United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

December 2011

DRAFT

Environmental 

Impact Statement

Vestal Project

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer County, South Dakota

For Information Contact: 

Kelly Honors

330 Mt. Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-4853

Email: khonors@fs.fed.us
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

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

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

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

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large-print, 

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

and TDD).

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

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800)795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.
Vestal DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement 

i

Vestal Project

Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

Custer County, South Dakota

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Lynn Kolund, District Ranger

330 Mount Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

(605) 673-4853

For Information Contact: Kelly Honors, Team Leader

330 Mount Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

(605) 673-4853

Abstract: The Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest has prepared a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. The Hell Canyon Ranger District proposes to implement multiple resource management 

actions within the Vestal project area as guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan as amended. The focus of the proposed action is to reduce mountain 

pine beetle risk and fire hazard on National Forest lands surrounding the City of Custer, SD. Two 

alternatives are considered in detail. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 is the 

proposed action and includes vegetation treatments designed primarily to reduce the potential for 

mountain pine beetle caused mortality within the Vestal project area. Proposed treatments are also 

designed to reduce fire hazard. This DEIS discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects 

resulting from these two alternatives.

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 
ii

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). 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: Lynn D. Kolund, Hell Canyon District Ranger

330 Mount Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

Email: comments-rocky-mountain-black-hills-hell-canyon@fs.fed.us
Vestal DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ i

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1

Document Structure...................................................................................................... 1

Background.................................................................................................................... 1

Location.......................................................................................................................... 2

Management Direction ................................................................................................. 3

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................... 10

Proposed Action........................................................................................................... 10

Decision Framework ................................................................................................... 11

Public Involvement...................................................................................................... 11

Issues............................................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................... 13

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................. 13

Alternative 1 – No Action........................................................................................ 13

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action............................................................................. 13

Design Criteria............................................................................................................. 17

Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 17

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail....................................................................... 17

Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................ 20

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................................... 24

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions................................................ 24

Forest Vegetation......................................................................................................... 24

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 24

Cover Types............................................................................................................... 24

Ponderosa Pine.......................................................................................................... 25

Very Large Sized Trees.............................................................................................. 26

Late Succession.......................................................................................................... 27

Mountain Pine Beetle ................................................................................................ 27

Hardwoods................................................................................................................. 28
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Spruce ........................................................................................................................ 28

Meadows.................................................................................................................... 28

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 28

Alternative 1............................................................................................................. 28

Ponderosa Pine.......................................................................................................... 28

Very Large Sized Trees.............................................................................................. 31

Late Succession.......................................................................................................... 32

Hardwoods................................................................................................................. 32

Spruce ........................................................................................................................ 32

Meadows.................................................................................................................... 32

Alternative 2............................................................................................................. 32

Ponderosa Pine.......................................................................................................... 32

Very Large Sized Trees.............................................................................................. 36

Late Succession.......................................................................................................... 36

Spruce ........................................................................................................................ 37

Meadows.................................................................................................................... 37

Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 37

Ponderosa Pine.......................................................................................................... 37

Late Succession and Very Large Sized Trees............................................................ 37

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk ........................................................................................ 38

Meadows.................................................................................................................... 38

Wildlife and Fish ......................................................................................................... 39

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 39

Snags and Down Woody Material............................................................................. 39

Management Indicator Species (MIS)....................................................................... 39

Beaver (MIS)............................................................................................................. 40

White-tailed Deer (MIS)............................................................................................ 41

Golden-crowned Kinglet (MIS)................................................................................. 42

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species and MIS).................................... 42

Brown Creeper (MIS)................................................................................................ 43

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)................................................................................................. 44

Song Sparrow (MIS).................................................................................................. 44

Mountain Sucker (MIS and R2 Sensitive)................................................................. 45
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)............................................................................. 45

Atlantis Fritillary (SOLC) ......................................................................................... 47

Tawny Crescent (SOLC) ........................................................................................... 47

Callused Vertigo (SOLC).......................................................................................... 48

Mystery Vertigo (SOLC)........................................................................................... 48

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)........................................................................................ 49

Striate Disc (SOLC)................................................................................................... 49

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC).................................................................................... 50

Cooper’s Hawk (SOLC)............................................................................................ 50

Broad-winged Hawk (SOLC).................................................................................... 51

Northern Saw-whet Owl (SOLC).............................................................................. 52

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC) .......................................................................................... 52

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)....................................................................... 53

