237 1,269 1,625 6,352 255 421 47,928 32,270 10,333 16,293,522

Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 260 164 324 663 2,022 275 142 17,169 18,264 3,850 7,183,907

Information 54 77 295 144 1,383 41 29 7,954 4,468 2,023 3,368,676

Finance and insurance, and real estate 232 74 723 702 3,369 21 86 32,576 12,078 5,207 9,931,900

Prof., scientific, mgmt., admin., & waste mgmt. 186 122 724 805 4,143 176 163 24,101 18,422 6,319 14,772,322

Education, health care, & social assistance 933 857 2,966 2,510 11,442 589 687 96,312 61,322 19,984 31,277,542

Arts, entertain., rec., accomodation, & food 406 418 2,319 1,106 5,888 258 115 36,121 27,291 10,510 12,566,228

Other services, except public administration 159 191 537 651 2,456 52 118 18,233 12,200 4,164 6,899,223

Public administration 327 337 497 777 2,537 124 266 20,439 17,723 4,865 6,864,046

Percent of Total

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, mining 15.1% 11.3% 4.8% 7.2% 2.4% 26.1% 24.8% 7.3% 12.0% 6.1% 1.9%

Construction 8.3% 3.7% 9.5% 8.1% 8.2% 11.9% 9.3% 6.5% 8.8% 8.4% 7.1%

Manufacturing 4.0% 2.0% 5.5% 7.6% 6.6% 4.9% 7.8% 10.0% 5.2% 6.3% 11.0%

Wholesale trade 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 2.6% 2.6% 1.4% 3.3% 2.8% 2.2% 2.2% 3.1%

Retail trade 4.6% 7.9% 10.4% 13.5% 12.9% 7.9% 11.4% 11.7% 11.4% 11.8% 11.5%

Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 6.9% 5.4% 2.7% 5.5% 4.1% 8.6% 3.8% 4.2% 6.4% 4.4% 5.1%

Information 1.4% 2.6% 2.4% 1.2% 2.8% 1.3% 0.8% 1.9% 1.6% 2.3% 2.4%

Finance and insurance, and real estate 6.1% 2.5% 5.9% 5.8% 6.8% 0.7% 2.3% 7.9% 4.3% 6.0% 7.0%

Prof., scientific, mgmt., admin., & waste mgmt. 4.9% 4.1% 5.9% 6.7% 8.4% 5.5% 4.4% 5.9% 6.5% 7.2% 10.4%

Education, health care, & social assistance 24.6% 28.5% 24.3% 20.8% 23.2% 18.3% 18.5% 23.5% 21.6% 22.9% 22.1%

Arts, entertain., rec., accomodation, & food 10.7% 13.9% 19.0% 9.2% 11.9% 8.0% 3.1% 8.8% 9.6% 12.0% 8.9%

Other services, except public administration 4.2% 6.3% 4.4% 5.4% 5.0% 1.6% 3.2% 4.4% 4.3% 4.8% 4.9%

Public administration 8.6% 11.2% 4.1% 6.4% 5.1% 3.9% 7.2% 5.0% 6.2% 5.6% 4.8%

Table 3-44 highlights the timber economy related jobs with the project area counties in 

comparisons to the States and US averages. In 2009, Crook County, WY had the largest percent

of total timber employment (10.4%), and Fall River County, SD had the smallest (0%).

Table 3-43 Employment by Wood Product Industries 

Custer County, 

SD

Fall River 

County, SD

Lawrence 

County, SD

Meade County, 

SD

Pennington 

County, SD

Crook County, 

WY

Weston County, 

WY South Dakota Wyoming County Region U.S.

1,341 2,096 9,888 5,115 44,419 1,513 1,564 330,517 214,715 65,936 114,509,626

15 0 101 26 423 158 16 2,050 529 739 849,891

9 0 26 2 18 28 9 61 75 92 63,679

9 0 25 2 15 28 9 54 68 88 53,003

0 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 7 4 10,676

4 0 29 9 385 99 0 664 365 526 272,319

4 0 29 7 190 99 0 238 224 329 84,238

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116,264

0 0 0 2 195 0 0 426 141 197 71,817

2 0 46 15 20 31 7 1,325 89 121 513,893

2 0 46 15 20 31 7 545 84 121 229,786

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 749 2 0 264,987

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,620

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1,798

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 14,702

1,326 2,096 9,787 5,089 43,996 1,355 1,548 328,467 214,186 65,197 113,659,735

1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 10.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.2% 1.1% 0.7%

0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9% 6.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2%

0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 6.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1%

0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4%

0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

98.9% 100.0% 99.0% 99.5% 99.0% 89.6% 99.0% 99.4% 99.8% 98.9% 99.3%

Veneer, Plywood, & Engineered Wood

Sawmills & Wood Preservation

Employment in Timber, 2009

Total Private Employment

Timber

Growing & Harvesting

Other Wood Product Mfg.

Converted Paper Product Mfg.

Gum & Wood Chemical Mfg.

Wood Cabinet Mfg.

Forestry & Logging

Support Activities for Forestry

Sawmills & Paper Mills

Sawmills & Wood Preservation

Pulp, Paper, & Paperboard Mills

Veneer, Plywood, & Engineered Wood

Wood Products Manufacturing

Wood Office Furniture Mfg.

Non-Timber

Pulp, Paper, & Paperboard Mills

Percent of Total

Timber

Growing & Harvesting

Forestry & Logging

Support Activities for Forestry

Sawmills & Paper Mills

Converted Paper Product Mfg.

Gum & Wood Chemical Mfg.

Wood Cabinet Mfg.

Wood Office Furniture Mfg.

Non-Timber

Wood Products Manufacturing

Other Wood Product Mfg.

Table 3-43 does not include employment data for government, agriculture, railroads, or the selfemployed because these are not reported by County Business Patterns. Estimates for data that 

were not disclosed are shown in italics. 

Timber harvest on the Black Hills National Forest averages 20,000 - 25,000 acres per year. This 

level is influenced by the national lumber market economic conditions, lumber mill capacity, and 

timber industry structure. The Forest has approximately 800,000 acres of suitable timberlands. 

Harvesting of 25,000 acres annually is approximately four percent of the suitable timberlands or 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 289 

two percent of the total NFS lands. Therefore, on an annual basis, a large portion of the Forest is 

not scheduled for commercial timber harvest. 

Today, the Black Hills National Forest is one of the top timber-producing forests in the National 

Forest System. This timber supply is a substantial component of the support of local and 

regional communities, as well as, contributing to the project area’s supply of goods and services. 

Several communities in the Black Hills region, Spearfish and Hill City, South Dakota, and 

Hulett, Wyoming, are home to lumber mills that provide jobs and are an important component of 

the local economy. These mills rely on timber from the Black Hills National Forest to continue 

operations. At the same time, the Black Hills National Forest relies on the local infrastructure of 

these mills in order to implement forest health and safety vegetation treatments. Without the 

commercial infrastructure, much of the work the forest would like to implement would become 

too costly to complete. 

Although population growth is bringing in more people with new and different ideas, there is 

little evidence that attitudes or lifestyles are changing in a major way. The beauty of the area 

brings in new residents and those with tenure are tied to the way the Forest is already managed, 

either by employment such as the logging or ranching industries, in the retail trade and service 

sectors or people are outdoor-oriented and have developed varied and specific outdoor user 

expectations (hunting, fishing, biking, off-road use and tourist based activities). Some residents 

in the area consider the forest resources and forest health as an important part of their quality of 

life. Visitors, both local and non-local use the area for a wide range of dispersed recreation 

activities including, hunting, fishing, boating, camping, wildlife viewing, and off-road vehicle 

use (see Recreation Section). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative there would be no reduction to current insect or fire/fuels hazards or changes 

to roads/access relative to implementing any proposed actions in the MPBR project area. 

The mountain pine beetle epidemic is expanding within and adjacent to the MPBR project area. 

This epidemic is killing large numbers of mature pine trees, changing vegetation structure and 

wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. As trees are killed they fall to the ground adding dead, dry 

fuels within an area already rated as having high wildfire hazard. The mountain pine beetle is at 

epidemic levels across parts of this area right now and is going to continue to increase across the 

entire project area over the next few years (USDA Forest Service, 2010d). 

A great deal of attention has also been focused on the increasing size and severity of wildfires 

occurring on forested lands, particularly pine forests of the west. Recent wildfires on the Black 

Hills National Forest have demonstrated that these fires are larger, hotter and more lethal to 

vegetation and soils than historic fires in ponderosa pine ecosystems. Additionally, these wildfires 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 290 

are more dangerous or damaging to human settlements, property, and values because of settlement 

patterns of humans within these environments. 

A large, uncontrolled fire could threaten the numerous subdivisions and homes previously described 

within the surrounding wildland-urban interface. These homes may have dense and continuous 

vegetation surrounding them, inadequate space between flammable fuels, lack of fire-resistant 

landscaping, and woodpiles or other flammable debris near structures. Although not noted for loss 

of life in the Black Hills to date, fires in the wildland/urban interface are responsible for extremely 

large property losses (Alabaugh Canyon Fire, 2007 included one human fatality, 33 homes lost, and 

a burn over of firefighters).

If a large scale wildfire were to happen, aesthetics, privacy, and economic property values in the 

burned area would likely be considerably diminished in the short-term. Also, highways and roads, 

transmission lines, and municipal watersheds values could be affected by large-scale wildfires. As 

vegetation grows back and burned dead timber falls and deteriorates, the long-term (beyond 10-15 

years) effects of the wildfire on property values would be lessened. Sense of loss of amenities and 

property values gradually fades. People become accustomed over time to changes in scenery and 

other impacts like loss or damage to structures. Large amounts of smoke could affect numerous 

communities during a fire event. Smoke from such a wildfire would present health problems to 

elderly and persons with respiratory problems (see Fire and Fuels section). 

There would be no effect to access and travel beyond current impacts, as management activities 

would not change. The Black Hills National Forest issued a forest-wide Travel Management Plan 

(USDA Forest Service, 2010) designating routes for motorized use (see Transportation section). 

Much of the social impact related to any of the alternatives would likely be indirect or increase an 

already existing trend. Mill closures would reduce the number of wood industry jobs and limit the 

infrastructure for processing that would pay for WUI projects. While closure of specific mills 

cannot be predicted, a stable and adequate timber supply would assist mills to remain in business 

and create more stability for area families dependent on wood product industries. 

With no commercial harvest, revenues would not be gained by industry, and no outgoing costs 

from the Forest Service would be associated with this alternative. No benefits would be gained 

from treatments in terms of reduction of wildfire hazard or increased safety for firefighters. Those 

that are interested in the seeing the forest resource respond to the beetle infestation through natural 

processes would benefit under the limited actions of this alternative. Costs in the future that could 

be associated with the limited action include reduction of commercial timber value, loss of private 

property, forest infrastructure, forest resources including fish and wildlife habitat, and scenery or 

recreation resources. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternatives B and C, forest vegetation would be treated to reduce the rapidly expanding 

MPB epidemic and fire and fuel hazards within the MPBR Project Area. Alternatives B would 

include commercial timber harvest on up to 48,400 acres (403,162 CCF) and Alternative C 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 291 

would include commercial timber harvest on up to 124,000 acres (1,032,920 CCF), which would 

continue to provide Forest products to local timber operations. 

Table 3-44 includes a net present value and a benefits cost ratio analysis for alternatives B and C. 

These two analyses are forms of financial efficiency analysis. This type of analysis only accounts 

for monetarily valued benefits and costs. In this case, the costs are the amount of budget dollars the 

Forest Service allocates to implement vegetation treatments, and the benefits, or revenues include 

the value of any resulting commercial timber. There are other values that affect the socioeconomic 

environment that may not be quantified, but are important to the decision making process. 

Accounting for these values allows for a total economic valuation. These additional values include 

the benefits of safety provided through treatments, or the costs to resource that result from 

treatments such as changes to habitat, scenery, or recreational opportunities.

Table 3-44 Financial Efficiency Measures for Alternative B and C (2011 Dollars) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

- - - - millions of dollars- - - - - 

Net Present Value -$25.651 -$67.071 

Benefit-Cost Ratio 0.08 0.08 

Present Value Revenues $2.198 $5.631 

Present Value Costs -$27.849 -$72.702 

The figures in table 3-45 only address the revenues and financial costs associated with the 

project, and do not account for other benefits and costs of the future treatments not valued in the 

marketplace. Both action alternatives have negative NPV, with alternative C significantly more 

negative due to the larger area and thus greater associated costs. Both alternatives do have some 

associated revenues in terms of commercial timber harvest, but because these treatments are 

completed for the primary purpose of limiting the spread of the beetle and reducing wildfire 

hazard, not every area will produce enough commercial timber to offset the cost. The nonmonetary benefits that are summarized here and provided for in detail in other resource chapters 

balance out the cost of the projects. 

The reduced MPB risk and wildfire hazard in the treatment areas and the completion of fuel 

breaks along private lands and roads would reduce the potential for large scale wildfire and 

would increase the likelihood that firefighters would be suppressing, from defensible positions, 

low to moderate intensity fires that may threaten private property, at-risk communities and forest 

resources versus a high intensity one. 

Cumulative Effects

The population will continue to grow in the future. The majority of this growth is expected on 

private lands in and near the forested areas located outside, but near established towns and 

communities. 

The wood products industry is dependent on Forest timber supply and would be directly affected 

by changes in forest management. Communities with large wood-production facilities would 

have economic ripples through all businesses supporting or supported by the wood production. 

Some small operations may be able to develop a new niche for production or find another supply 

source, and this may cause greater competition among firms searching for supply. Alternatives 

B and C demonstrate the greatest potential for increasing timber sales and positive cumulative 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 292 

economic impacts associated with the wood products industry. Therefore, Alternatives B and C 

are most likely to support existing timber mils, while Alternative A is least likely. 

Fuel treatments that reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire occurrence help to protect human 

health and safety. Since no vegetative treatments occur with Alternative A, this alternative would be 

the least effective in protecting human health and safety. In fact, the potential for a serious incident 

would increase with increased fuel loadings and fire behavior under the No Action Alternative. Fuel 

reduction work done without some revenue from product removal would cause a substantial increase 

in contracting costs. Such conditions may result in few projects, higher concerns for the WUI, and 

potential loss of other resource values from insect and fire events. Both Alternatives B and C reduce 

insect and fire hazards in the short-term. Alternative B would provide slightly fewer benefits in the 

long-term to protecting human health, well-being, and safety than Alternative C (see Fire and Fuels, 

and Vegetation sections). Vegetative projects that have not been completed or currently ongoing 

would continue to provide timber to the local mills in the foreseeable future. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus attention on the 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. 

No low-income or minority populations in the project area were identified as defined by Executive 

Order 12898. 

Civil Rights 

No civil rights effects associated with age, race, creed, color, national origin, or sex have been 

identified. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction 

of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. For further discussion of the effects on the 

resources listed below, see Chapter 3 under the respective resource topics. 

There are no irreversible commitments of resources with any of the alternatives analyzed. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources include the following: 

Soil productivity and timber productivity is lost where road construction is planned in 

Alternative C (about 250 miles). 

Air quality would be temporarily impacted (lost) to varying degrees by smoke generated from

burning hand/equipment piles and dust from road use resulting from implementation of the action 

alternatives. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 293 

Wildlife habitat loss or modification for certain wildlife species is likely under the action 

alternatives. As vegetation recovers, habitat would eventually return over various periods of 

time depending on the amount of vegetation treatment and/or disturbance. 

Noxious and invasive weeds resulting from alternative implementation could potentially have 

an irretrievable commitment of resources if allowed to persist. Infestation can impact native 

plant communities that lead to losses in wildlife habitat, soil productivity, soil erosion, forage for 

grazing, and vegetative diversity. 

Scenic conditions would be modified to varying degrees depending on the action alternative 

implemented. 

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). For further 

discussion of the effects on the resources listed below, see Chapter 3 under the respective resource 

topics. 

Actions under Alternatives B and C are implemented using design measures that protect soil 

productivity. Any decrease in long-term soil productivity resulting from actions will be negligible. 

As provided for by the Forest Plan, minimum management requirements guide implementation of the 

action alternatives. Adherence to these requirements ensures that long-term productivity of the land 

is not impaired by short-term uses. Monitoring specified in this EIS and the Forest Plan validates that 

the management requirements and mitigation are effective in protecting long-term productivity. 

 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

The following is a description of adverse effects that are unavoidable with implementation of action 

alternatives. For further discussion of the effects on the resources listed below, see Chapter 3 under 

the respective resource topics. 

Forest Insect and Disease would continue in the project area, at epidemic levels, in some areas 

and endemic levels in others. 

Wildlife habitat for certain species would be adversely affected to varying levels with 

implementation of the action alternatives. The Wildlife section of this EIS discloses those 

effects. 

Air quality would be adversely affected on a temporary/seasonal basis as a result of planned 

burning of hand/equipment piles and dust from roads and activities. 

Scenic quality would be affected adversely for some observers by the various levels of 

vegetation treatment and other actions planned. 

Fire/Fuels hazard would be increased during the short-term in some areas as a result of slash 

created from vegetation treatment. With disposal treatment this hazard will be reduced. There 

exists a higher long-term potential for large-scale wildfire under Alternative A versus the action 

alternatives. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 294 

Soils can be eroded wherever vegetation and soils are disturbed. Compaction can occur where 

vehicles and equipment are used. 

Heritage resources can be disturbed or destroyed where human or natural activities take place.
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 295 

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPY/REFERENCES 

36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 to Part 299. 

Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf. [Accessed 

January 2011]. 

Abella, S. R, W. W. Covington, P. Z. Fule, L. B. Lentile, A J. Sanches Meador, and P. Morgan. 2007. 

Past, present, and future old growth in frequent –fire conifer forests of the western United States. 

Ecology and Society 12(2): 16 [Online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art16/ 

(Accessed January 9, 2011) 

Addison, E. 1991. Rainfall/runoff relationships and modeling of changes in water yield from timber 

harvest in the Black Hills of South Dakota. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Rapid 

City SD. 103pp. Thesis 

Alberta Forests, Lands and Wildlife, Forest Service. 1986. Mountain Pine Beetle control program 

1980-1986, a success story. Edmonton AB. 

Alexander, R.R. 1987. Silvicultural Systems, Cutting Methods, and Cultural Practices for Black Hills 

Ponderosa Pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-139. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 32pp. 

Allen, Kurt A. 2010. Evaluation of Mountain Pine Beetle Activity in the Pactola Area of the Black 

Hills National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Health Management, 

Rapid City Service Center. Rapid City SD. 

Allen, Kurt A. 2011a. Evaluation of No Action Alternative across the Pine Beetle Response Project. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Health management Rapid City Service Center, 

Rapid City, SD. 

Allen, Kurt A. 2011b. Forest Service Forest Health report rcsc_4_12 for Pine Beetle Response 

Project, Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 

Allen, Kurt A. 2011c. Personal communication. Entomologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Rapid City, SD. 

September, 2011. 

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest 

Service, General Technical Report, INT-122. 22pp. US Department of Agriculture, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden UT. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 296 

Anderson, M.T. 1980. Water quality and quantity of three adjacent Black Hills watersheds. South 

Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Rapid City SD. 159pp. Thesis. 

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 35pp. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012057.pdf [Accessed January 20, 2012]. 

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment for the woodpeckers in the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 176pp. 

Available: http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012579.pdf (Accessed January 20, 

2012] 

Anderson, T. 2004a. Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri): a technical conservation assessment. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf [Accessed February 2, 2012]. 

Anderson, T. 2004b. Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa): a technical conservation assessment. 

November 4, 2004. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mysteryvertigo.pdf [Accessed February 2, 

2012]. 

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): a technical 

conservation assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf 

[Accessed January 2011]. 

Anderson, T.K. 2003b. Land Snail Survey of Wind Cave National Park, Final Report. USDI 

National Park Service, Wind Cave National Park. Contract #P1505020021. April 2003. 57pp. 