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC).................................................................................... 54

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)....................................................................................... 55

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC)..................................................................................... 55

Northern Flying Squirrel (SOLC).............................................................................. 56

Meadow Jumping Mouse (SOLC)............................................................................. 57

Mountain Goat (SOLC)............................................................................................. 57

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species................................................................................. 59

Bald Eagle (R2 Sensitive Species) ............................................................................ 59

Northern Goshawk (R2 Sensitive Species) ............................................................... 60

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species, MIS) ......................................... 60

Northern Leopard Frog (R2 Sensitive Species)......................................................... 60

Black Hills Redbelly Snake (R2 Sensitive Species).................................................. 60

Fringed Myotis (R2 Sensitive Species) ..................................................................... 61

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (R2 Sensitive Species)................................................... 61

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (R2 Sensitive Species)....................................................... 61

Mountain Sucker (R2 Sensitive Species, MIS) ......................................................... 62

Hoary Bat (R2 Sensitive Species) ............................................................................. 62

American Marten (R2 Sensitive Species).................................................................. 63

Flammulated Owl (R2 Sensitive Species)................................................................. 63

Cooper’s Mountain Snail (R2 Sensitive Species)...................................................... 63
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Regal Fritillary Butterfly (R2 Sensitive Species)...................................................... 64

Migratory Birds......................................................................................................... 64

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird) ................................................................................. 65

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 65

Snags and Down Woody Material............................................................................. 65

Management Indicator Species (MIS)....................................................................... 66

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)............................................................................. 73

Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................ 83

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species................................................................................. 83

Summary of Effects on Sensitive Species................................................................ 83

Migratory Birds......................................................................................................... 94

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird) ................................................................................. 94

Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................................. 95

Affected Environment............................................................................................. 95

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).......................................................... 95

Condition Class and Fire Regime ............................................................................. 95

Fire Risk .................................................................................................................... 96

Values at Risk ............................................................................................................ 97

Fire Hazard ............................................................................................................... 98

Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 100

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 101

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 101

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................... 102

Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 103

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................... 103

Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 105

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 106

Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 107

Botany, Rangeland, and Noxious Weeds................................................................. 108

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 108

Botany...................................................................................................................... 108

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)........................................................................ 109

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species............................................................................ 109
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Range ....................................................................................................................... 109

Noxious Weeds......................................................................................................... 109

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 110

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 110

Botany...................................................................................................................... 110

Range ....................................................................................................................... 111

Noxious Weeds......................................................................................................... 111

Botany...................................................................................................................... 112

Range ....................................................................................................................... 113

Noxious Weeds......................................................................................................... 114

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 114

Minerals and Geologic Resources............................................................................ 115

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 115

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 115

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives .......................... 115

Lands and Special Uses............................................................................................. 115

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 115

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 116

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 116

Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 116

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 116

Heritage Resources.................................................................................................... 117

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 117

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 118

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 118

Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 118

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 119

Scenery ....................................................................................................................... 119

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 119

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 120

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 120

Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 121

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 121
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Transportation........................................................................................................... 122

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 122

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 123

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 123

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 124

Recreation .................................................................................................................. 124

Affected Environment........................................................................................... 124

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)................................................................ 124

Developed Recreation.............................................................................................. 124

Dispersed Recreation .............................................................................................. 125

Recreation Special Uses.......................................................................................... 125

Motorized Recreation .............................................................................................. 125

Environmental Consequences .............................................................................. 126

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 126

Developed Recreation.............................................................................................. 126

Dispersed Recreation .............................................................................................. 126

Recreation Special Uses.......................................................................................... 126

Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 127

Travel Management................................................................................................. 127

Mickelson Trail........................................................................................................ 127

Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 128

Soils and Hydrology .................................................................................................. 128

Field Surveys.......................................................................................................... 128

Affected Environment - Soils................................................................................ 128

Soil Health Assessment............................................................................................ 129

Soil Erosion ............................................................................................................. 129

Soil Compaction ...................................................................................................... 129

Organic Matter and Nutrients................................................................................. 129

Environmental Consequences - Soils................................................................... 130

Soil Erosion – Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................... 130

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 130

Soil Compaction – Direct and Indirect Effects........................................................ 131

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 131
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Nutrient Removal – Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................... 131

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 131

Soil Heating – Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................. 132

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 132

Regeneration Hazard – Direct and Indirect Effects................................................ 132

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 132

Cumulative Effects - Soils..................................................................................... 132

Organic Matter and Nutrients................................................................................. 133

Soil Heating ............................................................................................................. 133

Soil Erosion ............................................................................................................. 133

Soil Compaction ...................................................................................................... 134

Affected Environment – Hydrology..................................................................... 134

Watersheds............................................................................................................... 134

Floodplains.............................................................................................................. 135

Wetlands and Riparian ............................................................................................ 135

Lakes........................................................................................................................ 136

Streams .................................................................................................................... 136

Beneficial Uses........................................................................................................ 136

Streamflow Regime .................................................................................................. 137

Stream Health.......................................................................................................... 137

Connected Disturbed Area (CDA)........................................................................... 138

Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 138

Environmental Consequences - Hydrology......................................................... 139

Aquatic Ecosystems............................................................................................... 139

Sediment – Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................... 139

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 139

Bed and Bank Stability – Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................. 140

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 140

Stream Flow Regime – Direct and Indirect Effects................................................. 141

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 141

Temperature and Oxygen – Direct and Indirect Effects.......................................... 141

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 141

Water Purity – Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................. 141
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Table of Contents

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 142

Aquatic Life – Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................... 142

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 142

Riparian Ecosystems – Direct and Indirect Effects................................................. 142

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 142

Wetlands – Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................... 142

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 143

Floodplains – Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................... 143

Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 143

Cumulative Effects - Hydrology........................................................................... 143

Sediment................................................................................................................... 144

Flow Regimes .......................................................................................................... 144

Riparian Ecosystems................................................................................................ 144

Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness.............................................. 144

Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity...................................................... 145

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ................................................................................... 146

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................. 146

Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 147

Other Required Disclosures..................................................................................... 147

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.................................... 148

CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED and GLOSSARY......................................... 155

Literature Cited......................................................................................................... 155

Glossary...................................................................................................................... 165
 

Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ARC At-Risk-Community

BA Basal Area 

BABE,

BA/BE

Biological 

Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation 

BCC Birds of Conservation 

Concern 

BCR Bird Conservation Region 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest 

BHNF 

LRMP 

Black Hills National Forest 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

BMP Best Management Practices

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet 

CDA Connected Disturbed Areas 

CEQ Council on Environmental 

Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

CWPP Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DENR Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources 

EIS Environmental Impact 

Statement

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

FPS&G Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition 

Class 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FSPro Fire Spread Probability 

FSR Forest Service Road 

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information 

Systems

HFRA Health Forest Restoration 

Act

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDT, ID 

Team 

Interdisciplinary Team 

LRMP Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

MA Management Area 

MBBH Monitoring Birds of the 

Black Hills 

MIS Management Indicator 

Species 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest 

Management Act 

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System 

Road 

NHPA National Historic 

Preservation Act 
NRHP National Register of 

Historic Places 

OHV Off Highway Vehicle

POL Products Other than Logs 

R2 Forest Service Region 2 

(Rocky Mountain Region) 

RIS Resource Information 

System 

RMBO Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 

RMRS Rocky Mountain Research 

Station 

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

ROW Right-of-way

RX Prescribed Fire

SD South Dakota 

SDDENR South Dakota Department 

of Environment and Natural 

Resources

SDGFP South Dakota Game Fish 

and Parks 

SDNHP South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program 

SHPO State Historic Preservation 

Office 

SHR Stream Health Rating 

SIO Site Integrity Objective 

SOLC Species of Local Concern 

SOPA Schedule of Proposed 

Action 

SS Structural Stage 

SUP Special Use Permits

TES Threatened, Endangered, & 

Sensitive Species 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

USFS United States Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological 

Survey 

WCP Watershed Conservation 

Practice 

WIZ Water Influence Zone 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 


Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

i

SUMMARY

The Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest proposes to 

implement multiple resource management actions within the Vestal project area as 

guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 

Phase II Amendment (Forest Plan). Due to the existing epidemic of mountain pine 

beetles in the project area (see Appendix H), the Vestal project was developed under the 

authorities of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). The proposed action includes

commercial and non-commercial vegetation treatments and prescribed burning to reduce 

mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard on National Forest lands surrounding the City 

of Custer, SD. Proposed resource management actions apply only to National Forest 

lands. 