Anderson, T., R. Guralnick, and K. Weaver. 2006. Endemism and population relationships of the 

Black Hills Oreohelix snails. Final report. February 2006. 

Arcese, P., M.K. Sogge, A.B. Marr, and M.A. Patten. 2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In: 

The Birds of North America, No. 704. A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Inc. 

Philadelphia PA. 

Arno, Stephen F., Joe H. Scott, and Michael G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-Class Structure of Old Growth 

Ponderosa Pine / Douglas-Fir Stands and Its Relationship to Fire History. Research Paper INT-RP481. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden UT. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/standstructure.pdf 

Backlund, D. 2007. The American dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, in the Black Hills of South Dakota: 

Past and present. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Available at: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/dipper/index.htm [Accessed January 2011]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 297 

Baker, M.D., and M.J. Lacki. 2006. Day-roosting habitat of female long-legged myotis in ponderosa 

pine forests. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(1): 207-215. 

Baker, M.B., Jr. 1986. Effects of ponderosa pine treatments on water yield in Arizona. Water 

Resources Research, 22(1): 67-73. 

Bastias, Brigitte A., Zhihong Xu, and John W.G. Cairney. 2006. Influence of long-term repeated 

prescribed burning on mycelial communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist, 172: 149-

158. 

Battaglia, B.A., S.A. Smith, and W.D. Sheppard. 2008. Can prescribed fire be used to maintain fuel 

treatment effectiveness over time in the Black Hills ponderosa pine forests? Forest Ecology and 

Management, 256: 2029-2038. 

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring the Birds of the Black 

Hills: 2005 Field Season Report. Technical Report, M-MBBH05-01. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory. Brighton CO. 113 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114240.pdf 

Beck, J.L., and D.M. Staley. 2005. Monitoring Protocol for American Beaver (Castor canadensis): 

Examples from the Bighorn and Black Hills National Forests. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Beckner, Craig. 2007. Personal communication with Mark Vedder, RMS regarding effect of pine 

needles on forage quality and palatability for livestock use. 

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis 

canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf 

[Accessed February 2, 2012]. 

Belica, L.T., and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical 

conservation assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf 

Belsky, A. Joy, and Dana M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics 

and Soils in the Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, 11(2): 315-327. 

Benzon, T.A., and R. Halseth. 1999. Reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Black 

Hills, South Dakota, 1986–1994. Completion Report No. 99-12. South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD. July 1999. 

Black, S.H., D. Kulakowski, B.R. Noon, and D. DellaSala. 2010. Insects and Roadless Forests: A 

Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives. National Center for 

Conservation Science and Policy. Ashland OR. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 298 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association & South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources. 2005. 2004 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation of South 

Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Rapid City & Pierre, SD. 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association, South Dakota Department of Agriculture – Division of 

Resource Conservation & Forestry and Lawrence County Conservation District. 2009. 2009 Field 

Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation of South Dakota Forestry Best 

Management Practices. Rapid City, Pierre and Spearfish, SD. 

Blakesly, J.A., G. Girior, and C. White. 2008. Population densities and trend detection of avian 

species on the Black Hills National Forest. Technical Report, M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory. Brighton CO. 45pp. 

Blue Valley Ranch. 2011. Blue Valley Ranch, Conservation for wildlife and agricultural on line Blue 

Valley Ranch, Kremmling, Grand County CO. Available at: 

http://bluevalleyranch.com/explore_aspen.php 

Boldt, Charles E., and James L. Van Deusen. 1974. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the Black Hills: 

the status of our knowledge. Research Paper, RM-124.: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 45pp. 

Bonnot, T.W., J.J. Millspaugh, and M.A. Rumble. 2009. Multi-scale nest-site selection by blackbacked woodpeckers in outbreaks of mountain pine beetles. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(2): 

220-228. 

Boyle, S., and S. Owens. 2007. North American Beaver (Castor canadensis): a technical 

conservation assessment. February 6, 2007. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanbeaver.pdf [Accessed February 2, 

2012]. 

Breece, C.R., T.E. Kolb, B.G. Dickson, J.D. McMillan, and K.M. Clancy. 2008. Prescribed fire 

effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 255: 119-128. 

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2002. Predicting the Visual Impacts of Retention 

Cutting, Forest Practices Branch. Victoria BC. Available at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rec035.htm 

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2006. The Public Response to Harvest Practices in 

British Columbia at the Landscape and Stand Level, Forest Practices Branch. Victoria BC. Available 

at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rec/Rec038.pdf 

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. 2010. Visual impact of mountain pine beetle attack 

and resulting salvage operations in British Columbia: a public perception study. Forest Practices 

Branch. Victoria BC. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Mr/Rec/Rec041.pdf 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 299 

Brooks, K.N., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and L.F. DeBano. 1997. Hydrology and the 

Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press. Ames IA. Pages 338-339. 

Brown, J. 2010. Personal communication. Regarding the presence of Chytrid in swab samples taken 

from the Black Hills National Forest. Graduate Student, University of South Dakota, Biology 

Department. Vermillion SD. 

Brown, Peter M. 2001. Landscape Age Structure of Ponderosa Pine Stands, Limestone Plateau, Black 

Hills National Forest: Final Report. Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. CCS-11020399-23 between 

Rocky Mountain Tree Ring Research, Inc. and Black Hills National Forest, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service. Available at: 

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/firehistory/firescar/northamerica/supplemental/bh_age_finalrep

ort_text.pdf 

Brown, Peter M. 2006. Climate Effects on Fire Regimes and Tree Recruitment in Black Hills 

Ponderosa Pine Forests. Ecology, 87(10): 2500-2510. 

Brown, Peter M., and Blaine Cook. 2006. Early settlement forest structure in Black Hills ponderosa 

pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 223:1-31-3, 284-290, Elsevier, 2006. 

Brown, Peter M., and Carolyn Hull Sieg. 1996. Fire History in the Interior Ponderosa Pine 

Communities of the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 6(3): 97-

105, USA. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_fileandfile_id=WF9960097.pdf 

Brown, Peter M., and Carolyn Hull Sieg. 1999. Historical variability in fire at the ponderosa pine – 

northern Great Plains prairie ecotone, southeastern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ecoscience, 6(4): 539-

547 

Brown, Peter M., Cody L. Wienk and Amy J. Symstad. 2008. Fire and Forest History at Mount

Rushmore. Ecological Applications, 18(8): 1984-1999. 

Brown, Thomas C., and Terry C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting Scenic Beauty of Timber Stands. Forest 

Science, 32(2): 471-487. Available at: http://gis.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/scenic-beauty-prediction.pdf 

Bull, E., and B.C. Wales. 2001. Effects of disturbance on birds of conservation concern in eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, 75(Special Issue): 166-173. 

Bunkers, M.J. 2007. Personal communication, December 10, 2007. NOAA, National Weather 

Service. Rapid City SD. 

Burns, K., and B. Cook. 2006. Forest Plan implementation clarification on goshawk management. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Buseck, R.S., D.A. Keinath, and E. Everett. 2005. Species assessment for the black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) in Wyoming. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming 

State Office. Cheyenne WY. 62pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 300 

Buskirk, S.W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 51pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012366.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and Conservation. (S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, 

compilers and editors.) Cornell University Press. Ithaca NY. pp. 283–296. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Chapter 2: American Marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F,: K.B.:

Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L .J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, technical editors. The scientific basis for 

conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United 

States. General Technical Report, RM-254. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. p. 7-37. 

Busse, M.D. 2006. USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station. Personal email communication to 

Jessica Gould regarding minimum soil and duff moisture levels to prevent detrimental soil heating 

during prescribed burning. October 2006. 2p. 

Busse, Matt D., Steven A. Simon, and Gregg M. Riegel. 2000. Tree-Growth and Understory 

Reponses to Low-Severity Prescribed Burning in Thinned Pinus Ponderosa Forests of Central Oregon. 

Forest Science, 46(2): 258-268. 

Butler, Robert W. 1992. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/025 [Accessed January 27, 2011]. 

Canada. 2007. Mountain Pine Beetle Management Strategy (December 2007). ISBN No.978-0-

7785-6545-1 Pub No. T/154 Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 

Canadian Forest Service and British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1996. Clear Cutting and Visual 

Quality - A Public Perception Study, Forest Resource Development Agreement II Report. Victoria 

BC. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Frr/Frr270.htm 

Canadian Ministry of Forests with USDA Forest Service. Land Management Handbook, ISSN 0229-

1622:18. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests. Victoria BC. 220pp. 

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, J.E. Williamson and V.A. Lindquist. 2002. Atlas of Water Resources in 

the Black Hills Area, South Dakota. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-747. US Geological Survey. 

Reston VA. Available at: http://www.fws.gove/mountainpraire/species/mammals/preble/peer/USGSZapusInformationReview.pdf.

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, and J.F. Sawyer. 2003. Ground-Water Resources in the Black Hills Area, 

South Dakota. Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4049. US Geological Survey. Rapid City SD. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 301 

Carter, U.S. President Jimmy. 1977a. Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html 

Carter, U.S. President Jimmy. 1977b. Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11990.html 

Chatwin, S.C., D.E. Howes, J.W. Schwab, and D.N. Swanston. 1994. A Guide for Management of 

the Landslide-Prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest. Second Edition. 

Cline, R.G., H.F. Haupt, and G.S. Campbell. 1977. Potential water yield response following clear-cut 

harvesting on north and south slopes in northern Idaho. Research Paper, INT-191. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden UT. 16 p. 

Collins, C.P., and T.D. Reynolds. 2005. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf [Accessed January 2010]. 

Colorado State University Extension Office. 2008. Canada thistle facts sheet. Revised 2008. 

http://search.colostate.edu/searchcsu.aspx?cx=001074770120494240330%3Annxeddf6qe0&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=seed+

viability+canada+thistle#1184 

Cook, Blaine. 2006. Personal communication. Forest Silviculturist. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. December 2006. 

Cook, Blaine, and Kurt Allen. 2008. Black Hills National Forest – Timber Harvesting Effects on the 

Mountain Pine Beetle. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer SD. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington DC. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC1998). 

Crookston, Nicholas L. 1990. User’s guide to the event monitor: part of Prognosis Model version 6. 

General Technical Report, INT-275. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. Ogden UT. 21pp. 

Cryan, P.M. 2004. Synthesis of existing information on meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in 

the northern Great Plains. Information Review Compiled for the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 6. Denver CO. 27pp. 

Cryan, Paul, Michael Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting Habits of Four Bat Species in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica, 3:43-52. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 302 

Cryan, P.M., and L.E. Ellison. 2005. Distributional survey of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius) in the northern Great Plains: Trapping Report, summer 2005. Administrative report 

compiled for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6. Denver CO. 

CWMA. 2002. Troublesome Weeds of the Rocky Mountain West. Colorado Weed Management 

Association. 7th edition. Granby CO. 

DeBano, L.F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a 

review. Journal of Hydrology, 231-232: 195-206. 

DeBano, L.F., and J.S. Krammes. 1966. Water Repellent Soils and Their Relation to Wildfire 

Temperature. Bulletin of the International Association of Scientific Hydrology, 11(2): 14-19. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and 

Sons. New York NY. 333pp. 

DeBlander, L.T. 2002. Forest resources of the Black Hills National Forest. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden Utah. 13pp. 

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D.H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, M.P. Nenneman, and B.R. 

Euliss. 1992 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds; Grasshopper 

Sparrow. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown ND. 28pp. 

DeKeyser, S. et. al. 2009. Are Changes in Species Composition on Central North Dakota Rangelands 

Due to Non-Use Management? Rangelands, 31(6): 16-19. 

DePerno, C.S., J.A. Jenks, S.L. Griffin, L.A. Rice, and K.F. Higgins. 2002. White-tailed Deer 

Habitats in the Central Black Hills. Journal of Range Management, 55(May): 242-252. 

Dewitt E., A. Redden, A.B. Wilson, D. Busher, and J.S. Dersch. 1986. US Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1580, Mineral Resource Potential and Geology of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming. Washington DC. 

Diaz, Nancy, and Dean Apostol. 1993. Forest Landscape Analysis and Design. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Dixon, Gary E. 2003. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal 

Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. Fort 

Collins CO. 193p. 

Doran, J.W., and T.B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and Assessing Soil Quality. In J.W. Doran et al 

(Editors), Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. SSSA Spec. Pub. 35. SSSA. Madison 

WI. 

Drilling, Nancy E. 2010. 2009 Black Hills Owl Surveys. Technical Report, M-SDBBA2-03. Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton CO. 13pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 303 

Driscoll, Daniel G., J.M. Carter, and D.O. Ohlen. 2004. Hydrologic effects of the 1988 Galena Fire, 

Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-

4323, 67pp. Available at : http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034323/#pdf 

Driscoll, Daniel G., J.M. Carter, J.E. Williamson, and L.D. Putnam. 2002. Hydrology of the Black 

Hills Area, South Dakota. Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4094. USDI, US Geological 

Survey. 150pp. Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024094 

Driscoll, Daniel G., Ghaith R. Hamade, and Scott J. Kenner. 2000. Summary of Precipitation Data 

for the Black Hills Area of South Dakota, Water Years 1931-98. Open–File Report 00-329. USDI, 

US Geological Survey. 151pp. 

Duckwitz, Jeremy J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Master’s Thesis, 

Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. South Dakota State University. Brookings SD. 

Dymerski, A. 2012. Aerial Detection Survey Results for the Black Hills, 2011. Report No. 

RCSC_8_12_blkh_ads_2011. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Forest Health Management. Rapid City SD. January 20, 2011. 

EPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry. 

EPA Office of Water Report EPA-841-B-05-001. Washington DC. 

EPA. 2008a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Clean Water Act. Available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa/cfm?program_is=45 

EPA. 2008b. Wetlands. Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html 

EPA. 2008c. Wetlands. Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order 11990. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11990.html 

EPA. 2009. What is a Watershed? Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm 

EPA. 2010. Floodplain Management. Executive Order No. 11988. Available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/eo11988.cfm [Accessed 3 February 2012]. 

EPA. 2011a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Clean Water Act. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html 

EPA. 2011b. Our Waters. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type 

EPA. 2012a. Laws and Regulations. Clean Water Act. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html [Accessed February 2012]. 

EPA. 2012b. Pollution Prevention. Best Management Practices. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 304 

www.epa.gov/ebtpages/pollbestmanagementpractices.html [Accessed 1 February 2012]. 

EPA. 2012c. Wetlands. Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order No. 11990. 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/eo11990.cfm [Accessed 3 February 2012]. 

Erikson and White 2008 

Evans, M., and J. Warburton. 2007. Geomorphology of Upland Peat: Erosion, Form, and landscape 

Change. Blackwell Publishing. Malden MA. 288pp. 

Everett, A.M. 2004. 2004 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation of South 

Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Black Hills National Forest Resource Association. 

Rapid City SD. 33pp. 

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003-2009. Survey results for small forest owls, the northern 

goshawk, and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Reports prepared for South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 

Feck, J., and R.O. Hall Jr. 2004. Response of American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) to variation in 

stream water quality. Freshwater Biology, 49: 1123-1137. 

Fecske, D.M. 2003. Distribution and abundance of American martens and cougars in the Black Hills 

of South Dakota and Wyoming. Dissertation: Doctor of Philosophy, South Dakota State University. 

170pp. 

Fecske, D.M., J.A. Jenks, C. Kopplin, and T.L. Serfass. 2003. A landscape analysis for American 

martens (Martes americana) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Draft publication dated October 10, 

2003. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1998. National Flood Insurance Program, Q3 

Flood Data. GIS data on CD-ROM for South Dakota. Available at http://www.fema.gov 

Federal Registry, Vol. 66, No.3, Thursday, January 4, 2001, Notices. 

Fellows, S.D., and S.L. Jones. 2009. Status assessment and conservation action plan for the longbilled curlew (Numenius americanus). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical 

Publication, FWS/BTP-R6012-2009. Washington DC. 98pp. 

 

Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron, and J.T. Nowak. 

2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle 

infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 238: 24-53. 

Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the 

Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report, RM-215. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver CO. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 305 

Finch, D.M., J.L. Ganey, W. Yong, R.T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and interactions

of fire, logging, and grazing. General Technical Report, RM-GTR-292. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pp. 103-136. 

Fischer, T.D., D.C. Backlund, K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. A field guide to South Dakota 

Amphibians. South Dakota State University. Brookings SD. SDAES Bull. 

Ford, R.C. 1988. Black Hills Stream Inventory and Classification 1984 and 1985. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Report No. 88-1. 

Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell, III. 1985. Black footed-ferret habitat: 

Some management and reintroduction considerations. Technical Bulletin No. 2. Wyoming Bureau of 

Land Management, Wildlife. 

Foster, G.R. 1982. Modeling the erosion process. In: Haan, C.T., H.P. Johnson, and D.L. Brakensiek 

(editors), Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds. Chapter Eight. American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers. Saint Joseph MI. 

Frest, T.J., and E.J. Johannes. 1993. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming. Unpublished. Report prepared for US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 2002. Land Snail Survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming, Summary Report, 1991-2001. Final Report Contract # 43-67TO-8-1085. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 127pp. plus 

appendices. 

Frid, A., and L.M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology, 6(1):11. 16pp. 

Gary, H.L. 1975. Watershed management problems and opportunities for the Colorado Front Range

ponderosa pine zone: The Status of our Knowledge. Research Paper, RM-139. US Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 

32pp. 

Gauch, Hugh G., and Cecil H. Wadleigh. 1944. Effects of High Salt Concentrations on Growth of 

Bean Plants. Botanical Gazette, 105(3): 379-387. 

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Pygmy Nuthatch in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. kAvailable at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012475.pdf [Accessed February 2, 2012]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 306 

Ghalambor, C.K., and R.C. Dobbs. 2006. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea): a technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmynuthatch.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Giroir, G., C. White, and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: 2007 Field 

Season Report. Technical Report, M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton CO. 

8+1 pp. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114242.pdf 

[Accessed February 13, 2012]. 

Godwin, D.C, and J.R. Miner. 1996. The Potential of Off-Stream Livestock Watering to Reduce 

Water Quality Impacts. Bioresource Technology, 58(3):285-290. 

Goodrich, Betsy A., Ronda D. Koski, and William R. Jacobi. 2008. Roadside Vegetation Health 

Condition and Magnesium Chloride (MgCl2) Dust Suppressant Use in Two Colorado, US Counties. 

Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 34(4): 252-259.

Goodrich, Betsy A., Ronda D. Koski, and William R. Jacobi. 2009. Condition of Soils and 

Vegetation Along Roads Treated with Magnesium Chloride for Dust Suppression. Water, Air, and 

Pollution, 198: 165-188. 

Gould, J.J. 2003. Hydrologic Modeling of High-Intensity, Short-Duration Rainfall on Burned 

Ponderosa Pine Forested Watersheds Existing in Highly Permeable Geology within the Black Hills of 

South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. Rapid City SD. 121pp. 

Gove, Philip B. 1966. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, 

Unabridged. G. & C. Merriam Company. Springfield MA. 

Grafe, Ernest, and Paul Horsted. 2002. Exploring With Custer: The 1874 Black Hills Expedition. 

Golden Valley Press – Dakota Photographic, LLC. Custer SD. 285pp. 

Graham, Russell T., and Theresa B. Jain. 2005a. Application of free selection in mixed forests of the 

inland northwestern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 209:131-145. 

Graham, Russell T., and Theresa B. Jain. 2005b. Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems. General Technical 

Report, PSW-GTR-198. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32pp. 

Graham, Russell T., Alan E. Harvey, Theresa B. Jain, and Jonalea R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of

Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. General Technical 

Report, PNW-GTR-463. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. Portland OR. 27pp. 

Graham, Russell T., Alan E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, Theresa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn, and D.S. 

Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. INT-RP477. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Odgen UT. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 307 

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, and Theresa B. Jain, technical editors. 2004 Science Basis for 

Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. General Technical Report, 

RMRS-GTR-120. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Fort Collins CO. 43pp. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr120.pdf 

Graves, Henry S. 1899. The Black Hills Forest Reserve. In: The nineteenth annual report of the 

survey, 1897-1998. Part V. Forest Reserves. United States Geological Survey. Washington DC. 

Griebel, R., K. Burns, and S. Deisch. 2007. Focus species. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 54pp Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114246.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Griffin, S.L., L.A. Rice, C.S. DePerno and J.A. Jenks. 1999. Seasonal Movements and Home Ranges

of White-tailed Deer in the Central Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, 1993-1997. Completion 

Report No. 99-03. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 61pp. 

Grimm, E.C. 2000. Paleoenvironmental Data from Iron Bogs in the Black Hills of South Dakota: 

Ironclad Evidence for Environmental Change. Poster Presentation. American Quaternary Association 

Meeting, May 22-24, 2000. University of Arkansas. Fayetteville AR. 

Griscom, H., D. Keinath, and J. Handley. 2008. Five year study of factors affecting jumping mice 

(Zapus) on the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, USA. Five Year Project Report: 2008. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie WY. 

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a 

technical conservation assessment. October 25, 2006. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf [Accessed 

February 2, 2012]. 

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brooks. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of 

Scientific Information. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Haldeman, J.R. 1980. Non-game Bird Habitat Relationships in the Black Hills National Forest. Final 

Report to the Black Hills National Forest, RQ R2-79-269. 233pp. 

Hall, J., H.J. Marriott, and J.K. Perot. 2002. Ecoregional Conservation in the Black Hills. The Nature 

Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center, Midwestern Resource Office. Minneapolis MN. 

Hann, Wendel, Doug Havlina, Ayn Shlisky, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy 

fire regime condition class website. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, US Department of 

the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management. Available at: 

http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=309&&PageID=1397&mode=2&in_hi_useri

d=2&cached=true 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 308 

Hansen, C., J. Millspaugh, and M.A. Rumble. 2008. Factors affecting the probability of detecting 

ruffed grouse in the Black Hills National Forest. Progress Report One. January 24, 2008. Forest 

Service Agreement Number: 05-JV-11221609-239. 

Harper, Kristine L. 2010. A Level III Cultural Resource Survey of the Pactola Analysis Area, 

R2008020300056, in Pennington and Lawrence Counties, South Dakota. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District, Rapid City SD. 

Manuscript on file at the Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 

Haskins, Kristin E., and Catherine A. Gehring. 2004. Long-term effects of burning slash on plant 

communities and arbuscular mycorrhizae in a semi-arid woodland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41: 

379-388. 

Hayward, G.D., C.H. Flather, E. Uloth, H.D. Safford, and D.A. Cleaves. 2009. Managing fish and 

wildlife habitat in the face of climate change: USDA Forest Service perspective. Transaction of the 

74th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife Management Institute 

Publications Department March 16-19, 2009. p. 98-109. 

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, Technical Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in 

the United States: A technical conservations assessment. General Technical Report, RM-253, US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Fort Collins CO. 

Heidel, B. 2007. Wyoming Plant Species of Concern. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

(WYNDD). University of Wyoming. Laramie WY. 

Higgins, K.E., E. Dowd Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild Mammals of South 

Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 278pp. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC). 2008. Available at: 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/data/historical/index.php?state=sd&action=select_state&submit=Select+Stat

e [Accessed November 11, 2008]. 

Hoeft, D. 1985. Soil Map Descriptions and Interpretations Notebook. 

Hoeft, D. 1988a. Black Hills National Forest Ecological Land Units Study. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 68pp, plus Appendices. 

Hoeft, D. 1988b. Land Classification System and Soils Information, Black Hills National Forest. 

Hoffman, George R., and Robert R. Alexander. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National 

Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Research Paper, RM-276. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Fort Collins CO. 48pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 309 

Hopkins, A.D. 1905. The Black Hills Beetle. US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, 

Bulletin No. 56, p.13. 

Horsted, Paul. 2006. The Black Hills: Yesterday & Today. Golden Valley Press. Custer SD. 304pp. 

Hough, M. 2008. Research techniques, habitat use, and ecology of northern flying squirrels, and 

research techniques and distribution of red squirrels in the Black Hills National Forest and 

Northeastern South Dakota. Master of Science Thesis, South Dakota State University. 132pp. 

Hoxie, J. and Engelskirger, C. 2009. 2009 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and 

Evaluation of South Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Black Hills Forest Resource 

Association, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Lawrence County 

Conservation District. Rapid City SD. 18pp. 

Hubbard, J.E. 2012. Letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director. 

2150. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Interim Guidance. USDA Forest Service. 

Washington Office. Washington DC. 

Hungerford, R.D., W.H. Frandsen, and K.C. Ryan. 1992. Heat Transfer into the Duff and Organic 

Soil. Final Project Report. FWS Agreement No. 14-48-0009-92-962. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Missoula MT. 52pp. 

Hunter, M.E., W.D. Shepperd, J.E. Lentile, J.E. Lundquist, M.G. Andreu, J.L. Butler, and F.W. Smith. 

2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, 

Colorado Front Range, and Southwest. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-198. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins CO. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr198.pdf 

Hurley, K. 2004. North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council Position Statement on Helicoptersupported recreation and mountain goats. Biennial Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat 

Council, 14:131-136. 

Hutto, R.L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: Some like it hot. Ecological 

Applications, 18:1827–1834. 

Hutton, K., J. Beason, G. Giroir, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the Black 

Hills: 2006 Field Season Report. Technical Report, M-MBBH06-01. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory. Brighton CO. 71pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114241.pdf 

Huxoll, C. 2010. Big game harvest projections, 2009 annual report. South Dakota Game Report No. 

2010-01. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. Available at: 

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/harvest/default.aspx [Accessed January 2011]. 

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, mountain 

sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 310 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf and 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012156.pdf 

Jackson, Robert J. 1988. Prescribed Fire and the Protection of Heritage Resources. A Heritage 

Resources Management Module Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. Manuscript on file at the Black Hills National Forest, Custer 

SD. 

Johnson, A.S., and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Western burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Custer SD. 24 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012149.pdf [Accessed February 8, 2012]. 

Johnson, A.S., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Saw-whet Owl 

in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. May 2003. 27pp. 

Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012447.pdf [Accessed 

January, 2011]. 

Kanta, J. 2009. Personal communication. Regarding bighorn sheep use in the central Black Hills. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Rapid City SD. 

Kanta, J. 2011. Personal communication. E-mail regarding management of bighorn sheep in the 

Pactola Project Area. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Rapid City SD. 

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. 

October 29, 2004. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf [Accessed February 2, 2012]. 

Kennedy, J.F. 1992. Habitat Selection by Female White-tailed Deer in the Northern Black Hills, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. Master’s thesis. South Dakota State University. Brookings SD. 

Kennedy. P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): A technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/Region 2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf [Accessed February 9, 

2012]. 

Kennedy, R. 1997. Road Maintenance Frequency versus Sediment Production. Region 4. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson WY. 

Keyser, T., F. Smith, and L. Lentile. 2006. Monitoring fire effects and vegetation recover on the 

Jasper Fire, Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota. Final Report, in-service agreement #0203-01-

007. Colorado State University. Fort Collins CO. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 311 

Kilgore, Bruce M., and George A. Curtis. 1987. Guide to Understory Burning in Ponderosa PineLarch-Fir Forests in the Intermountain West. General Technical Report, INT-233. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden UT. 

King, J.G., and L.C. Tennyson. 1984. Alteration of Streamflow Characteristics Following Road 

Construction in North Central Idaho. Water Resources Research, 20(8): 1159-1163. 

King, T.L., J.F. Swuitzer, C.L. Morrison, M.S. Eackles, C.C. Young, B.A. Lubinski and P.M. Cryan. 

2006. Comprehensive genetic analysis reveal evolutionary distinction of a mouse (Zapus hudsonius 

preblei) proposed for delisting from the US Endangered Species Act. Molecular Ecology, 15: 4331-

4359. 

Klenner, W., and A. Arsenault. 2009. Ponderosa pine mortality during a severe bark beetle 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) outbreak in southern British Columbia and implications for 

wildlife habitat management. Forest Ecology and Management, 2585: S5-S14. 

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. 

Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the 

United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-

2003. Washington DC. 

Knapp, Eric E., Dylan W. Schwilk, Jeffrey M. Kane, and Jon E. Keeley. 2007. Role of burning 

season on initial understory vegetation response to prescribed fire in a mixed conifer forest. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research, 37:11-22. 

Knight, R. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreations. In: Wildlife 

and Recreationist, coexistence through management and research. Edited by R.J. 

Knight and K.J. Gutswiller. Island Press. 371p. 

Knowles, C.J., and P.R. Knowles. 2009. Nesting ecology of the northern goshawk in the Black Hills 

of South Dakota. Report for the 2009 nesting season. Prepared for the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks Department. Pierre SD. 40pp. 

Kocis, Susan M., Donald B.K. English, Stanley J. Zarnoch, Ross Arnold, Larry Warren, and Catherine 

Ruka. 2004. Black Hills National Forest. In: National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station (Producer). Internet Accessed 

[May 2005] at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year4/R2_F3_blackhills_final.htm 

Kornfeld, Marcel, George C. Frison, and Mary Lou Larson. 2010. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the 

High Plains and Rockies (3rd edition). Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek CA. 

Kotliar, N.B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) a technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 312 

Kricher, J.C. 1995. Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 

540. A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia PA. 

Krueger, E.M. 2004. Distribution and habitat associations of the northern flying squirrel in the 

northern Black Hills of South Dakota. Self-published. Filed in Black Hills National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office (Forest Biologist’s files), Custer SD. 

Land Status Atlas, corner cards and Utility Atlas for the Pactola Planning Area. 

Lang, J.W. 1969. Hibernation and movements of Storeria occipitomaculata in northern Minnesota. 

Journal of Herpetology, 3:196-197. 

Larson, G.E., and J.R. Johnson. 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge 

Mountains. August 1999. South Dakota State University. 

Brookings SD. 

Lawrence County. 2009. Lawrence County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Lawrence County 

SD. 

Leaf, C.F. 1975. Watershed management in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains: A summary 

of the status of our knowledge by vegetation types. Research Paper, RM-142. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 

28pp. 

Lee, W.K., and A.M. Everett. 2001. South Dakota Silviculture Best Management Practices Audit 

Project Final Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation. Black Hills Forest Resource 

Association and South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Rapid City SD. 

48pp. 

Lentile, Leigh B., Zachary A. Holden, Alistair M.S. Smith, Michael J. Falkowski, Andrew T. Hudak, 

Penelope Morgan, Sarah A. Lewis, Paul E. Gessler, and Nate C. Benson. 2006. Remote sensing 

techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire, 15: 319-345. 

Lentile, Leigh B., F.W. Smith, and W.D. Sheppard. 2000a. Snag Management in the Black Hills

National Forest. Unpublished Research Paper. Colorado State University and Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Fort Collins CO. 

Lentile, Leigh B., F.W. Smith, and W. Shepperd. 2000b. Snag populations of the Black Hills 

National Forest. Final Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Black Hills National 

Forest. Custer SD. 

Lentile, Leigh B., F.W. Smith, and W.D. Sheppard. 2006. Influence of topography and forest 

structure on patterns of mixed severity fire in ponderosa pine forests of the South Dakota Black Hills, 

USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 15: 557-566. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 313 

Libohova, Z. 2004. Effects of thinning and a wildfire on sediment production rates, channel 

morphology, and water quality in the Upper South Platte River watershed. Master of Science Thesis. 

Spring 2004. Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship. Colorado State

University. Fort Collins CO. 

Litton, R. Burton, Jr. 1984. Visual Vulnerability of the Landscape Control of Visual Quality. 

Research Paper, WO-39. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Research Station. Berkley CA. Available at: 

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02973094s;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=3;n

um=3 

Long, J.N., and F.W. Smith. 2000. Restructuring the forest – goshawks and the restoration of 

southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry, 98(8): 25-30. 

Lovett, Kristie. 2010. The American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) in the Black Hills of South Dakota. 

Final report to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 56p. 

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L. Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, 

Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, 

Biological Services Section. Lander WY. November 1999. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Oregon. Water

Resources Research, 35(8): 2561-2570. 

Mahlum, S.K., L.A. Eby, M.K. Young, C.G. Clancy, and M. Jakober. 2011. Effects of wildfire on 

stream temperatures in the Bitterroot River Basin, Montana. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 

20: 240–247. 

Marc, Jaques. n.d. Predicting the Visual Impacts of Retention Cutting. British Columbia Ministry of 

Forests, Abstract of REC035, 2003. Internet Accessed [June 2006] at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/fordev/visual_resource_mgnt.htm#publications 

Marc, Jacques. 1996. Clear-cutting and Visual Quality – A Public Perception Study. British 

Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Published 1996. Internet Accessed [June 

2006] at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/fordev/visual_resource_mgnt.htm#publications 

Marc, Jaques. 2004. Public Opinion - What Do People Like? British Columbia Ministry of Forests - 

Forest Practices Branch. Victoria BC. Available at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DKL/external/!publish/Forest_Development_Info/General_FSPandFDP_

info/Exit%20Presentations/Visuals/Marc02.pdf 

Marriott, Hollis J. 2000. Survey of Black Hills montane grasslands. Report to the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 56pp. 

Marriott, Hollis J., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAdams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. 1999. Black 

Hills community inventory: Final report. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science 

Center, Midwestern Resource Office. Minneapolis MN. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 314 

Marriott, Hollis J. and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2000. The Black Hills community inventory; Vol. 2: 

Plant Community Descriptions. The Nature Conservatory. Midwest Conservation Science Center and 

Association for Biodiversity Information. Midwestern Resource Office, Minneapolis MN. 326pp. 

Marrone, G.M. 2002. Field Guide to the Butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of

Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 478pp. 

Marrone, G.M. 2005. A butterfly survey of the southern Black Hills and adjacent areas with emphasis 

on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report submitted to South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Fort Pierre SD. 

Marrone, G.M. 2006. A butterfly survey of the northern Black Hills and adjacent areas with emphasis 

on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report submitted to South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Fort Pierre SD. 

Marrone, G.M. 2007. Monitoring Surveys for the Dakota Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis pahasapa) in 

the Black Hills of South Dakota. Report submitted to South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks. Fort Pierre SD. 

Martin, J.E, et al. 2004. Geologic Map of South Dakota, General Map 10. South Dakota Department

of Environment and Natural Resources, Geological Survey. 

McCaffery, K.R., J.E. Ashbrener, W.A. Creed and B.E. Kohn. 1997. The Aspen-Ruffed Grouse 

Connection. Journal of Forestry, August: 16-20. 

McCambridge, W.F., and R.E. Stevens. 1982. Effectiveness of Thinning Ponderosa Pine Stands in 

reducing Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Tree Losses in the Black Hills. Preliminary Observations. 

Research Note, RM-414. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

McCambridge, W.F., et al. 1982. Ponderosa Pine Mortality Resulting from a Mountain Pine Beetle 

Outbreak. Research Paper, RM-235. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia): a 

technical conservation assessment. September 14, 2004. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf [Accessed February 2, 2012]. 

McDonald, Phillip M., and R. Burton Litton, Jr. 1998. Combining Silviculture and Landscape 

Architecture to Enhance the Roadside View. Research Paper, PSW-RP-235. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Pactola West Research Station. Albany CA. 

McDowell, B. 2004. E-mail message dated April 1, 2004 from Bob McDowell, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department regarding finescale dace information on the Black Hills of Wyoming. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 315 

McIntosh, A.C. 1931. A botanical survey of the Black Hills of South Dakota. Black Hills Engineer, 

12: 159-276. 

Meehan, W.R., editor. 1994. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes

and Their Habitats. AFS Special Publication 19. Bethesda MD. 

Megahan, W.F. 1986. Recent studies on erosion and its control on forest lands in the United States. 

In: Richard, F., editor. Range basin sediment delivery: Proceedings, 1986, August. Albuquerque NM. 

IAHS Publication 159, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom: 178-189. 

Megahan, W.F. and J. Hornbeck. 2000. Lessons learned in watershed management: a retrospective 

view. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Proceedings RMRS-P-13.2000. 

Mehl, S.M. 1992. Growth descriptions for the major cover types in the Rocky Mountain region. 

General Technical Report, RM-213. In: Old-growth forests in the Southwest & Rocky Mountain 

Regions, Proceedings of a Workshop. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 106pp. 

Merwin, D.S. 2000. Comparing levels and factors of lambing mortality between two herds of Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Masters Thesis. University of Washington. 

Seattle WA. 125pp. 

Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundidge, R.A. Gitzen, and K.J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and Hunter space-use 

sharing in South Dakota. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(4): 994-1003. 

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. 4th edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken 

NJ. 582pp. 

Mohren, Sean R. 2002. Habitat Evaluation and Density Estimates for the Black-backed Woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) and Northern Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills 

National Forest. Masters Thesis. University of Wyoming. Laramie WY. 

Mohren, S., and S. Anderson. 2000. Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides articus) and three-toed 

woodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills National Forest of Wyoming and South Dakota: 

Annual report for 2000 summer field season. Unpublished Report prepared for the Black Hills 

National Forest. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming. 

Laramie WY. 

Molinar, F., D. Galt, and J. Holechek. 2001. Managing For Mulch. Rangelands, 23(4): 3-7. 

Moore, L., S. Friedley, and D.L. Hazlett. 2006. Carex alopecoidea Tuckerman (foxtail sedge): a 

technical conservation assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/carexalopecoidea.pdf. 

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe. Arlington VA. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org [Accessed: November 2011]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 316 

NWCG. 1998. Fireline Handbook. National Wildfire Coordinating Group Handbook 3, PMS 410-1. 

Neary, Daniel G., Carole C. Klopatek, Leonard F. DeBano, and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects 

on below ground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 122: 51-71. 

Neary, Daniel G., Kevin C. Ryan, Leonard F. DeBano, editors. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on soils and water. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-42-vol4. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden UT. 250pp. 

Negron, J.F., K. Allen, B. Cook, and J.R. Withrow Jr. 2008. Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus 

ponderosa (Dougl. Ex Laws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in 

uneven-aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 254: 327-334. 

Newport, Carl A. 1956. A History of Black Hills Forestry. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. Pierre SD. 112pp. 

Nicholoff, S.H., Compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming Partners 

In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Lander WY. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/WY/menu.htm (Accessed February 4, 2012). 

Olson, R., and W.A. Hubert. 1994. Beaver: Water Resources and Riparian Habitat Manager. 

University of Wyoming. Laramie WY. 

Omi, P.N., Martinson, E.J., Chong, G.W. 2007. Tested by Fire: What Happens When Wildfires Meet

Fuel Treatments. Joint Fire Science Program. Fire Science Brief. Issue 1, October, 2007. Available 

at: www.firescience.gov 

Opler, P.A., K. Lotts, and T. Naberhaus, Coordinators. 2010. Butterflies and Moths of North 

America. Bozeman MT: Big Sky Institute. Available at: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org 

[Accessed January 2011]. 

Oregon State University and Sea Grant Extension. 2003. Watershed Stewardship Education Program 

Training Guide. Watershed Definition. Available at: http://www.co.yamhill.or.us/ybc/defnWS.htm 

Orr, H.K. 1968. Soil-moisture trends after thinning and clearcutting in a second-growth ponderosa 

pine stand in the Black Hills. Research Note, RM-99. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 8pp. 

Orr, H.K. 1972. Throughfall and stemflow relationships in second-growth ponderosa pine in the 

Black Hills. Research Note RM-210. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 7pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 317 

Orr, H.K. 1975. Watershed management in the Black Hills: The status of our knowledge. Research 

Paper, RM-141. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 12pp. 