The Vestal project area surrounds the city of Custer, South Dakota within Custer County 

(see Map 1 in Appendix A). The project area includes approximately 43,516 acres;

25,823 (60%) of which are National Forest System lands and 17,693 (40%) which are 

private lands (including City or County properties). Given the project location around the 

City of Custer, there are extensive private dwellings, businesses, and government offices 

in this project area. The Hell Canyon Ranger District office and shop, as well as the 

Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s Office, are also located within the project area.

High use developed recreation sites occur on private, State and Federal lands within or 

adjacent to the project area. Sites within the project boundary include; approximately 8 

miles of the Mickelson trail, Bismarck Lake campground, Crazy Horse Mountain, and 

numerous private campgrounds. Recreation areas adjacent to the project area include 

Custer State Park. 

All state and county roads which access the City of Custer are within the project area for 

at least a portion of their length. Therefore, all visitors to Custer will travel through the 

project area.

The focus of the proposed action is to treat vegetation on a broad landscape scale to 

reduce the threat to ecosystem components from the existing MPB epidemic. It would 

also reduce fire hazard and consequently, the potential for high-intensity, large-scale 

wildfire. 

This action is needed because the Vestal project area is within an expanding mountain 

pine beetle (MPB) epidemic. The Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor, Craig 

Bobzien, has determined that a MPB epidemic is occurring in the project area (Appendix 

H). Over the past 3-4 years there has been a rapidly growing amount of beetle caused 

mortality in the southern Black Hills around the City of Custer. All measures of MPB 

activity indicate a rapidly growing MPB epidemic with a substantial increase in tree 

mortality over the past 3 years. Approximately 61% of ponderosa pine stands in the 

project area are at high risk for MPB caused mortality.

At this time, there are larger pockets of beetle activity in the northern and western parts 

of the project area. The southern parts of the project are less impacted at this time, but 

beetle activity is occurring there at a rapidly growing rate.

The Hell Canyon Ranger District held a public meeting to discuss the Vestal project on 

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at the Custer High School, Custer, SD. The proposed action
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Summary

ii

was described in a scoping document (April 20, 2011) and mailed to approximately 149 

individuals, tribal representatives, groups, government entities and other interested 

members of the public. The proposed action includes vegetation treatments, prescribed 

fire, and fuel treatments.

The Forest Service evaluated the following alternatives:

Alternative 1 – No Action: The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires the study of the ‘No Action’ alternative as a basis 

for comparing effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. 

The ‘No Action’ alternative assumes no implementation of any 

elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would 

take place within the Vestal project area. This alternative represents 

no attempt to actively respond to the purpose and need for action or 

the issues identified during scoping. For example, there would be no 

effort to modify existing vegetation or related fuels conditions in the 

project area; current timber sales, fire suppression efforts, noxious 

weeds treatments and regular system road maintenance would 

continue on National Forest lands.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The proposed action is designed to 

address the purpose of and need for action. Strategies proposed to 

reduce mountain pine beetle caused mortality include, mechanical 

thinning to reduce density, and sanitation which removes green trees 

that have live beetle brood in them. It is recommended that 

treatments be implemented as soon as possible to be most effective. 

In the Black Hills, stands that are less than 80 ft2

/acre basal area, are 

at a reduced risk. Therefore, reducing stand basal area is a 

preventative treatment. Sanitation is considered a suppression 

strategy because it directly removes beetle larvae from the forest, 

directly reducing beetle populations. A total of up to 25,449 acres of 

the project area would receive vegetation treatments under this 

alternative. Fuel treatments, including thinning, deadfall (mechanical 

treatment of down logs and branches), and prescribed burning, would 

occur on up to 25,634 acres. The proposed action includes the 

following modifications to the transportation system in the project 

area: 0.6 miles of unauthorized road is needed for access and would 

be converted to a system road then closed following use; and 0.9 

miles of system road would be closed to protect resources either with 

physical closures or gates. Refer to Appendix A for proposed action 

maps for both vegetation treatments and fuels treatments, as well as 

the transportation map noting proposed adjustments to the 

transportation system.

The deciding official will review the environmental analysis, all supporting documents 

and public input in order to make the following decisions:

(1) Whether or not active management is appropriate in the Vestal project area at this 

time and if so, what actions should occur. 

(2) Whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to make a reasoned decision. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Healthy Forest 

restoration Act (HFRA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and no action 

alternatives. All numbers and figures are approximate measures based on known project 

conditions. The document is organized into five chapters:

• Chapter 1: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the 

project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal 

for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service 

informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a 

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action. A summary comparison 

of the proposed action and no action alternatives is also provided in this chapter.

• Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and no 

action alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area (i.e. Silviculture, 

Wildlife, Recreation). The effects of the No Action Alternative provides a baseline 

for evaluating and comparing to the proposed action alternative.

• Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers, 

and also a list of agencies, groups and persons consulted during the development of 

the Vestal Draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

• Chapter 5: Literature Cited and Glossary

• Index

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

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

may be found in the project planning record located at the Hell Canyon Ranger District 

Office in Custer, South Dakota.

Background

The Vestal project area surrounds the city of Custer, South Dakota, encompassing a large 

amount (40%) of private land. There are extensive private dwellings, businesses, and 

government offices within the project area. There are many high-use developed 

recreational sites that occur on private, state, and federal lands within or adjacent to the 

project area. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

2

The Black Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor, Craig Bobzien, has determined that a 

MPB epidemic is occurring in the project area (Appendix H). Over the past 3-4 years 

there has been a rapidly growing amount of beetle caused mortality in the southern Black 

Hills around the City of Custer. All measures of MPB activity indicate a rapidly growing 

MPB epidemic with a substantial increase in tree mortality over the past 3 years. 

Approximately 61% of ponderosa pine stands in the project area are at high risk for MPB 

caused mortality.

At this time, there are larger pockets of beetle activity in the northern and western parts 

of the project area. The southern parts of the project are less impacted at this time, but 

beetle activity is occurring there at a rapidly growing rate. The primary management tool 

for reducing MPB-caused mortality is to remove the infested trees and to reduce the 

overall density of the remaining trees through mechanical thinning. 

Fire hazard is currently high to very high on approximately 84% of the project area. This 

signifies substantial potential for large-scale, high-intensity wildfires to occur. Such 

fires could threaten lives and property, as well as, resource values. Custer County has 

developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) which is a fire mitigation plan 

for at-risk communities. The plan identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel 

reduction; recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal 

land; includes actions that would 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 (ARC). Custer County CWPP 

identified the City of Custer ARC as an urban interface environment with a high density 

of structures and infrastructure. In many areas the structures lack defensible fire 

protection space. 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA)

The HFRA was signed by President Bush in 2003 for the purpose of expediting 

hazardous fuels reduction and forest restoration projects on Federal lands at risk of 

wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The Vestal project area meets the insect 

and disease criteria set forth by HFRA in that there is a mountain pine beetle epidemic 

occurring within the project area. The Vestal project will be analyzed under the 

provisions of the HFRA, Section 102(a)(4).

Location

The Vestal project area is located surrounding the city of Custer, South Dakota within 

Custer County (see Map 1, Appendix A). The project area includes approximately 43,516

acres; 25,823 (60%) of which are National Forest System lands and 17,693 (40%) which 

are private lands (including City or County properties). Given the project location around 

the City of Custer, there are extensive private dwellings, businesses, and government 

offices in this project area. The Hell Canyon Ranger District office and shop, as well as 

the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s Office, are also located within the project 

area. 

All state and county roads which access the City of Custer are within the project area for 

at least a portion of their length. Therefore, all visitors to Custer will travel through the 

project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

3

The project area includes all or portions of lands with the following legal descriptions, 

Black Hills Meridian. 

Table 1: Vestal Project Area Legal Description

Township Range Section

2S 3E 36

2S 4E 25-36

3S 3E 1,12,13,24,25,36

3S 4E All

3S 5E 7-10, 15-22, 27-34

4S 4E 1-3, 12, 13, 24

4S 5E 3-8, 17, 18

Management Direction

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended (2006), 

provides direction for the management of the forest. The Forest Plan contains 

management goals and objectives, management area direction, and identifies desired 

future conditions for the forest. Resource specialists reviewed the current condition of the 

project area and compared these conditions with the desired conditions identified in the 

Forest Plan including applicable goals and objectives. Opportunities for improvement 

were identified.

Management Areas

The Forest Plan assigns a management emphasis to each portion of the Forest to meet 

multiple-use objectives. For each designated Management Area (MA), Chapter 3 of the

Forest Plan includes a description of desired future conditions, goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines. Specific direction is provided for management of mountain 

pine beetle outbreaks and fuels. There are 4 management areas within the Vestal project 

area (Map 2, Appendix A). Table 2 displays the Management Area designations and 

acreage within the Vestal project area.

Table 2. Management Area Direction in the Vestal Project Area – On National Forest 

System Lands Only (60% of total lands within the project boundary).