Orr, H.K., and T. VanderHeide. 1973. Water yield characteristics of three small watersheds in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Research Paper, RM-100. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 8pp. 

Panjabi, A. 2001. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 1 Final Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Fort Collins CO. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml 

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 2 Final Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Brighton CO. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml 

Panjabi, A. 2004. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 3 Annual Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Brighton CO. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml 

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 4 Annual Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Brighton CO. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml 

Parrish, J.B., D.J. Herman, D.J. Reyher, and Black Hills National Forest. 1996. A Century of Change 

in the Black Hills Forest and Riparian Ecosystems. B 722. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service Agricultural Experiment Station, South Dakota State University. Brookings SD. 13pp. 

Parson, A., P.R. Robichaud, S.A. Lewis, C. Napper, and J.T. Clark. 2010. Field guide for mapping 

post-fire soil burn severity. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-243. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins CO. 49pp. 

Pearson, G.A. 1951. A comparison of the climate in four ponderosa pine regions. Journal of Forestry, 

49: 256-258. 

Pechota, Todd. 2012. Fires and Fuels Report for the Pine Beetle Response Project. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Pennington County. 2006. Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 2006. 

Pennington County SD. 

Permit 2230 Files. Located at the Mystic Ranger District Office. 

Peterson, C.R. 1974. A preliminary report on the amphibians and reptiles of the Black Hills of South 

Dakota and Wyoming. MS Thesis. University of Illinois. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 318 

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists’ Union. 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page. Jamestown ND. Available at: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/sdatlas/sdatlas.htm 

Pettingill, P.S., and N.R. Whitney. 1965. Birds of the Black Hills. Special publication number 1, 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University. Ithaca NY. 140pp. 

Piatt, J.R., and Paul D. Krause. 1974. Road and Site Characteristics that Influence Road Salt 

Distribution and Damage to Roadside Aspen Trees. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 3: 301-304. 

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. Devos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa-pine 

snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(2): 

612-621. 

Rahn, P.H., and J.P. Gries. 1973. Large Springs in the Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

Report of Investigations, No. 107. South Dakota Geological Survey. Vermillion SD. 

Reeves, Derrick, Deborah Page-Dumroese, and Mark Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance 

associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Research paper, 

RMRS-RP-89. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Fort Collins CO. 12pp. 

Reid, L., and T. Lisle. 2008. Cumulative Effects and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008). US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/cumulative-effects.shtml [Accessed February 9, 2012]. 

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. General Technical Report, PSWGTR-141. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Berkeley CA. 118p. 

Reinhardt, E.D., R.E. Keane, D.E. Calkin, and J.D. Cohen. 2008. Objectives and considerations for 

wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology 

and Management, 256: 1997-2006. 

Reyher, Deanna. 2012. Soils Report for the Pine Beetle Response Project. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forests for nesting accipiter hawks. 

General Technical Report, Report RM-102. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce. 2006. An ecosystem-based conservation strategy for 

the northern goshawk. Studies in Avian Biology, 31: 299-311. 

Reynolds R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, M. Hildegard, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., 

G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report, RM-217. US Department of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 319 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern 

Region Forest Service. Fort Collins CO. 90pp. 

Reynolds, R.T., and S.M. Joy. 2006. Demography of goshawks in northern Arizona, 1991-1996. 

Studies in Avian Biology, 31: 63-74. 

Ribe, Robert G. 1989. The Aesthetic of Forestry: What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught 

Us? Environmental Management, 13(1). Internet Accessed [October, 2006] at : 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4x5132735646770/fulltext.pdf 

Ribe, Robert G. 2004. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The 

interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(4): 

277-293. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204604000970 

Richardson, A. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks. Bulletin Number 2. 25pp. 

Richie, C. 2008. Management and challenges of the mountain pine beetle infestation in British 

Columbia. Alces, 44: 127-135. 

Rideout, C.B., and R.S. Hoffmann. 1975. Oreamnos americanus. Mammalian Species. American 

Society of Mammalogists, 63: 1-6. 

Robichaud, P.R., and Waldrop, T.A. 1994. A Comparison of Surface Runoff and Sediment Yields 

from Low-and High-Intensity Prescribed Burns. Water Resources Bulletin, 30(I): 27-34. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2001-2010. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: 

Annual Reports (Year 1-8) to the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml [Accessed January 2011]. 

Rom, Lance, Tim Church, and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest Cultural

Resources Overview. Manuscript of file at the Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of Roads on Elk: 

Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. In: Transactions of the sixty-ninth North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: resource stewardship in the 21st century: a 

voyage of rediscovery: March 16-20, 2004, Spokane, Washington. Pages 491-508. 

Wildlife Management Institute. Washington DC. 

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation Status of the Tawny Crescent (Phycoides 

batesii) in North and South Dakota. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver CO. 

Ruggiero, L., K. McKelvey, J. Squires, and W. Block. 2008. Wildlife and Climate Change. (May 20, 

2008). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildlife.shtml 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 320 

Rumble, Mark, and Anderson. 1996. Feeding ecology of Merriam’s turkeys (Meleagris gallepavo 

merriami) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist, 136(1): 157-171. 

Rumble, Mark A., L. Benkobi, and R.S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in a densely roaded 

area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 11(1): 10-24. 

Running, S.W. 2006. Is Global Warming Causing More, Larger Wildfires? Science, 313: 927-928. 

Ryan, J., S. Miyamoto, and J.L. Stroehlein. 1975. Salt and Specific Ion Effects on Germination of 

Four Grasses. Journal of Range Management, 28(1): 61-64. 

Ryan, Robert L. 2005. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A synthesis of Research On 

Aesthetics and Fuels Management. General Technical Report, NC-261. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. Saint Paul MN.

Saab, V., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkuhl, L. Bate and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of the 

interior west: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. General Technical Report, 

PNW-GTR-712. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland OR. 23pp. 

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A Framework for Revising Deer and Elk Strategic Management

Direction on the Black Hills National Forest. Science Application International Corporation (SAIC). 

SAIC project number 01-0209-04-4456-106. 26pp. 

SAIC. 2005. Selection of management indicator species on the Black Hills National Forest Phase II 

Plan Amendment. Science Application International Corporation (SAIC). 

Sando, S.K. 1998. Techniques for Estimating Peak-Flow magnitude and Frequency Relations for 

South Dakota Streams. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4055. 52p. 

Sandrini, J. 2007. 2006 Job Completion Report, Black Hills White-tailed Deer. Casper Region; Herd 

Unit 706, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Newcastle WY. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 

Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html [Accessed January 2011]. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W.A. Link. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel MD. 

Sawyer, H., R.M Nielson, F. Lindzey and L.L. McDonald. 2006. Winter habitat selection of mule 

deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(2): 

396-403. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 321 

Schaupp, Willis C. 2011. Personal communication. Communication regarding mountain pine beetle

effects to pine and spruce communities. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Health 

Protection, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Rapid City SD. 

Schmid, J.M. and S.A. Mata. 1992. Stand density and mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in 

ponderosa pine stands. Research Note, RM-515. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

 

Schmid, J.M., and S.A. Mata. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots 

surrounded by unmanaged stands. Research Paper, RMRS-RP-54. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 11pp. 

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata, R.R. Kessler, and J.B. Popp. 2007. The Influence of Partial Cutting on 

Mountain Pine Beetle-caused Tree Mortality in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands. Research Paper, 

RMRS-RP-68. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 19pp. 

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata and R.A.Obedzinski. 1994. Hazard Rating Ponderosa Pine Stands for 

Mountain Pine Beetles in the Black Hills. Research Note, RM-529. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata, and W.C. Schaupp, Jr. 2009. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees as snags in 

Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Research Note, RMRS-RN-40. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 5pp. 

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata, R.K. Watkins, and M.R. Kaufmann. 1991. Water potential in ponderosa 

pine stands of different growing-stock levels. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research, 21: 750-755. 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation Assessment for the Long-eared Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 22 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012270.pdf 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation Assessment for the Long-legged Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 20 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012271.pdf 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003c. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Myotis in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012446.pdf 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003d. Conservation Assessment for the Small-footed Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 322 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012519.pdf 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003e. Conservation Assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 23pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012119.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Schmidt, C.A., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the fringed bat in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012246.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report, RMRSGTR-87. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort 

Collins CO. 

Schultz, B. 2011. Personal communication. Senior Scientist, Air Quality Staff. South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resource. Pierre SD. Email Communication. 

Schultz, Luke D. 2011. Environmental factors associated with long-term trends of mountain sucker 

populations in the Black Hills, and an assessment of their thermal tolerance. Available at: 

http://pubstorage.sdstate.edu/wfs/thesis/Schultz%20Luke%20D%202011%20MS.pdf 

Schultz, Luke D., and K.N. Bertrand. 2012. Long Term Trends and Outlook for Mountain Sucker in 

the Black Hills of South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist, 167: 96-110. Available at: 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1674/0003-0031-167.1.96 

Sedgwick, J.A. 2006. Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus): A technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf [Accessed February 9, 2012]. 

Selby, G. 2005. Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe W.H. Edwards): a technical conservation assessment. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ottoeskipper.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Selby, G. 2007. Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a technical conservation assessment. 

February 9, 2007. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/regalfritillary.pdf [Accessed February 2, 2012]. 

Sestrich, C.M., T.E. McMahon, and M.K. Young. 2011. Influence of Fire on Native and Nonnative 

Salmonid Populations and Habitat in a Western Montana Basin. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 140: 136-146. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 323 

Sharps, J.C., and D. O’Brien. 1985. Peregrine falcon reintroduction in the Black Hills, South Dakota, 

1977–1980. Game Report. Completion Report No. 85-10. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Wildlife Division. Pierre SD. 

Shearer, J. 2006. Personal communication. E-mail message dated May 25, 2006 from Jeff Shearer, 

Coldwater Fisheries Biologist, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD to 

Steve Hirtzel, Fisheries Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD regarding the spawning 

period for mountain suckers in the Black Hills. 

Sheley, R.L., and J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis OR. 

Shepperd, Wayne D., and Michael A. Battaglia. 2002. Natural Disturbances: Insects: Mountain Pine 

Beetle. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-97. In: Ecology, Silviculture, and Management of 

Black Hills Ponderosa Pine. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Fort Collins CO. 122pp. 

Shepperd, Wayne D., Fredrick W. Smith, and Leigh Lentile. 2000. Snag Management in the Black 

Hills National Forest: Final Report. Unpublished Paper. Department of Forest Sciences, Colorado 

State University, and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Fort Collins CO. For the Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 

Shepperd, W.D., C.E. Troendle, and C.B. Edminster. 1992. Linking water and growth and yield 

models to evaluate management alternatives in subalpine ecosystems. In: Murphy, D., comp. 

Getting to the future through silviculture—Workshop proceedings; 1991 May 6–9; Cedar City, UT. 

General Technical Report, INT-291, 42-48 pp. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. Ogden UT. 

Shinneman, D.J., and W.L. Baker. 1997. Non-equilibrium dynamics between catastrophic 

disturbances and old-growth forest in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. Conservation 

Biology, 11(6): 1276-1288. 

Sieg, Carolyn Hull, and Keith E. Severson. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer in the 

Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. General Technical Report, 

RM-GTR-274. 24pp. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins CO. 

Skinner, C., and M. Ritchie. 2008. The Cone Fire: A Chance Reckoning for Fuel Treatments. Joint 

Fire Science Program. Fire Science Brief, Issue 4, January 2008. 

Skorkowsky, R.C. 2009. Response of northern goshawk under a no-action alternative to tree 

mortality resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic. White-paper completed for US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, in response to large scale insect epidemic 

conditions in lodgepole pine forest. Lakewood CO. 13pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 324 

Slater, G.L. 2004. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/project/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf [Accessed February 9, 

2012]. 

Slater, G.L., and C. Rock. 2005. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus): A technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf [Accessed February 9, 2012]. 

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 78p. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012268.pdf. [Accessed January 2011] 

Smith, B.E., and N.T. Stephens. 2003. Conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 18p. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012483.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens): a technical conservation 

assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf [Accessed February 9, 

2012]. 

Smith, David M., et al. 1997. The Practice of Silviculture. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York City 

NY. 577pp. 

Smith, F.M. 1983. Appraisal of water yield as affected by basal area reduction of ponderosa pine: 

Sturgis Watersheds, Black Hills, South Dakota. Cooperative agreement 16-949-CA. 36pp. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Fort Collins CO. 

SD Codified Laws: 31-18-1 Section Line R-O-W; 31-18-2 Section Line R-O-W; 31-22-1 Access from 

Isolated Tracts; 31-22-2 Inability to Agree with Servient Landowner; 40-28-5 Trespass Liability not 

Applicable to Unfence Lands within the National Forest; 43-23-3 Fence Agreed to by Owners of 

Adjoining Land; 43-23-4 Legal Partition Fence. 

SDDA. 2010. Noxious and Invasive Plant List. South Dakota Department of Agriculture. 

http://sdda.sd.gov/Ag_Services/Plant-Protection/Weed%20and%20Pest/State-Noxious-Weeds.aspx 

SDDENR. 1998. The 1998 South Dakota 303(d) Waterbody List. 109pp. South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.state.sd.us/denr 

SDDENR. 1999. Article 74:51. The Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD 74:51:01:02 and 

:03). South Dakota's Surface Water Quality Standards. South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 325 

SDDENR. 2002. South Dakota Total Maximum Daily Load Waterbody List 2002. 67pp. South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SDDENR. 2004. The 2004 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 

230pp. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SDDENR. 2006. The 2006 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 

211pp. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SDDENR. 2008. The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 

262pp. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SDDENR. 2010. The 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 

272pp. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Steven M Pirner, Secretary. 

Pierre SD. Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx. 

Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/documents/10irfinal.pdf 

SDDENR. 2011a. Groundwater Quality Program, Online Spill Reporting Database. South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/Spills/SpillData.aspx [Accessed February 2011]. 

SDDENR. 2011b. Water Rights Program. South Dakota Well Completion Reports Database. 

Accessed February 2011. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Available at http://denr.sd.gov/des/wr/dblogsearch.aspx 

SDDOT. 2006. 2005 South Dakota Traffic Flow Map. South Dakota Department of Transportation. 

Pierre SD. 2006. Available at: http://www.sddot.com/pe/data/Docs/trafficmaps/Traffic2005.pdf 

[accessed November 17, 2006]. 

SD Division of Forestry (unknown date). Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection on 

Timber Harvest and Their Silvicultural Activities in South Dakota. South Dakota Division of Forestry. 

Pierre SD. 

SDGFP. 2004a. South Dakota Bat Management Plan. South Dakota Bat Working Group. Wildlife 

Division Report 2004-08. July 13, 2004. 97pp. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

Available at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/plans/bat-management-plan.aspx [Accessed 

February 9, 2012]. 

SDGFP. 2004b. South Dakota Statewide Fisheries Surveys. Pactola Reservoir. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 326 

SDGFP. 2005a. South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan. Wildlife Division Report 2005-09. 

131pp. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. Available at: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/Birdplan.pdf [Accessed January 27, 2011]. 

SDGFP. 2005b. Stream Fisheries Database. April 14, 2005. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. 

SDGFP. 2006a. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2004. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes Region 

1. Progress Report Number 06-09. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Available at: 

http://e.library.sd.gov/SodakLIVE-Docs/content/gfp/GFPdoc104.pdf 

SDGFP. 2006b. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2005. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes Region 

1. Progress Report No. 06-10. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

SDGFP. 2006c. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2006. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes Region 

1. Report 07-11. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

SDGFP. 2007. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2007. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes Region 1. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

SDGFP. 2009. South Dakota 2009 fish stocking schedule. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. Available at: http://gfp.sd.gov/fishing-boating/tacklebox/lake-surveys/fish-stocking.aspx 

[Accessed August 13, 2010]. 

SDGFP. 2010a. Hunting and Trapping Handbook. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks. Pierre SD. 61pp. 

SDGFP. 2010b. Stream Fisheries Database. March 31, 2010. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. 

SDGFP. 2011a. Natural Heritage Database: List of State Species of Concern. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. Available at: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity [Accessed January 5, 2011]. 

SDGFP. 2012. Eagle awareness: Midwinter survey results. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. Available at: http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awareness-days/midwinter.aspx 

[Accessed February 9, 2012]. 

SDNHP. 2009. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species Tracked by the South Dakota 

Natural Heritage Program. South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks. Available at: http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RarePlant.htm 

[Accessed January 12, 2011]. 

SD Pennington County. 2007. Noxious and Invasive Plant List. Pennington County, South Dakota. 

Available at: http://www.co.pennington.sd.us/weedpest/localwds.htm 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 327 

SDSU et al. 2003. Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota. 26pp. South Dakota State 

University, South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources and South Dakota Department of 

Agriculture. 

 

SDSU et al. 2004. Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota. South Dakota State 

University, South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources and South Dakota Department of 

Agriculture. 2004. Forestry Best Management Practices for South Dakota. 

Spiering, D.J., and R.L Knight. 2005. Snag density and use by cavity-nesting birds in managed 

stands of the Black Hills National Forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 214: 40-52. 

Squires, J.R., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in South-central 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management, 60(1): 170–177. 

Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. 

Biological Conservation, 141: 2159-2173. 

Stefanich, M.R. 1995. Movements and habitat use of white-tailed deer in the northwestern Black 

Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming. Laramie WY. 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001a. Conservation Assessment for the Tawny Crescent in the Black Hills National 

Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Custer SD. 45pp. 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001b. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black Hills 

National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. March 2001. 

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the Cooper’s Hawk and 

Sharp-Shinned Hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 50pp. Wyoming 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012178.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Stephens, R.M., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the broad-winged hawk of 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 25pp. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012127.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Stewart, R.K., and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and lake inventory and classification in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Dingell-Johnson Project F-1-R-13, Job Numbers 14 and 15. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 328 

Strobel, M.L., G.J. Jarrell, J.F. Sawyer, J.R. Schleicher, and M.D. Fahrenbach. 1999. Distribution of 

Hydrogeologic Units in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota. US Geologic Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA-743. 

Stubblefield, C.H., K.T. Vierling, and M.A. Rumble. 2006. Landscape-scale attributes of elk centers 

of activity in the central Black Hills of South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(4): 1060-

1069. 

Sturdevant, Jay T. 2009. Experimental Study of Local Fire Conditions and Effect on Surface or NearSurface Archeological Resources at National Park Service Units — Midwest Region; Joint Fire 

Science Program Final Report, Project Number 06-2-1-05. 

Sundstrom, Linea. 1989. Culture history of the Black Hills with reference to adjacent areas of the 

Northern Great Plains. Reprints in Anthropology 40. J & L Reprint Company. Lincoln NE. 

Suttle, K.B., M.E. Power, J.M. Levine, and C. McNeely. 2004. How fine sediment in riverbeds 

impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications, 14(4): 969-974.

Swengel, Ann B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. 

Biological Conservation, 83:77-89. 

Taglioli, B. 2012. Engineering Report for the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Tallman, Dan A., David L. Swanson, and Jeff S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. 3rd Edition. 

Northern State University Press. Aberdeen SD. 441pp. 

Thomas, S. 2007. Mystic Ranger District: Best Management Practices/Watershed Conservation 

Practices Summary Report 2002-2006. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid City SD. 

Thomas, S. 2008. Best Management Practices/Watershed Conservation Practices Summary Report 

2002-2007. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon 

Ranger District. Custer SD. 

Thomas, S. 2010a. Best Management Practices. Beagle Timber Sale, Unit 4 Roads Summary. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid 

City SD. 

Thomas, S. 2010b. Forest plan standards monitoring report field season 2010. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid City SD. 

Tigner, Joel, and W.C. Aney. 1994. Report of Black Hills bat survey, October 1993-October 1994. 

Yearly Report, Nemo/Spearfish Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Nov. 25, 1994. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 329 

Tigner, Joel, and E. Dowd Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills: A Description of Status and 

Conservation Needs. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks. Wildlife Division Report 2003-05. 

94pp. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre SD. 94pp. Available at: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/battechreport.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In the birds of North America, No. 

284 (A. Poole and F. Gills, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences. Philadelphia PA. The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. Washington DC. 

Tratebas, Alice M., Niccole Villa Cerveny, and Ronald I. Dorn. 2004. The Effects of Fire on Rock 

Art: Microscopic Evidence Reveals the Importance of Weathering Rinds. Physical Geography, 25(4): 

313–333. 

Troendle, C.A., and King, R.M. 1987. The effect of partial and clearcutting on streamflow at 

Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology, 90: 145-157. 

Turner, A.K., and R.L. Schuster, editors. 1996. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Special 

Report 247, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. National Academy Press. 

Washington DC. 675pp. 

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. University of 

Kansas. Museum of Natural History. Miscellaneous Publication 60: 1-178. 

Twiss, John C. 2003. Letter from Twiss, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest to D. Gober, 

Field Supervisor, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Field Office. August 6, 2003. 

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands 

Research Program Technical Report, Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment 

Station. Vicksburg MS. 

US Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Compensatory 

Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources – Final Rule. Federal Register April 10, 2008. Part II. 

Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers at 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 

Environmental Protection Agency at 40 CFR Part 230. 113pp. 

US Census Bureau. 2000. Available at http://www.census.gov 

US Census Bureau. 2010. Available at http://www.census.gov 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2010. Federal Noxious Weed List 

Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Agricultural Manual 7700 Transportation System, Chapter 10 Atlas, 

Records, and Analysis, Chapter 20 Development, and Chapter 30 Operation and Maintenance. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 330 

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Best Management Practices for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution from 

Silvicultural and Related Road Activities. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Forest Service Handbook. 2409.15 – Timber Sale Administration 

Handbook, Chapter 50, Specified Transportation Facilities, Black Hills Supplement No. 2409.15-92-1. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Forest Service Handbook, 2209.13. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. n.d. Forest Service Manual 2230. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1973. Agricultural Handbook 434. National Forest Landscape Management, 

Volume 1. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. US Government Printing Office. 

Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Agricultural Handbook 483, National Forest Landscape Management, 

Volume 2 - Chapter 4, Roads. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. US Government 

Printing Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1979. Environmental analysis report, peregrine falcon reintroduction. US 

Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, Harney Ranger 

District. May 31, 1979. 29pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1980. Agricultural Handbook 559. National Forest Landscape Management, 

Volume 2 - Chapter 5, Timber. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the Black Hills: 

Ponderosa Pine Type and Spruce Type. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. 80pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Agricultural Handbook 608. National Forest Landscape Management, 

Volume 2 - Chapter 6, Fire. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. US Government Printing 

Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Photo Series For Quantifying Forest Residues in the: Black Hills – 

Ponderosa Pine Type and Spruce Type. A-89-1-90. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Mineral Program Handbook. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Washington DC. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 331 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.18 – Soil 

Management Handbook. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Fort 

Collins CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Agricultural Handbook 701. Landscape Aesthetics; A Handbook for 

Scenery Management, and (2000) Landscape Aesthetics Handbook Revision. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC. 

Available at: http://www.esf.edu/es/via 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook, FSH 2509.13. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview, Volumes 1 

(Synthetic Summary) and 2 (Management Summary). Edited by Lance Rom, Tim Church, and 

Michele Church. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer 

SD. Manuscript on file at Supervisors Office, Black Hills National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996b. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and resource 

management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. December, 1996. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 1996c. Memo 2500/2600 (July 29, 1996) NEPA Guidance for Watershed from 

Jim Maxwell, Water Program Team Leader to Region 2 Director of Planning and Budget and Region 2 

Watershed Staff. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996d. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. August 2006. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Livestock Grazing Environmental Assessment for Pactola/Harney 

Ranger District. September, 1997. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest. Rapid City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Evaluation of Mountain Pine Beetle Activity in the Black Hills 

National Forest. Biological Evaluation, R2-00-03. 19pp. 

UDSA Forest Service. 1999b. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National 

Forest Transportation System. Miscellaneous Report, FS-643. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Washington DC. 222pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan Amendment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 332 

Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 151pp. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011876.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Quick Silver, a project analysis tool to determine the economic 

performance of long-term investments. Mike Vasievich, US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Golden CO. February 15, 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Agricultural Manual 7700 Transportation System, Chapter 10 Atlas, 

Records, and Analysis, Chapter 20 Development, and Chapter 30 Operation and Maintenance. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001c. USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Memo 2070/2520-7/2620 (March 19, 2002) Wetland Protection - Fens 

from Bruce F. Short (FOR) Marisue Hilliard, Director Renewable Resources to Region 2 forest 

supervisors. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Black Hill National Forest, Forest Plan Best Management Practices 

Evaluation. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Forest Plan Best Management Practices Evaluation. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003c. Noxious Weed Management Plan. Custer, SD. February 2003. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Black Hills National Forest 2003 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Forest Service Manual 2520 – Watershed Protection and Management. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 44pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Western Forests, Fire Risk, and Climate Change. Science Update, 

Issue 6. January 2004. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. Portland OR. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005a. Analysis of Alternative Treatment Methods to Maintain Limited Fire 

Potential Following the Prairie Project, Black Hills National Forest. March, 2005. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Biological Evaluation for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan. 

Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 333 

Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/amendments/phase_II/feis/10_append_c_2005_101

9_p1-106.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Black Hills National Forest Developed Recreation Strategy. July 

2005. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005d. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Land and Resource Management Plan. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005e. Deerfield Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid 

City SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/nepa/public_docs/deerfield/index.shtml. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005f. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Evaluation for 

the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest. October 2005. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2005g. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to 

the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. October 

2005. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Manuscript on file at Supervisors Office, Black Hills National Forest. Also available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2005h. Memorandum of Understanding between United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region and Intermountain Region and Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality. FS Agreement #05-MU-11020000-021. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005i. Record of Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. October, 2005. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Black Hills National Forest Fire Management Plan. July, 2006. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Black Hills National Forest FY2005 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. September 2006. 

Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011879.pdf 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 334 

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.25 – Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Fort Collins CO. 58pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices 

Handbook. Amendment No.: 2509.25-2006-2. Effective date May 5, 2006. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). Denver CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006e. Forest Service Manual 2880 - Geologic Resources, Hazards, and 

Services. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by Phase II. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006f. Monitoring Implementation Guide for Sensitive Plant Species and 

Plant Species of Local Concern for the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Addendum to the October 2005 Guide). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/plant_monitoring_guide_2006.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2006g. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment. March 2006. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Manuscript on file, Supervisors 

Office, Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA, Forest Service. 2006h. Writing a Cumulative Effects Analysis for Rangeland/Allotment 

Planning Documents. Version 2.0. April 2006. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region (Chuck Quimby). 27pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Black Hills National Forest FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. 

May 2007. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2006_report.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Groundwater Technical Guide. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 295pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. RCSC-08-01, Mountain Pine Beetle Conditions in the Upper Spring 

Creek Area, Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 9pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Black Hills National Forest FY2007 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2007_report.pdf. [Accessed 

January 2011]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 335 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Black Hills National Forest FY2008 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2006_report.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Black Hills National Forest Recreation Facility Analysis. July, 2008. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114284.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008d. Climate Change Resource Center. Web based information and tools 

for managers. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc 

[Accessed March 2011]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008e. Forest Service Manual 2360, Heritage Program Management. 

Amendment No. 2300-2008-1. Effective July 25, 2008. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008f. Forest Service Manual 2880, Geologic Resources, Hazards, and 

Services. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 18pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008g. Forest Service Strategic Framework for responding to climate change. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 21pp. Available 

at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climate-change-1-0.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Black Hills National Forest FY 2008 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. September, 2009. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer SD. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Black Hills National Forest Plants Database. Unpublished database 

information updated in November 2009. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region and Northern Region, and South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources. Forest Service Agreement #09-MU-11020000-014. 8pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Monitoring implementation guide for the Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/MonGuide.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009e. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – USDA Forest Service – 

National Summary Report – FY 2005 thru FY 2009. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station (Producer). Updated April 25, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/nvum_national_summary_fy2009.pdf 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 336 

USDA Forest Service. 2009f. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – USDA Forest Service, 

Region 2 - Black Hills National Forest – February 2009. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station (Producer). Updated June 11, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/2009/BlackHills_FY2009.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2009g. Slate Castle Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid 

City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009h. Telegraph Project Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Northern Hills Ranger 

District. Spearfish SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/nepa/public_docs/Telegraph/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Allotment 2210 Files. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District Office. Rapid City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Black Hills National Forest FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

September 2010. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5262950.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Draft inventory and monitoring protocols for groundwater dependent 

ecosystems: level 2 sampling protocol for springs and groundwater dependent wetlands. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden UT. 90pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Black 

Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. March 2010. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2010e. Forest Health Evaluation R2-10-02, Evaluation of Mountain Pine 

Beetle Activity in the Pactola Area, Black Hills National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 9pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010f. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, 

Chapter 2550 – Soil Management. Amendment No.: 2500-2010-1. Effective Date: November 23, 

2010. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010g. Mystic Range Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision. October 12, 2010. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid City SD. Available at http://go.usa.gov/g4a. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010h. RCSC-2-11, Consequences of the No Action Alternative in the Pactola 

Area. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 3pp. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 337 

USDA Forest Service. 2010i. Record of Decision, Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010j. Travel Management Plan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfx

MDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTMwMTAwjQL8h2VAQArb-

_RA!!/?ss=110203&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&navid=130110000000000&pnavid=13000000

0000000&accessDB=true&position=Project*&groupid=22263&ttype=projectdetail&pname=Black 

Hills National Forest- Projects 

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Black Hills National Forest FY2009 monitoring and evaluation report. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy08_monitoring_evaluatio_report29sept2009.pdf 

[Accessed December 8, 2009]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Black Hills National Forest Plants Database. Unpublished database 

information updated in November 2010. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve Project Plan. March, 2010. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer SD. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Forest Plan Monitoring Report. Summary Report 2002-2010. 

December 2011. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic 

Ranger District. Rapid City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011e. Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Region 2 Supplement Number R2_2600-2011-1. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011f. Notice of Intent: Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. Mountain 

Pine Beetle Response Project. Federal Register, 76(152): 48120–48121. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011g. Review of the Forest Service Response: The Bark Beetle Outbreak in 

Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming. A Report by the USDA Forest Service RMR and RMRS 

at the request of Senator Mark Udall. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011h. Sensitive Species Evaluation and Rational for listing the Hoary Bat. 

March 21, 2011. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver CO. 

Available at: http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5193327 [Accessed 

February 13, 2012]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011i. Species Conservation Program: Region 2 Regional Forester's Sensitive 

Species. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver CO. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 338 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml [Accessed January 

2011]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011j. Vestal Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011k. Watershed Assessment Classification Tracking Tool (WCATT). 

Accessed September 2011 at: http://apps.fs.fed.us/fsmapserviceviewer/index.html?title=NRM%20-

%20WCATT%20Watershed%20Condition,%20Assessment%20Year%202010&subtitle=Nightly%20

Snapshot,%20PRELIMINARY%20DRAFT%20ASSESSMENT%20(Do%20not%20cite%20or%20di

stribute)&extent=-15135754.592913182%2 

USDA Forest Service. 2011l. Watershed Condition Framework. FS-978. July 2011. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011m. Western Bark Beetle Strategy – Human Safety, Recovery and 

Resiliency. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 7/11/2011. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Aerial Detection Survey Results for the Black Hills, 2011. Technical 

Report . US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Management, Rapid City 

Service Center. Rapid City SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Calumet Environmental Impact Statement. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National 

Forests. February 2012. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf 

[Accessed February 22, 2012]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Letter to Forest Supervisor, Bighorn National Forest, Forest 

Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor, Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests 

and Thunder Basin National Grassland, Forest Supervisor, Shoshone National Forest. 2530/7730. 

February 15, 2012. Authorization from Wyoming Department of Environment Quality for Temporary 

Turbidity Increase from small projects on NFS lands in Wyoming. Rocky Mountain Regional Office. 

Golden, CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 2012e. Unpublished Black Hills National Forest letter to the Forest Leadership 

Team regarding the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Alternatives. February 15, 2012. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Web Soil Survey. Available at:

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 339 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Soil Data Mart, Geospatial data for Soil 

Survey Area SD604 – Custer and Pennington Counties, Black Hills Parts, South Dakota. Available at: 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov [Accessed August 30, 2010]. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012a. Soil Data Mart. US Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Available at: 

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov [Accessed multiple times in February and March, 2012]. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012b. Web Soil Survey. US Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Available online at 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov [Accessed multiple times: January to March, 2012]. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Custer and Pennington Counties, Black Hills 

Parts, South Dakota. Prepared in cooperation with USDA Forest Service and South Dakota

Agricultural Experiment Station. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper 

Function Condition. Technical Reference, TR-1737-9. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Denver CO. 58pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Microfiche unpatented mining claims. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Monthly Values for Pactola Reservoir, Rapid Creek near Rapid 

City, SD - Monthly Total Discharge (acre-feet) for Period of Record 1956-2011. Available at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/gp-bin/res070.pl [Accessed February 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon Rocky Mountain/southwest 

population recovery plan. Denver CO. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Memo (January 14, 1999) Regional Policy on the Protection 

of Fens, as amended from Dennis Buechler, Senior Staff Specialist for Federal Activities to multiple 

individuals and agencies as listed in included distribution list. 7pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/nwi/index.html. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Peatland Mitigation Policy Considerations. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, Ecological Services. Colorado Field Office. Lakewood CO. 43pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing 

the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48, States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal 

Register, 72(130). Monday, July 9, 2007. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/baldeaglefinaldelisting.pdf [Accessed December 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of 

Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 340 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal 

Register, 72(234): 69034. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington 

VA. Available at: http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. 12-month finding on a petition to list the black-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) as threatened and endangered. Federal Register, 74(231). December 2, 

2009, p. 63343-63366. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/btprairiedog/74FR63343.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. 90-day finding on a Petition to List the American Dipper in 

the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register, 74(206): 55177-

55180. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009c. 90-day finding on a petition to list the northern leopard frog 

(Lithobates pipiens) in the western United States as threatened. Federal Register, 74(125): 31389-

31401. July 1, 2009. [Accessed January 21. 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009d. Candidate Notice of Review. Federal Register, 74(215): 

69034. November 9, 2009. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/CNOR/CNOR%2011-

9-09.pdf [December 10, 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009e. Endangered Species by County List. US Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, South Dakota Ecological Services Field 

Office. Pierre SD. Updated November 2, 2009. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/endsppbycounty.htm [Accessed January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. A national plan for assisting states, federal agencies, and 

tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. DRAFT, 21 October 2010. Available:

http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/WNSNational%20Plan_DRAFT_10.21.2010.pdf 

[January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Endangered Species by County List. Last updated 

November 2, 2009. South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Pierre SD. Available at: 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm [Accessed January 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. Endangered Species by County List. US Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, South Dakota Ecological Services Field 

Office. Pierre SD. Updated October 27, 2011. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/SpeciesByCounty.pdf [Accessed January 2012]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Plants of the Mountain Prairie Region. Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/plants [Accessed January 2011]. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 341 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. Threatened and Endangered species on the Black Hills 

National Forest. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011d. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) for 

South Dakota: Candidate Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=candidate [Accessed January 

2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011e. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) for 

South Dakota: Listing and Occurrence. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=SD [Accessed January 11, 

2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011f. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) for 

South Dakota: Proposed Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=proposed [Accessed January 

2011]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012a. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) 

Candidate Species for Region 6. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?lead=6&listingType=C [Accessed February 

2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012b. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for South Dakota: Candidate Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=candidate [Accessed February 

3, 2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012c. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for South Dakota: Listing and Occurrence. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=SD [Accessed February 3, 

2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012d. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for South Dakota: Proposed Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=proposed [Accessed February 

3, 2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012e. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for Wyoming: Candidate Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=WY&status=candidate [Accessed February 

3, 2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012f. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for Wyoming: Listing and Occurrence. Available at: 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 342 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=WY [Accessed February 3, 

2012]. 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012g. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS) 

for Wyoming: Proposed Species. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=WY&status=proposed [Accessed February 

3, 2012]. 

USDI Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. Science in Your Watershed: General Introduction and 

Hydrologic Definitions. HTML version of Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-Water 

Techniques by W.B. Langein and K.T. Iseri, Water Supply Paper 1541-A, “Methods and practices of 

the Geological Survey”. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#INTRODUCTION 

USDI Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. National Hydrography Dataset, Watershed Boundary 

Dataset. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. [Accessed April 21, 2010]. 

USDI Geological Survey, USGS National Water Information System (NWIS). 2009. [Online] 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis. 

USDI Geologic Survey. 2010. National hydrography dataset. http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html 

USDI Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. National Water Information System (NWIS). Streamflow 

statistics for selected stations on Rapid Creek. [Online] Available at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis. 

USDI Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team. 2001. Elk Mountain Complex Burned 

Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan: Roger’s Shack and Elk Mountain II Fires. 

Custer, SD 

USDI Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team. 2002. Grizzly Gulch Fire Burned Area 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan. Spearfish SD 

USDI National Park Service. 1994. National Register Bulletin No. 38: Guidelines for evaluating and 

documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division. 

US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 

Uresk, Daniel W., and Kieth Severson. 1988. Influence of Ponderosa Pine Overstory on Forage 

Quality in the Black Hills, South Dakota. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Great Basin Naturalist, 48(1): 5pp. 

Uresk, Daniel W., and Kieth Severson. 1989. Understory-overstory relationship in ponderosa pine 

forests, Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 6p. Journal of Range Management, 42(3). 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 343 

Uresk, Daniel W., and Kieth Severson. 1998. Response of Understory Species to Changes in 

Ponderosa Pine Stocking Levels in the Black Hills. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 16p. Great Basin Naturalist, 58(4): 312-327. 

Vallentine, J.F. 1989. Range Developments and Improvements, Third Edition. Academic Press. 

524pp. 

Vandendriesche, Don. 2004. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment - Description of the 

Analysis Process regarding the Construction of Vegetative Yield Profiles. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD. 

Van Dyck, Michael G. 2005. User’s guide to the post processors for the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Center. Fort Collins 

CO. 

Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239doi:10.2173/bna.239 [Accessed 

January 2011]. 

Vierling, K.T., L.B. Lentile, and N. Nielsen-Pincus. 2007. Pre-burn characteristics and woodpecker 

use of burned coniferous forests. Journal of Wildland Management, 72(2): 422-427. 

Vollmer. Chelsea. 2012. Botany Report for the Pine Beetle Response Project. Black Hills National 

Forest. Custer, SD. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. AFS Monograph 

7. Bethesda, MD. 

Weaver, K.F., T. Anderson, and R. Guralnick. 2006. Combining phylogenetic and ecological niche 

modeling approaches to determine distribution and historical biogeography of Black Hills mountain 

snails (Oreohelicidae). Diversity and Distributions, 12: 756-766. 

Wells-Gosling, N., and L.R. Heaney. 1984. Glaucomys sabrinus. Mammalian Species No. 229, The 

American Society of Mammalogists. 

Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science Express, July 6. Available at: 

www.sciencexpress.org 

White, C. and G. Giroir. 2009. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills, 2008 Field Season Report. 

Tech. Rep. M-MBBH-USFS08, SDDGF08. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 57 pp. 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114243.pdf 

White, C.M., J.A. Blakesley, D.C. Pavlacky, and D.J. Hanni. 2010. Monitoring the Birds of Black 

Hills National Forest: 2009 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. SC-RMRUSFS09-01. Rocky Mountain 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 344 

Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 54 pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5177208.pdf 

White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Retrieved from 

the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660 [Accessed March 14, 

2011]. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation 

assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf [Accessed 

January 2011]. 

Wiggins, D. 2005a. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): A Technical Conservation Assessment. 

January 27, 2005. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf [Accessed February 9, 2012]. 

Wiggins, D. 2005b. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf [Accessed: February 13, 2012]. 

Wiggins, D. 2005c. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf [February 13, 2012]. 

Wiggins, D. 2006. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. 

December 6, 2006. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ruffedgrouse.pdf [February 13, 2012]. 

Williamson, J.E., G.J. Jarrell, R.M. Clawges, J.M. Galloway, and J.M. Carter. 2000. Digital data sets 

for map products produced as part of the Black Hills Hydrology Study, Western South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-471. Online only. Available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr00-471/ofr00471.html. 

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of off-road 

Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference: 531-550. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Wyoming forestry best management 

practices: forestry BMPs water quality protection guidelines. Wyoming State Forestry Division and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Cheyenne WY. 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2010. Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and 

Impaired Waters List (2010 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Water Quality Division, Watershed 

Section. Cheyenne WY. Document #10-0230. Available at: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/Downloads/305b/2010/WY2010IR.pdf 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 345 

Wyoming Range Service Team. 2001. Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide: A Cooperative and 

Voluntary Approach to Monitoring Rangelands. Wyoming Department of Agriculture. June, 2001. 

Wyoming State Forestry Division. 2007. Wyoming forestry best management practices: forestry 

stewardship guidelines for water quality 2007 field audit report. Office of State Lands and 

Investments, Wyoming State Forestry Division. Cheyenne WY. 24p. 

Wyoming Timber Industry Association. 2001. Wyoming Silviculture Best Management Practices 

Field Audit: Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation. Wyoming Timber Industry Association. 

Saratoga WY. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 347 

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY 

Access The opportunity to approach, enter and make use of public or private lands. 

Activity Fuels Fuels resulting from or altered by forestry practices, such as timber harvest or 

thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels. 

Adaptive Management Implementing policy decisions as science-driven management 

experiments that test assumptions and predictions in management plans. 

Age Class Groups of trees or shrubs approximately the same age. 

Air Quality Classes Classification established under the "Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration" portion of the Clean Air Act, which limits the amount of air pollution considered 

significant within an area. Class I applies to areas where almost any change in air quality would 

be significant; Class II applies to areas where the deterioration normally accompanying 

moderate, well-controlled growth would be permitted; Class III applies to areas where industrial 

deterioration would generally be allowed. 

Appropriate Suppression Response (Fire Management) The planned strategy for suppression 

action (in terms of type, amount, and timing) on a wildfire that most efficiently meets the Forest 

Plan fire-management direction under current and expected burning conditions. The planned 

response can range from prompt control to one of containment or confinement. 

Confine: To limit the spread of wildfire within a predetermined area principally by use of 

natural or pre-constructed barriers or environmental conditions. Suppression action may be 

minimal and limited to surveillance under appropriate conditions. 

Control: To complete the control line around a fire, any spot fire there-from, and any interior 

unburned areas to be saved; to burn any unburned fuel or areas adjacent to the fire side of the 

control line and to cool all hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line until the 

control line can reasonably be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions. 

Contain: To surround a fire and any spot fires there-from with a control line, as needed, 

which can reasonably be expected to check the fire's spread under prevailing conditions. 

Aquatic Ecosystem The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities, and the 

habitat features that occur within an ecosystem (biological and physical components and their 

interactions) in which water is the principal medium. Examples include wetlands, streams, 

reservoirs, and areas with plants or animals characteristic of either permanent or seasonal 

inundated soils. 

Area of Potential Effects The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. 

Artificial Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by seeding or planting. 

At-Risk Community An area (A) that is comprised of —(i) an interface community as defined 

in the notice entitled “Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal 

Lands That Are At High Risk From Wildfire” issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Title IV of the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1009) (updated 66 Fed. Reg. 43384, 

August 17, 2001); or (ii) a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and 

services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to 

Federal land; (B) in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 348 

event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a 

wildland fire disturbance event.” 

Basal Area (Timber Resource) The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured at breast 

height. The area is expressed in square feet per acre. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Land management methods, measures, or practices 

intended to minimize or reduce water pollution. Usually BMPs are applied as a system of 

practices rather than a single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions 

that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical 

feasibility. 

Big Game Certain wildlife that may be hunted for sport under state laws and regulations. In the 

Black Hills, these animals include deer, elk, turkey, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep. 

Biological Control Methods Use of natural organisms such as insects, diseases, parasites, and 

predators to reduce pest populations of insects, diseases, or weeds. Methods may include

importation and release; conservation of native natural-enemy species; and augmentation 

(supplementation through rearing and release or genetic improvement) of biological control agents. 

Biological Diversity The full variety of life in an area including the ecosystems, plant, and 

animal communities; species and genes; and the processes through which individual organisms 

interact with one another and with their environments. 

Biological Evaluations As defined by FSM 2670.5, a biological evaluation is a documented 

Forest Service review of Forest Service programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species. FSM 2672.4 identifies biological evaluation objectives and standards. 

BMPs (See "Best Management Practices.") 

Board Foot A unit of timber measurement equaling the amount of wood contained in a board 

one-inch thick, 12-inches long, and 12-inches wide. 

Broadcast Burning A fire ignited under specific conditions (prescriptions) and within 

established boundaries to achieve some land-management objective. 

BTU British thermal unit. The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of 

water by one degree Fahrenheit at or near its maximum density. 

Burning Index A relative number related to the contribution that fire behavior makes to the 

amount of effort needed to contain a fire in a specified fuel type. Doubling the burning index 

indicates that twice the effort will be required to contain a fire in a specified fuel type, providing 

all other parameters are held constant. 

Canopy, Canopy Closure (Canopy Cover), Canopy Layer (Silviculture) 

Canopy: The cover by vegetation and/or branches. Often but not always restricted to the tree 

layer or greater than six feet tall. 

Canopy Closure/Cover: The percentage of the ground and/or sky covered by vegetation 

and/or branches. These are perceived from a human point of view perpendicular to flat ground. 

Canopy Layer: Cover by vegetation and branches in different height intervals. These 

intervals are often defined in terms of vegetation, such as herbaceous or grass/forbs less than 

two feet tall, shrubs less than six feet tall, and overstory greater than six feet tall. 

Cavity Nesting Species Wildlife species that depend on cavities in trees for their shelter and/or 

nesting. These species include primary cavity nesters, such as woodpeckers, which excavate 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 349 

cavities in soft or decayed wood for nesting, and secondary cavity nesters that typically nest in 

natural cavities or those excavated by another species. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

Closed Road An intermittent service road in Maintenance Level 1 that is closed to all vehicular 

traffic for more than one year. The closure may be ordered under 36 CFR 261. 

CMAI (See "Culmination Mean Annual Increment.”) 

Commercial Thinning (See "Thinning.”) 

Commercial Timber Sales The selling of timber from National Forest System (NFS) lands for 

the manufacture of commercial products such as lumber, plywood, etc. 

Community (Social) The people who reside in one locality and are subject to the same laws or 

who have common interests, etc. 

Community Life-styles The ways in which residents conduct their everyday routines and how 

the "way they live" is associated with the National Forest. 

Condition Class 2 This term means the condition class description developed by the USDAForest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) in the Development of Coarse-Scale 

Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management (RMRS-GTR-87, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr87.html ), dated April 2000 (including any subsequent 

revisions), under which 

• Fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered from historical ranges; 

• A moderate risk exists of losing key ecosystem components from fire; 

• Fire frequencies have increased or decreased from historical frequencies by one or more 

return intervals, resulting in moderate changes to 

—The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 

OR 

—Landscape patterns 

AND 

—Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical ranges. 

Condition Class 3 This term means the condition class description developed by the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station (RMRS) in RMRS-GTR-87 (see above) under which 

• Fire regimes on land have been significantly altered from historical ranges; 

• A high risk exists of losing key ecosystem components from fire; 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals, 

resulting in dramatic changes to 

—The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 

OR 

—Landscape patterns 

AND 

—Values of vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical ranges. 

Confine (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Conifer A group of cone-bearing trees, mostly evergreen, such as the pine, spruce and juniper. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 350 

Conservation The management of a renewable natural resource with the objective of sustaining 

its productivity in perpetuity while providing for human use compatible with sustainability of the 

resource; for a forest this may include managed periodic cutting and removal of trees followed 

by regeneration. 

Construction (Roads) The displacement of vegetation, soil, and rock and the installation of 

human-made structures involved in the process of building a complete, permanent road facility. 

The activities occur at a location, or corridor, that is not currently occupied by a road. 

Contain (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Continuous Fuel Concentrations (Fire Management) An uninterrupted distribution of fuel 

particles (surface or aerial) in a fuel bed, which allows a fire to sustain combustion and actively 

continue to spread. 

Control (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Cord A unit of gross volume measurement for stacked roundwood based on external 

dimensions; generally implies a stack of 4 feet by 4 feet vertical cross sections 8 feet long (128 

stacked cubic feet). 

Cost Effective Achieving specified outputs or objectives under given conditions for the least cost. 

Cost Efficient A comparative measure of economic efficiency determined by maximizing the

present net worth or value of an alternative, subject to meeting the objectives of the alternative. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) An advisory council to the President established by 

the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA) of 1969. 

Cover Type The vegetative species that dominates a site. Cover types are named for one plant 

species or non-vegetated condition presently (not potentially) dominant, using canopy or foliage 

cover as the measure of dominance. In several cases, sites with different species dominant have 

been lumped together into one cover type; co-dominance is not necessarily implied. 

Critical Ecosystems Specific areas, including riparian areas, wetlands, winter range, and habitat 

for threatened and endangered species. 

Crown (Vegetation) The upper part of a tree or other woody plant carrying the main branch 

system and foliage and surmounting at the crown base a more or less clean stem. 

Crown Closure (See "Canopy Cover.”) 

Crown Density The thickness both spatially in depth and in closeness of growth (compaction) of 

an individual crown, such as its opacity as measured by its shade density. 

Crown Height For a standing tree, crown height is the vertical distance from ground level to the base 

of the crown, measured either to the lowest live branch-whorl or to the lowest live branch, excluding 

shoots arising spontaneously from buds on the stem of a woody plant or to a point halfway between. 

Cubic Foot A unit of measure usually referring to wood volume (1 foot wide by 1 foot long by 1 

foot thick). 

Culmination Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) The point at which a tree or stand achieves its 

greatest average growth, based on expected growth, according to the management systems and 

utilization standards assumed in the Forest Plan. 

Cultural Element Attributes in a human-altered landscape; scenically positive cultural elements, 

most of which have historical backgrounds or nostalgic connotations. Examples include splitrail fences, stone walls, barns, orchards, hedgerows, and cabins. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 351 

Cultural Landscapes Human-altered landscapes, especially those with slowly evolving 

landscapes, scenic vegetation patterns, or scenic structures. Addition of these elements creates a 

visually pleasing complement to the natural character of a landscape. 

Cultural Properties (See "Historic Property.”) 

Cultural Resources (See "Heritage Resources.”) 

Cumulative Effects Collective results of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of which agency or person undertakes the actions. 

Cutover Area Timber stands that have been cut. 

DBH (See "Diameter at Breast Height.”) 

Dead Fuels (Fire Management) Fuels with no living tissue within which moisture content is 

governed almost entirely by solar radiation. 

Dead Woody Material (See "Down Woody Material.”) 

Decision Documents Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the 

formulation and evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative. 

Desired Future Condition, Desired Ecological Condition 

A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

A description of the landscape as it could reasonably be expected to appear at the end of

the planning period if the Plan's goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for that 

landscape are fully achieved. 

Desired Landscape Character Appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time, 

recognizing that a landscape is a dynamic and constantly changing community of plants and 

animals. It is a combination of landscape design attributes and opportunities as well as 

biological opportunities and constraints. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches 

from ground level. 

Direct Effects Results of an action occurring when and where that action takes place. 

Diversity Diversity refers to the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal 

communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan 

(LRMP). This term is derived from the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). This term is 

not synonymous with "biological diversity." 

Down and Dead Woody Material, Down Logs, Down Woody Material (Vegetation) Woody 

material from any source that is dead and lying on the forest floor. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The statement of environmental effects 

required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. 

Easement A right held by one person to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose, 

such as a special-use authorization for a right-of-way that conveys a conditioned interest in 

National Forest System (NFS) land and is compensable according to its terms. 

Ecosystem A community of living plants and animals interacting with each other and with their 

physical environment. A geographic area where it is meaningful to address the interrelationships 

with human social systems, sources of energy, and the ecological processes that shape change 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 352 

over time. The complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an 

ecological unit in nature. 

Ecosystem Management A concept of natural resources management where-in National Forest 

activities are considered within the context of economic, ecological, and social interactions 

within a defined area or region over both short-and long-term. 

Egress Path by which a person goes out; exit. The means or act of going out. Often used with the 

word "access." 

EIS (See "Environmental Impact Statement.”) 

Eligible (Heritage Resources) Indicates a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Endangered Species Any species of animal or plant in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and so designated by the Secretary of Interior in accordance with 

the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A document prepared by a federal agency in which 

anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development are evaluated. A 

federal statute requires that such statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or review form and 

then in a final form. An impact statement includes the following points: the environmental impact of 

the proposed action; any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided by the action; the alternative courses 

of actions; the relationships between local short-term use of the human environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and a description of the irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources that would occur if the action were accomplished. 

Ephemeral Streams A stream or portion of a stream that flows briefly in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate vicinity and whose channel is at all times above the water table. 

Ephemeral areas drain water to intermittent or perennial stream channels. Any sediment created by soil 

erosion during logging or road-building activities can be carried by way of the ephemeral, intermittent, 

and perennial stream channels to the watershed outlet. Ephemeral areas generally occur above the 

upper reaches of intermittent or perennial streams. Since they can direct water into intermittent or 

perennial stream channels, care should be taken to minimize disturbing soil in these areas. 

Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other 

geological activities. 

Erosion Hazard Rating The probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of 

vegetation and litter. It is an interpretation based on potential soil loss. 

Escape Route (Fire Management) A path of travel to get away from danger, such as the threat 

of wildfire. 

Even-aged Management The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests 

are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore, tree sizes) throughout 

the forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level on a stand 

usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Regeneration 

in a particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time of harvest. Clear-cut, 

shelterwood, or seed-tree cutting methods may produce even-aged stands. 

Existing Road System All existing roads owned or administered by various agencies that are wholly 

or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forests and other Forest Service-administered 

areas or intermingled private lands. These roads may or may not be included on the current Forest 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 353 

Transportation Inventory but are evident on the ground as meeting the definition of a road. 

Fire Incidence The average number of fires in a specified area during a specified time period. 

Fire Occurrence Number of fires per unit time in a specified area (synonym for fire frequency). 

Fire Protection Assessment (FPA) (Fire Management) A computer software based analysis to 

assist managers in determining where specific types and intensities of fire-management activities 

should occur. The analysis uses three map overlays depicting fuel flammability (Hazard); 

potential value change from fire (Value); and the potential that an ignition will occur (Risk) as a 

means of identifying and prioritizing appropriate fire- management activities for a given land unit. 

Risk: A term within the Fire Protection Assessment identifying the potential for an ignition 

to occur in a given land unit based on historical data associated with frequency of natural 

ignitions and the probability of human ignitions based on an assessment of human activities. 

Hazard: A term within the Fire Protection Assessment that represents a function of potential 

fire line intensity based on fuels, topography, and weather influences. 

Value: In the context of the Fire Protection Assessment, value refers to the potential for 

negative value change from wildfire. Value considerations would include the value of

developments and natural resources, including aesthetics, all of which are subject to change 

from wildfire. 

Fire Risk The chance of a fire starting, as affected by the nature and incidence of causative 

agents, including lightning, people, and industry. Three risk scales are used: high, moderate, and 

low. High-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry have commonly 

caused fire in the past; moderate-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry 

have periodically caused fire in the past; and low-risk areas include locations where lightning, 

people, or industry have infrequently caused fire in the past. 

Fire Suppression All the work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operations 

beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

Fire Suppression Objective To suppress wildfires at minimum costs consistent with land and 

resource management objectives and fire-management direction as determined by National Fire 

Management Analysis System (NFMAS). This includes all work and activities associated with 

fire-extinguishing operations beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is 

completely extinguished. An example might be that a fire suppression objective is set at 5 acres, 

based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Fireline Intensity The rate of heat energy released per unit time per unit length of a fire front. 

Numerically, it is the product of the heat combustion, quality of fuel consumed per unit area in the 

fire front, and the rate of spread of a fire as measured in BTUs per second per foot of the fire front. 

Firewood (See "Fuelwood.”) 

Fiscal Year (FY) Within the Forest Service, the fiscal year includes October 1 to September 30. 

The fiscal year is referred to by the calendar year beginning January 1. For example, October 1, 

1991, to September 30, 1992, is referred to as Fiscal Year 1992. 

Forage Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly ungulate wildlife and domestic livestock. 

Forbs Any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass, sedge, and rush families. For example, 

any non-grass-like plant that has little or no woody material. 

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

Congress requiring the preparation of a program for the management of the National Forest's 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 354 

renewable resources, and of land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest 

System (NFS). It also requires a continuing inventory of all National Forest System (NFS) lands 

and renewable resources. 

Forest Interior Habitat That portion of the stand not affected by edge is termed interior habitat. 

The value of forest stands in providing interior habitat depends on the effects of edge on the 

microclimate of the stand. In the Black Hills, forest interior is defined as that portion of a forest 

stand more than 300 feet from an opening. 

Forest Supervisor Official responsible for administering the Black Hills National Forest. The 

Forest Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester. 

Forest System Roads Roads that are part of the Forest Development Transportation System that 

includes all existing and planned roads as well as other special and terminal facilities designated 

as part of the Forest Development Transportation System. 

Forested Area Land at least 10 percent of which is occupied by trees of any size or formerly 

having had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for 

non-forest use include areas for crops; improved pastures; residential or administrative areas; 

improved roads of any width; and adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width. 

FSH Forest Service Handbook. 

FSM Forest Service Manual. 

Fuel Breaks Generally wide strips of land 60 to 1,000 feet in width on which native vegetation 

has been modified so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. Some fuel 

breaks contain fire lines such as roads or hand lines that can be widened. 

Fuel Continuity Degree or extent of continuous or uninterrupted distribution of fuel particles 

(surface or aerial) in a fuel bed that affects a fire's ability to sustain combustion and spread. 

Fuel Loading The volume of the available or burnable fuels in a specified area, usually 

expressed in tons per acre. 

Fuel Reduction Treatments Prescribed burn, non-commercial thin, mechanical fuel treatment, 

and product other than log (POL) sales. 

Fuel Treatment Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition 

and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control, including lopping, chipping, 

crushing, piling, and burning (synonym for fuel modification). 

Fuels The organic materials that will support the start and spread of a fire: duff, litter, grass, 

weeds, forbs, brush, trees, and dead woody materials. 

Fuelwood Round, split, or sawed wood cut into short lengths for burning as fuel. 

Goal Broad, general statement that encompasses the desired future conditions that the U.S. 

Forest Service seeks to attain. 

Grass/Forb, Grass/Forb Stage (Structural Stage 1) (See Structural Stages - Structural Stage 1) 

Green Slash Wood residue left on the ground after logging that still contains moist phloem tissue 

and wood and may be susceptible to attack by bark beetles, generally within 1 year after cutting. 

Guideline Preferred or advisable courses of action; deviations from guidelines are permissible, 

but the responsible official must document the reasons for the deviation. 

Habitat The place where an organism (plant or animal) lives. 

Hard Snags (Vegetation) A dead or partially dead tree composed primarily of sound wood, 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 355 

particularly sound sapwood. 

Hardwood Pertains to broadleaf trees or shrubs. 

Hazard (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 

Hazard Reduction (See "Fuel Treatment.”) 

Heavy Fuels Fuels of large diameter, usually 3 inches or more, like snags, logs, large branchwood, 

and peat that ignite and burn more slowly than fine fuels (synonym for coarse fuels). 

Herbaceous Fuels Grasses, forbs, and other plants that contain little woody tissue. 

Herbicide A chemical substance used for killing or suppressing plants. 

Heritage Resources The physical remains (including but not limited to artifacts, structures, 

landscape modifications, rock art, trails, or roads) and conceptual content or context (as a setting 

for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for native peoples) of an area. 

High Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Historic Property Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This term includes artifacts, records, and 

remains related to and located within such properties. 

Human-caused Risk (Fire Management) A number related to the potential of fire starts originating 

from human activities to which a protection unit will be exposed during the rating period. 

IDT (See "Interdisciplinary Team.”) 

Ignition (Fire Management) The initiation of combustion. 

Implementation Those activities necessary to initiate the actions in the approved land and 

resource management plan (LRMP). 

Indirect Effects Results of an action occurring at a location other than where the action takes 

place and/or later in time but in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Infrastructure The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and 

administrative needs. 

Ingress The act or right to enter; access; entrance. 

Inholdings Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a National Forest that are owned by some 

other agency, organization, or individual. 

Insect and Disease Epidemics High population levels of insect-or-disease pests that cause 

substantial injury to plant or animal hosts. 

Insect and Disease Suppression Management practices applied to reduce insect-and-disease 

pest populations or damage. Insect- and-disease suppression includes actions taken to limit the 

spread of pests or to reduce susceptibility of hosts in imminent danger of being attacked. 

Intensity (Fire Management) How hot a fire is. Specifically, a measure (in BTUs per foot per 

second) of the energy released per unit of time in an area of actively burning fire. The amount of 

heat released per foot of fire front per second. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) A group of individuals with different specialized training 

assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no 

one discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through interaction, 

participants bring different points of view and a broader range of expertise to bear on the problem. 

Intermediate Cut (Timber Management) Any removal of trees from a stand between the time 

of their regeneration and the final harvest. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 356 

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year, as when it receives 

water from springs or from a surface source, such as melting snow. A stream that does not flow 

continuously, as when water losses from evaporation or seepage exceed the available streamflow. 

Ips (Pine Engraver Beetle) A genus of bark beetle that feeds beneath the bark of pines, 

typically killing branches, tops, or entire trees. These beetles often breed in logging slash or 

attack stressed and injured pines. 

Irretrievable, Irretrievable Commitments Applies to losses of production or use of renewable 

natural resources for a period of time. For example, road construction leads to an irretrievable 

loss of the productivity of the land under which the road is located. If the road is later obliterated, 

the land may eventually become productive again. The production lost is irretrievable, but the 

action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible, Irreversible Commitments Decisions causing changes that cannot be reversed. 

For example, if an area is mined, that area cannot, at a later date, be allocated to some other 

resource activity, such as Wilderness. Once mined, the ability of that area to meet Wilderness 

criteria, for instance, has been irreversibly lost. Irreversible commitments often apply to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and heritage resources. 

Land Unit (Watershed) A mapped land type polygon; or a mapped soil unit. 

Landline (Land Survey) For Forest Plan purposes, National Forest property boundaries. 

Landscape (Silviculture) The primary unit of analysis for silviculture. A landscape for purposes 

of silviculture is a sixth-level watershed. 

Landscape Character Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an 

image and make it identifiable or unique. Valued landscape character creates a "sense of place" 

and describes the image of an area. The landscape character provides a reference for defining 

the inherent scenic attractiveness classes. 

Landscape Scale A heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems 

that are repeated in similar form throughout. Landscapes vary in size from many thousands of 

acres to only a few acres. 

Late Succession Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural features. This term 

encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in 

structure, composition, function, and other attributes. 

There are two types of late-successional ponderosa pine defined for the Black Hills. The first 

type, open-canopy late-successional ponderosa pine, occurs where periodic, low-intensity fires 

have been part of the ecosystem. These late-successional stands would consist of clumps or 

groups of trees with grasses in the openings between the clumps. They would contain large old 

trees with open branches, irregular, and flattened crowns. The clumps or groups of trees would 

contain little down dead material and few small trees. 

The second type, closed-canopy late-successional ponderosa pine occurs where periodic, lowintensity high-frequency fires have not been a significant part of the ecosystem. These stands 

would contain large old trees with open branches and irregular crowns. The stands would have 

multiple canopy layers made up of various-aged trees. They would be well stocked with trees 

and contain standing dead and down trees. 

Local Roads (See "Road Functional Classification.”) 

Logging Debris Unmerchantable tree parts like crowns, rotted logs, and uprooted stumps that 

remain after harvest. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 357 

Logging Slash The wood residue left on the ground after harvesting. It includes unused logs, 

uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, tops, branches, and leaves. 

Lopped, Lopping (Timber Management) Cutting off one or more branches of a tree, whether 

standing, dead, or fallen. 

Lopping and Scattering Lopping logging debris and spreading it more or less evenly on the ground. 

Low Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Maintenance Levels (See "Road Maintenance Level.”) 

Management Indicators (Wildlife) Plant or animal species or habitat components selected in a 

planning process that are used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on 

populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important. 

Management Objectives Clearly stated objectives describing the intended post-management 

status of an area. Typically, objectives are disclosed in the NEPA documentation. 

MBF Thousand board feet. 

MCF Thousand cubic feet. 

Meadow An area of perennial, herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or grass-like. A natural 

opening in a forest, generally at higher elevations, that produces exceptional levels of herbaceous 

plants, which is usually a consequence of high soil/water content or a perched water table. 

Generally, a prairie grassland will occupy a convex surface while a meadow will occupy a 

concave surface. 

Midstory (Vegetation) Vegetative layer 10 to 40 feet tall between the overstory trees and 

ground layer. May consist of trees and/or shrubs. 

Mitigation Includes avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an 

action; minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected 

environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. 

MMBF Million board feet. 

MMCF Million cubic feet. 

Moderate Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Moisture Regime (Soils) The presence or absence of groundwater or water held at a tension of 

less than 15 bars in the soil or in specified horizons by periods of the year. 

Monitoring The sample collection and analysis of information regarding Forest Plan 

management practices to determine how well objectives have been met as well as the effects of 

those management practices on the land and environment. 

Multi-storied Stands (Vegetation) Plant communities having two or more recognizable canopy 

layers or height levels. 

Multiple Use According to the Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act of 1960, multiple use is the 

management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System (NFS) 

so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; 

such management makes the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or 

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in 

use to conform to changing needs and conditions. Some lands will be used for less than all of the
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 358 

resources. Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources is employed, each 

with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land. Consideration is given to the 

relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give 

the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) An act declaring a national policy to 

encourage productive harmony between people and their environment; to promote efforts that 

will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and simulate the health 

and welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) A broad umbrella process to help fire 

managers identify the most efficient fire program meeting the direction in the Forest Plan. This 

includes information for the planning record on program composition, annual programmed costs, 

emergency firefighting costs, expected resource impacts, and net value change. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) A law passed in 1976 amending the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of Regional and 

Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development. 

National Forest System (NFS) Land Federal lands designated by Executive Order or statute as 

National Forests, National Grasslands or Purchase Units, or other lands under the administration 

of the Forest Service. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) A list of heritage resources that have local, state, 

or national significance. The list is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Natural Fuels Fuels resulting from natural processes and not directly generated or altered by 

land-management practices (compare activity fuels). 

Natural Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by natural means without seeding or planting done 

by people. The new crop is grown from self-sown seed or by vegetative means, such as root suckers. 

Net Public Benefit The overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects 

(benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative and 

qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index. 

Non-motorized Activities Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other nonliving power source. Non-motorized activities exclude such machines as aircraft, hovercraft, motorboats, 

automobiles, motor bikes, snowmobiles, bulldozers, chainsaws, rock drills, and generators. 

Noxious Weeds Those plant species designated as weeds by federal or state laws. Noxious weeds 

generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; 

poisonous; toxic; parasitic; a carrier or host for serious insects or diseases; and generally non-native. 

Objective Concise statement of desired measurable results intended to promote achievement of

specific goals. Attainment of objectives is limited by the application of standards and guidelines. 

Obliteration (Transportation) The reclamation and/or restoration of the land occupied by a 

transportation facility for purposes other than transportation. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel on or immediately over land, water, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 

Openings (Tree Canopy) The hole created by removing the majority of the tree canopy. This 

includes the harvesting of the majority of trees in a given area. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 359 

Overstory (Biological Diversity) The portion of vegetation in a forest forming the uppermost 

foliage layer. 

Pine Engraver Beetle (See "Ips.”) 

Piling and Burning (Timber Management) Piling slash resulting from logging and 

subsequently burning individual piles. 

Plant Associations A grouping of plants that has reached dynamic equilibrium with the local 

environmental conditions and is equivalent to climax. On site, there is no evidence of 

replacement by other dominant plant species (and there is no evidence of serious disturbance.) 

Plant Communities Assemblage of plant species living in an area. It is an organized unit to the extent

that it has characteristics in addition to the individuals and populations and functions as a unit. 

Pre-commercial Cutting (See "Thinning.”) 

Preparation Cut (Silviculture) A timber harvest method that removes trees near the end of a 

rotation so as to open the canopy and enlarge the crowns of seed bearers to improve conditions 

for seed production and natural regeneration, as typically in a shelterwood method. 

Preparedness Level (Fire Management) Planning levels of suppression readiness dependent on 

fire activity, fuel moisture, drought conditions, fire weather, fire danger, and resources deployed or 

available. There are five preparedness levels with level five being the most active state of readiness. 

Prescribed Burning Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or 

modified state under specified environmental conditions that allows the fire to be confined to a 

predetermined area and at the same time produce the fireline intensity and rate of spread required 

to attain planned resource management objectives (synonym for controlled burning). 

Prescribed Fire A fire burning within prescription resulting from planned or unplanned ignition. 

Prescription (Fire Management) A written statement defining objectives to be attained, as well 

as temperature; humidity; wind direction and wind speed; fuel-moisture content; and soil 

moisture, under which the fire will be allowed to burn, generally expressed as acceptable ranges 

of the various indices, and the limit of the geographic area to be covered. 

Present Net Value (PNV) The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs 

to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs 

of managing the planning area. 

Pre-suppression (Fire Management) Activities required in advance of fire occurrence to ensure 

an effective suppression action. It includes recruiting and training fire forces; planning and 

organizing attack methods; procuring and maintaining fire equipment; and maintaining structural 

improvements necessary for the fire program. 

Products Other than Logs (POL), Products Other Than Sawlogs, Products Other Than 

Sawtimber Products such as posts, poles, and fiber from trees or parts of trees less than sawlog 

size. POL usually include trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (4.5 feet from 

ground level) and less than 7.9 inches diameter breast height (dbh), with tops of trees greater 

than 4 inches to less than 6 inches in diameter. 

Project One or more site-specific activities designed to accomplish a specific on-the-ground 

purpose or result. Projects are tiered to the Forest Plan and will have further site-specific analysis. 

Public Access Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency has secured a 

right-of-way for public use. 

Ranger District Administrative subdivisions of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger who 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 360 

reports to the Forest Supervisor. 

Raptor Habitat Habitat required by hawks, falcons or owls, especially for nesting. 

Rate of Spread (Fire Management) Relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal 

dimensions, expressed as rate of increase of the perimeter, rate of increase in area, or rate of 

advance of its head, depending on the intended use of the information, generally in chains or 

acres per hour for a specified period in the fire's history. 

Reforestation Reestablishment of a tree crop on forested land. 

Regeneration (Silviculture) The renewal of vegetation whether by natural or artificial means. 

Also, the new growth itself. 

Resource Value-at-risk (Fire Management) Fire-suppression planning tool providing a relative 

expression in five classes of fire effects on all resources but not the value of the resources 

themselves (compare values at risk). 

Resource Values The tangible and intangible worth of forest resources. 

Responsible Official The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a 

specific decision. 

Retention (Vegetation Management) To keep the existing extent of a vegetative component. 

Usually refers to a species, such as aspen, birch, or bur oak. 

Revegetation The reestablishment and development of a plant cover. This may take place 

naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through the direct 

action of reforestation or reseeding. 

Rights-of-way Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under, or through such 

land. The privilege that one person or persons particularly described may have of passing over 

the land of another in some particular line. 

Rights-of-way Corridors A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of 

transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. 

Riparian Area (See "Riparian Ecosystem.”) 

Riparian Communities Repeating, classified, defined, and recognizable assemblages of plantor-animal communities associated with riparian areas. 

Riparian Ecosystem The moist transition zone between the aquatic ecosystem and the relatively 

drier, more upland, terrestrial ecosystem(s). This transition zone can extend both laterally and 

longitudinally away from aquatic ecosystems, sometimes into headwater swales that have no defined 

stream channel. The riparian ecosystem is the area whose soil is relatively more moist than the 

adjacent upland and whose vegetation growth reflects the greater accumulation of available water. 

Risk (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 

Risk Index (Fire Management) A number related to the probability of an ignition of a fire 

(Compare "Human-caused Risk.") 

Roads A general term denoting a way with at least two-wheel tracks for purposes of travel by 

vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. 

Maintenance level (ML) ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12. 3 as the level of service provided 

by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with 

road management objectives, and maintenance criteria. Roads may be maintained at one level 

and planned to be maintained at a different level at some future date. The operational
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 361 

maintenance level is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today’s 

needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns; in other words, it defines 

the standard to which the road is currently being maintained. The objective maintenance level is 

the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management 

objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. 

Maintenance level 1 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12. 3 as intermittent service roads 

during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic 

custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level 

and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given 

to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at 

this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads 

receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be 

managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, 

while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and 

suitable for nonmotorized uses. These roads have the following attributes: (1) vehicular traffic is 

eliminated, including administrative traffic; (2) physically blocked or entrance is 

disguised; (3) not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act; (4) maintenance is 

done only to minimize resource impacts; and (5) no maintenance other than a condition survey 

may be required so as long as no potential exists for resource damage. 

Maintenance level 2 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open for use by highclearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other 

specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are 

either (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high-clearance 

vehicles. These roads have the following attributes: (1) low traffic volume and low speed; (2) 

typically local roads; (3) typically connect collectors and other local roads; (4) dips are the 

preferred drainage treatment; (5) not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act; (6) 

surface smoothness is not a consideration; and (7) not suitable for passenger cars. 

Maintenance level 3 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads open and maintained for 

travel by prudent drivers in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are low 

priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and 

spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or 

“prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. These roads have 

the following attributes: (1) subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act and Manual 

of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); (2) roads have low to moderate traffic volume; 

(3) typically connect arterial and collector roads; (4) a combination of dips and culverts provide 

drainage; (5) may include some dispersed recreation roads; and (6) potholing or washboarding 

may occur. 

Maintenance level 4 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that provide a moderate 

degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane 

and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved 

and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, 

the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times. These 

roads have the following attributes: (1) subject to requirements of the Highway Safety Act and 

MUTCD; (2) roads have moderate traffic volume and speeds; (3) may connect to county roads; 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 362 

(4) culverts provide drainage; (5) usually a collector; and (6) may include some developed 

recreation roads. 

Maintenance level 5 road ~ Defined in FSH 7709.58, 10, 12.3 as roads that provide a high 

degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. 

Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is 

“encourage.” These roads have the following attributes: (1) subject to the requirements of the 

Highway Safety Act and MUTCD; (2) highest traffic volume and speeds; (3) typically connect 

State and county roads; (4) culverts provide drainage; (5) usually arterial and collector; (6) may 

include some developed recreation roads; and (7) usually paved or chip-sealed. 

Roadside Corridors A passageway that frames a road or travelway. The corridor includes the 

viewing area and facilities, which may be within the immediate roadside area or part of a 

sweeping distance panorama. 

Salvage Harvest Removal of damaged, dead or dying trees resulting from insect and disease 

epidemics, wildfire, or storms to recover logs before they have no commercial value for 

production. 

Salvage of Dead Material (See "Salvage Harvest.”) 

Sanitation Cutting, Sanitation Harvest (Silviculture) The removal of trees occupied by insect 

or disease pests to reduce pest populations and limit their spread. 

Sawtimber Trees suitable in size and quality for producing logs that can be processed into lumber. 

For planning purposes, trees with an 8-inch diameter or more are classified as sawtimber. 

Scarify To abrade, scratch, or modify the surface of the ground to expose mineral soil. 

Scenery The composition of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and 

landrise effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. 

Scenic Class Scenic classes measure the relative importance or value of discrete landscape areas 

having similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic classes are 

used during forest planning to compare the value of scenery with the value of other resources, such 

as timber, wildlife, late succession, or minerals. The higher the scenic class, the more important it 

is to maintain the highest scenic value. Scenic classes are determined and mapped by combining 

the three classes of scenic attractiveness with the distance zones and concern levels of landscape 

visibility. A numerical value of 1 to 7 is assigned to Forest lands. Generally, scenic classes 1-2 

have high public value; classes 3-5 have moderate value; and classes 6 and 7 have low value. 

Scenic Integrity (Existing or Objective) State of naturalness or conversely the state of 

disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation 

from the existing landscape character in a national forest. It is the measure of the degree to 

which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete. The highest scenic integrity ratings are 

given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by

constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is used to describe an existing situation, 

standard for management, or desired future conditions. 

Very High: A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change only. 

High: A scenic integrity level meaning human activities are not visually evident. In high 

scenic integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture 

found in the existing landscape character. 

Moderate: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape 

character "appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 363 

to the landscape character being viewed. 

Low: A scenic integrity referring to the landscapes where the valued landscape character 

"appears moderately altered." Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character 

being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, effect, and pattern of

natural opening, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the 

landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the 

landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. 

Very Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape 

character "appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape 

character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and 

pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside 

the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the 

natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not 

dominate the composition. 

Unacceptable Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued 

landscape character being viewed appears extremely altered. Deviations are extremely 

dominant and borrow little if any line, form, color, texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape 

character. Landscapes at this level of integrity need rehabilitation. This level should only be 

used to inventory existing integrity. It must not be used as a management objective. 

Sediment Material suspended in water or that has been deposited in streams and lakes. 

Sediment Load The solid material transported by a stream and expressed as the dry weight of all 

sediment that passes a given point in a given period of time. 

Sediment Yield Amount of sediment leaving an analysis area and entering a channel. 

Seed Cutting (Silviculture) A harvest method that removes all mature trees from a stand except 

for selected seed-bearing trees retained on the site to provide a seed source for stand 

regeneration. In a two-step shelterwood cutting method, the first of the shelterwood cuttings. 

Seed Tree, Seed-tree Cutting Small number of seed-bearing trees left singly or in small groups 

after timber harvest to provide seed for regeneration of the site. 

Selection Cut (Silviculture) A harvest method that periodically removes mature trees 

individually or in small groups from an uneven-aged forest. By this method, both regeneration 

cutting and tending of immature stand components are accomplished at each entry. 

Sensitive Species Those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward 

trends in population numbers or density; or significant current or predicted downward trends in 

habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. 

Seral (Ecology) A biotic community that is in a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological 

succession. 

Seral Stages (Ecology) The sequence of a plant community's successional stages to potential 

natural vegetation. 

Severely Burned Soil A condition in which most woody debris and the entire forest floor is 

consumed down to bare mineral soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat. Also, fine 

roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil. 

Shelterwood, Shelterwood Method (Silviculture) A harvest method in which a portion of the 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 364 

mature stand is retained as a source of seed and/or protection during the period of regeneration. 

The mature stand is removed in two or more cuttings commonly termed seed cutting and 

removal cutting. The seed cutting may or may not be preceded by a preparatory cutting. 

SHPO (See "State Historic Preservation Officer.”) 

Silvicultural System A management process that tends, harvests, and replaces forests, resulting 

in a forest of distinctive form with a desired condition. 

Silvicultural Treatment A management practice that utilizes a method of tree culture, harvest, 

or replacement (See "Single-tree Selection,” "Shelterwood Method,” "Group Selection,” "Evenaged Management,” "Uneven-aged Management,” and "Clearcutting.”) 

Silviculture Generally, the science and art of tree management, based on the study of the life history 

and general characteristics of forest trees and stands, with particular reference to local factors; more 

particularly, the theory and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and 

growth of forests for desired conditions. 

Site An area considered in terms of its physical and/or biological environment; for example, a riparian 

zone, a homogenous stand of vegetation, or a campground. 

Site Index A measure of the relative productive capacity of an area for growing trees. Measurement 

is based on height of the dominant trees in a stand at a given age. 

Site Preparation (Silviculture) The activity that prepares a site for natural regeneration or the 

planting of seedlings. The objective is to create a favorable environment for establishing and growing 

the desired vegetation classes. Treatments could include chemical, mechanical, or fire. 

Site Productivity Production capability of specific areas of land. 

Skid Trails (Timber Management) Any way, more or less prepared, over which logs are dragged. 

Any road or trail leading from stump to landing. 

Skidding (Timber Management) Moving logs from the stump to a collecting point. 

Skyline Logging Taking logs from the stump area to a landing using an overhead system of winchdriven cables to which logs are attached with chokers.

Slash (Timber Management) The residue left on the ground after harvesting, sanitation operations, 

windstorm, or fire. It includes such material as unutilized logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted 

stems, tops, branches, and leaves. 

Snag (Vegetation) Standing dead tree or standing portion from which at least the leaves and smaller 

branches have fallen; often called a stub if it is less than 20 feet tall. 

Snag-dependent Species (See "Cavity Nesting Species.”) 

Soft Snags (Vegetation) A snag composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and 

deterioration, particularly in the sapwood (outer) portions; generally there are no live branches 

on the snag. 

Softwood A conventional term for both the timber and the trees belonging to the evergreen group, as 

the pine, spruce, fir, etc. 

Soil Compaction A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and an 

increase in soil-bulk density and strength. 

Soil Erosion The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by water or wind. Soil 

erosion and sediment are not the same (See "Sediment.”) 

Soil Productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 365 

volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation. 

Soil Surveys The systematic examination, description, classification, and mapping of soils in an area. 

Standard Mandatory courses of action; any deviation from standards requires amendment of the LRMP. 

Stand (Vegetation) A community, particularly of trees, possessing sufficient uniformity as regards 

to vegetation type, age class, risk class, vigor, size class, and stocking class that distinguishes it from 

adjacent communities and thus forms a management or silvicultural unity. Within a stand, a 

dominant or primary species and age class is identifiable, but there may be inclusions or clusters of 

different species or ages. R2 RIS stands are typically greater than 10 acres. IRI stands are typically 

greater than 5 acres. 

Stand-replacing Fire A fire that kills all or most living overstory trees in a forest and initiates 

secondary succession or regrowth. 

Stand Risk Rating (Insects) A ranking of relative forest stand conditions that reflects the degree of 

susceptibility to attack by a particular insect species and the potential level of damage if an outbreak 

occurs. It does not indicate where or when an infestation will actually occur. For mountain pine 

beetles in ponderosa pine, a computer model exists to determine low-, medium- and high-risk stands 

based on measures of stand structure, average basal area, and average tree diameter. 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) A person appointed by a state's governor to 

administer the State Historic Preservation Program. 

Stream Health The condition of a stream relative to robust health for that stream type and 

landscape, considering indicators such as channel pattern; slope; particle size; pool frequency and 

depth; bank vegetation; and woody debris that reflect the stability and habitat quality of the stream. 

Structural Stages (Vegetation) Any of several developmental stages of tree stands described in 

terms of tree size and the extent of canopy closure they create. They include 

Structural Stage 1 (Grass/Forb): An early forest successional stage during which grasses 

and forbs are the dominant vegetation. At the RIS site level, Structural Stage 1 is defined as 

nonstocked, with an AMD less than 10 percent. Small-scale Structural Stage 1 within RIS 

sites are at least one acre in size, do not meet the seedling stocking criteria, and contain no 

saplings, poles, or mature trees. 

Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by tree seedlings 

(less than one inch dbh) and shrub species. 

Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young trees 1 to 7 

inches dbh, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. This stage is subdivided into 

three canopy closure classes: A (less than 40 percent); B (40 to 70 percent); and C (greater 

than 70 percent). 

Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than structural stage 3. Also 

classified by the same canopy closure categories as structural stage 3. 

Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This structural stage is characterized by trees 160 

years of age and older. 

Subdivisions Areas of previously undeveloped land divided into individual home sites and/or 

blocks of lots. 

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) The relatively transitory communities that replace one 

another during development toward a potential natural community. 

Suitability The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 366 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices. 

Suppress a Fire To extinguish a fire or contain it within specified boundaries. 

Suppression (See "Fire Suppression" and "Insect and Disease Suppression.”) 

Temporary Roads (See "Short-term Transportation Facility.”) 

Thinning (Silviculture) The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand to meet desired 

conditions. Two types of thinning may be done: 

Pre-commercial, Non-commercial: Removing trees that are too small to make a 

merchantable product. 

Commercial: Removing trees that have reached sufficient size to be manufactured into a 

product and to improve tree spacing and promote more rapid growth. 

Threatened Species Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been designated in the Federal 

Register by the Secretary of Interior as such. 

Timber A general term applied to tree stands that provide a wood-fiber product. 

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) The elimination or suppression of the less desirable vegetation in 

favor of the more desirable tree growth, such as thinning, cleaning, weeding, and release cuttings. 

Trail A general term denoting a way usually less than 50 inches wide for purposes of travel by 

foot, stock, or trail vehicle. 

Transportation System All roads needed to manage and administer Forest resources. A road network. 

Transportation/Utility Corridor A linear strip of land identified for the present location of 

transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. 

Travel Corridor A strip of land that includes up to a maximum of 1,000 feet for major roads 

(500 feet either side of the road's centerline) or 500 feet for major trails (250 feet either side of 

the trail's centerline); travel corridors form a passageway that allows travelers to experience and 

interact with the quality and character of the landscape. 

Travel Management Travel management is the movement of people and products to and 

through national forests and grasslands. It connects many different varieties of users and multiple 

uses on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

Treated Area Area on which management such as timber harvesting or prescribed burning occurs. 

Tree Improvement (See "Timber Stand Improvement.”) 

Understory (Vegetation) The lowest layer of vegetation in a forest or shrub community composed 

of grass, forbs, shrubs, and trees less than 10 feet tall. Vegetation growing under the tree canopy. 

Uneven-aged Management (Silviculture) The application of a combination of actions needed 

to simultaneously maintain tall, continuous cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, 

and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to 

provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the 

number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to be retained within each area, thereby 

maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and group selection. 

Value (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 367 

Values at Risk (Fire Management) Any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values 

that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs (Compare "Resource Values-at-risk.”) 

Vegetative Buffer Strips Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between areas of 

ground disturbance and areas needing protection from sedimentation. 

Vegetative Management, Vegetative Manipulation, Vegetative Treatment Any activities 

undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation. 

Vertical Diversity The diversity in an area that results from the complexity of the above-ground 

structure of the vegetation; has two or more layers; the more tiers of vegetation or the more 

diverse the species makeup, or both, the higher the degree of vertical diversity. 

Viable Population Group of individuals of a particular species that produces enough offspring for 

long-term persistence and adaptation of the species or population in a given place. 36 CFR 219.19 

defines a viable population for planning purposes as one that has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to insure that a continued viable population is well 

distributed in the planning area. Planning area is further defined by 36 CFR 219.3 as the "area of 

the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest plan." Direction from the Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) defines a viable population as one that has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout 

its existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed species) within the planning area. 

Viewshed Total visible area from a single observer position or the total visible area from multiple 

observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, 

towns, cities, or other view locations. Examples are corridors, feature, or basin viewsheds. 

Water Influence Zone The land next to streams and lakes where vegetation plays a major role in 

sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Includes the geomorphic floodplain, 

riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge, and has a minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) 

of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greater. 

Watershed The area of land bounded by a divide that drains water, sediment, and dissolved 

materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel or to a lake, reservoir, or 

other body of water. Also called drainage basin or catchment. 

Watershed Level The number assigned to an entire drainage basin contributing to the stream 

segment of a given level and bearing an identical designation; for example, a first-level 

watershed contains all the drainage area of a first-level stream (See “Stream Level.”) 

6th Level Watersheds: A watershed coded with a 12-digit code, typically 10,000 to 30,000 

acres in size. 

Waters of the United States Waters used for navigation and all other waters such as lakes, 

streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, 

wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, and their tributaries. 

Wetlands Those areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater with a frequency 

sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of 

vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth 

and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as 

sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 

Wildfire Any wildland fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire within an approved 

prescription. All wildfires will be given an appropriate suppression action. 

Wildland-Urban Interface In applying Title I of the HFRA, this term means: 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 368 

• An area within or adjacent to an at-risk-community (ARC) identified in recommendations 

to the Secretary in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

OR 

• In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in effect: 

—an area extending 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community (ARC) 

—An area within 1-1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community (ARC), including any

land that 

Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildland fire behavior

endangering the at-risk community (ARC) 

Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective firebreak, such as a road or 

ridgetop 

OR 

Is in Condition class 3 as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific 

environmental analysis 

AND 

An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community (ARC) that the 

Secretary determines—in cooperation with the at-risk community (ARC)—requires 

hazardous-fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 369 

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Interdisciplinary Team 

Craig Bobzien Forest Supervisor – Bachelor of Science in Forest Management Science, Colorado State 

University, 1978. Experience working in silviculture, watershed, lands uses and minerals 

management, fire and aviation, timber, range, recreation and wilderness management. 

Served as District Ranger on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana and the Okanogan 

National Forest, Washington State, and Deputy Forest Supervisor on the Idaho 

Panhandle. 

Dennis Jaeger Deputy Forest Supervisor – Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, U.S. Military 

Academy, West Point, NY, 1982. Experience as a civil engineer on the Rio Grande 

National Forest in Monte Vista, Colorado, District engineer on the Medicine Bow 

National Forest Douglas Ranger District, Wyoming. Works Program Officer, Angell Job 

Corps, Yachats, Oregon, Boxelder Job Corps Center Director, Nemo, South Dakota. 

Katie Van Alstyne ID Team Leader, Writer/Editor - Bachelor of Arts, Biology, Hollins University, 1990. 

Eleven years with the National Park Service as an interpreter and law enforcement 

dispatcher. Twelve years of Forest Service experience at the district, regional and 

national level in planning/litigation. 

 

Blaine Cook Forest Silviculturist and Timber Planner - Education: B.S. in Forest Business 

Management, University of Idaho, 1974. Experience: thirty-five years with the Forest 

Service. Forest management experience on the Shasta-Trinity, Medicine Bow, Tongass, 

Ochoco, Bighorn and Black Hills National Forests. 

Todd Pechota Forest Fire Management Officer – Bachelor of Science in Speech with a Mass 

Communication Emphasis from Black Hills State University, 1989 and Bachelor of 

Science in Forestry with a Fire Science Emphasis from Colorado State University, 

1993. Fire Program Manager since 1993 has participated as an ID Team member on 

FP Revisions in Colorado and South Dakota. Served as Ops Section Chief and 

currently IC for a Regional Type II Incident Management Team. 

Les Gonyer Hydrologist – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, minor in Hydrology, University of 

Minnesota, 1977. Thirty-five years of Forest Service experience at the District and 

Forest levels in Utah, New Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, California, and South 

Dakota in watershed, timber, special uses, minerals, fire, engineering, and 

environmental analysis. BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) Team Leader. 

Brandon Taglioli Supervisory Civil Engineer – Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Licensed 

Professional Engineer in the States of Colorado and South Dakota. Twelve years of 

Forest Service experience at the District and Forest level in transportation planning, road 

design, aquatic organism passage design, contract preparation and administration, and 

environmental analysis. Certified in roads, concrete, trails, bridges, and administration 

of timber sales and public works under the National Construction Certification Program.

Melissa Dempsey Hydrologist - M.S. in Geology - Northern Arizona University, B.S. in Geology - 

Northern Arizona University. Eight years Forest Service experience at the District and 

Forest level. 

Rick Hudson Forest Recreation, Trails, and Land Uses Program Manager, Bachelor of Science in 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 370 

Forestry/Wildlife, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1974. District 

Recreation and Timber Staff, Jackson Ranger District, Bridger-Teton National Forest, 

Jackson, WY 1991-2000. District Fire Management, Range, Wildlife, Recreation Staff, 

Kiamichi Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas/Oklahoma 1979-1991. 

Ed Fischer Forest Environmental Coordinator - B.S. in Forest Management, Michigan State 

University, 1975. Employed with the US Forest Service since 1978 as a forester and 

planner at District and Forest levels in Colorado, Alaska, Idaho and South Dakota. 

Brent Foster Forest Timber Program Manager - Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Iowa State 

University, Ames, Iowa 1981. Forest Sales Forester, Ouachita National Forest, District 

Timber and Minerals Staff, Big Timber Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest, MT 

District Planning/Silv Forester, Chemult Ranger District, Winema National Forest, 

Oregon District Forester, Monticello Ranger District, Manti-LaSal National Forest, Utah, 

District Forestry Technician, Paisley Ranger District, Fremont National Forest, Oregon, 

Chelsea Vollmer Botanist- Bachelor’s Degree in Biology with options in Botany and Ecology, 

University of Montana – Missoula. Employed with the Forest Service since 2003 as a 

botanist at the Ranger District and Forest levels in Colorado, California, and South 

Dakota. Has worked on the Black Hills since 2006. 

Craig Beckner Rangeland Management Specialist – Rangeland Management and Invasives Species 

Analysis -- B.S. in Range/Forest Management, Colorado State University, 1980. 

Employed with the Forest Service since 1978 as a range conservationist and rangeland 

management specialist at the ranger district and Forest levels in Utah, Oregon, 

Wyoming, and South Dakota. 

Deanna Reyher Forest Soil Scientist, Forest Watershed Coordinator - B.S. in Agronomy, University of 

Nebraska, Lincoln, 1984. Twenty-eight years of experience in soils, botany, ecology, 

watershed coordination and agronomy; 23 years of which was with the USDA Forest 

Service in the soils, watershed, ecology and botany programs. 

Kerry Burns Wildlife Biologist - B.S. in Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, 1982. 

Employed with Forest Service since 1985 as a range technician, forestry technician, 

and wildlife biologist at the ranger district and forest levels in Colorado, Wyoming, 

Alaska and South Dakota. 

Michael Hilton Heritage Resources Program Manager and Tribal Liaison - Ph.D. in Archaeology, 

UCLA, 2002. Seventeen years of federal government service: six years for National 

Park Service in Alaska and 11 years for the U.S. Forest Service in Alaska, California, 

and South Dakota. 

Steve Hirtzel Fisheries Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Wildlife & Fisheries Science, South 

Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 1987. Twenty-four years of experience in 

research, regulatory and natural resource management programs with various state and 

federal agencies, the past ten years on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Steve Keegan Forest Landscape Architect - Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture and 

Environmental Studies, State University of New York (SUNY) - College of

Environmental Science and Forestry, 1980; Bachelor of Science, Syracuse University 

1980; Associates of Arts, Humanities, SUNY - Onondaga Community College, 1978. 

Thirty years of Forest Service experience at the Zone and Forest level on the Helena, 

Clearwater, Malheur and Black Hills National Forests. 
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project DEIS, Page 371 

CHAPTER 7 INDEX 

ARC, 2, 368 

At-Risk-Community, 2 

BA, 2 

Basal Area, 2, 348 

CMAI, 2, 349, 350 

collaboratively, 39 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2, 25, 

312, 317, 368 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans, 34, 

39 

Condition Class, 2, 46, 147, 349 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment, 2 

CWPP, 2, 25, 34 

Deciding Official, vii, 27, 33 

design criteria, 13, 40 

Design Criteria, xi 

EIS, 2, ii, v, vii, 13, 27, 28, 33, 44, 50, 293, 

352 

environmental impact statement, ii, 13 

Environmental Impact Statement, 2, ii, 13, 

18, 333, 336, 351, 352 

fire hazard, 17, 22, 23, 26, 46, 115, 120, 

136, 140, 147, 216, 291 

Fire Protection Assessment, 353, 355, 360, 

366 

fire regime, 46 

fire suppression, v, 15, 217, 287, 353 

Firewise, 39 

Forest Plan, ii, iv, v, vii, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 

29, 38, 39, 115, 140, 218, 293, 299, 332, 

347, 350, 356, 357, 358, 359 

FP, 34, 116, 219 

FP, 18 

fuels reduction, 119 

hardwood stands, 46, 147 

Healthy Forest Initiative, ii, iv, 24 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 115 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 2, ii, iv, vii, 

13, 24, 27, 140 

HFRA, 2, ii, iv, 13, 24, 25, 33, 34, 41, 367 

ID Team, 2, v, 29, 33, 369 

insect and disease, ii, iv, 19, 115, 119, 216, 

362 

Interdisciplinary Team, 2, v, 25, 355, 369 

MA, 2, 18, 21, 304 

Management Area, 2, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 

Management Areas, xi, 18 

management indicator species, 320 

MIS, 2 

mitigation, v, 29, 40, 42, 293 

monitoring, iv, 13, 24, 40, 334, 335, 337 

motorized, 31 

mountain pine beetle, ii, iv, vi, 15, 24, 26, 

27, 34, 35, 37, 115, 120, 125, 141, 143, 

286, 289, 316, 319, 321, 323 

MPB, 2, iv, v, vi, 16, 17, 22, 26, 27, 47, 119, 

136, 216, 217, 219, 290, 291 

National Environmental Policy Act, 2, ii, v, 

13, 25, 34, 50, 350, 351, 358 

National Fire Plan, ii, iv, 24, 140 

National Forest System, 2, 15, 24, 349, 351, 

354, 357, 358, 366, 367 

NEPA, 2, ii, v, 13, 25, 28, 29, 33, 34, 41, 50, 

293, 331, 350, 351, 357, 358 

NFS, 2, vi, 19, 39, 349, 351, 354, 357, 358, 

366 

non-motorized, 31 

noxious weed, v, 34, 116, 217, 219 

prescribed burning, 31 

prescribed fire, 22, 23, 136, 311, 367 

proposed action, ii, iv, v, vii, 13, 19, 27, 28, 

29, 33, 34, 42, 49, 115, 348, 352 

Record of Decision, 2 

restoration, 24, 217, 313, 358 

Restoration, 2, ii, iv, vii, 13, 24, 27, 115, 140 

retention, 217 

Retention, 313, 360 

ROD, 2 

scoping, ii, v, vi, vii, 27, 28, 29, 34, 41, 50, 

116 

slash, 293, 308, 356, 359 

snags, 216, 218, 321, 355 

Snags, 354, 364 

soils, 136, 140, 289, 294, 347, 365 

Species of Local Concern, 334 

structural stage, 22, 23, 24, 115, 136, 365 

structural stages, 22, 23, 24, 136, 216, 217 

Transportation System, 331, 354, 366 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 372

transportation systems, 355 

values at risk, 360 

Values at Risk, 367 

wildfire, iv, v, 16, 17, 24, 26, 31, 42, 47, 

119, 120, 217, 286, 289, 290, 291, 292, 

293, 347, 352, 353, 362 

wildfire hazard, 16, 17, 286, 289 

wildfires, ii, iv, 17, 26, 34, 46, 140, 216, 

217, 286, 289, 290, 353, 367 

wildland-urban interface, 24, 25, 115, 290 

Wildland-Urban Interface, 2, iv, 285, 367 

WUI, 2, iv, 24, 25, 26, 34, 140, 286