Management 

Area

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Percent 

(%) of 

Project 

Area

Management Emphasis and

Management Theme

5.4 10,723 42%

Big Game Winter Range: These areas are managed 

to provide high-quality winter and transitional habitat 

for deer and elk, high-quality turkey habitat, habitat for 

other species, and a variety of multiple uses.

5.1 10,325 40%

Resource Production: These areas are managed for 

wood products, water yield, and forage production, 

while providing other commercial products, visual 

quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety of other 

goods and services. 

4.1 4,472 17% Limited Motorized Use and Forest Products 

(Buckhorn Mountain): These areas are managed for 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

4

Management 

Area

Acres in 

Project 

Area

Percent 

(%) of 

Project 

Area

Management Emphasis and

Management Theme

non-motorized recreation, while providing for timber 

production, forage production, visual quality and a 

diversity of wildlife. Roads provide intermittent 

commercial access, but are normally closed to other 

than administrative use. 

8.2 303 1%

Developed Recreation Complex (Bismarck Lake): 

These areas are managed for recreational opportunities 

and visual qualities adjacent to developed recreation 

sites and bodies of water. 

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

The Forest Plan establishes eleven multiple use goals and associated objectives 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 

Vestal Project has chosen to propose resource management actions that respond to Forest 

Plan Goals 2, 4, and 10.

Goal 2: Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse 

ecosystems.

Objective 201: Manage for a minimum of 92,000 acres of aspen, and 

16,000 acres of bur oak during the life of the Plan. The highest priority 

for hardwood restoration is where conifers (e.g., spruce and pine) have 

out-competed aspen adjacent to riparian systems that once supported 

beaver.

• Opportunity exists to increase/maintain hardwood communities by 

reducing pine competition within these stands. In addition, 

opportunities exist to enhance and expand hardwood inclusions by 

opening stand canopies and removing conifers. 

Objective 205: Manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland and 3,600 

acres of meadow during the life of the Plan. 

• Opportunity exists to maintain existing meadows within the project 

area. Most of these meadows are currently experiencing 

encroachment by pine. Meadows act as natural fuelbreaks. 

Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection 

of heritage resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors 

and local communities.

Objective 402: Provide natural appearing landscapes with diverse scenery 

and enhance opportunities to enjoy attractive settings...
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

5

• Opportunity exists to enhance/maintain landscapes in and around 

existing recreation sites by removing MPB infested trees and 

thinning stands to reduce insect damage and wildfire hazard. In 

addition, removal of MPB infested trees would enhance public 

safety in these areas. 

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. 

Objective 10-01: Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low fire 

hazard in the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within 

proximity of structures to current NFPA standards...

• Opportunity exists to reduce existing fire hazard that currently 

exceeds objectives on National Forest System lands within 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.

• Opportunity exists to treat fuels and reduce hazards within the 

project area. 

Objective 10-05: Manage wildfires using the appropriate response based 

on management area emphasis, existing values, risk of ignition, and fuel 

hazards within a given area. 

• Opportunity exists to reduce existing and activity fuels to a 

manageable level, 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. 

• Opportunity exists to coordinate with the State and County based

on goals established in the Custer County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan (CWPP) to reduce fuels on both public and 

private lands in order to reduce the potential for large wildfires 

that could affect homes, infrastructure, and other ecosystem 

values. 

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.

• Opportunity exists to reduce the acreage of pine stands at high risk 

of MPB infestations by removing infested trees and reducing the 

overall stand density. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines related to insects and disease: 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

6

Guideline 4201a: Plan management activities with consideration for 

potential insect or disease outbreaks. Use integrated pest management 

strategies where insect or disease outbreaks may adversely affect 

management objectives. Utilize preventive vegetation management 

practices, including silvicultural treatments, to protect forest stands from 

insect and disease epidemics. 

Standard 4201b: During scheduled management activities, minimize 

susceptibility to mountain-pine-beetle epidemics by reducing average 

basal area to 70 or less in pine stands, except where denser stands are 

needed to meet other management objectives. 

Standard 4201c: Use the following insect-and-disease protection measures: 

Manage vegetation in and adjacent to high-use recreation areas to improve forest 

conditions, as needed to maintain or improve the desired recreation settings(s) or 

to conserve R2 sensitive or species of local concern and snails. In and adjacent to 

developed recreation sites actively treat insect and diseases to reduce pest 

populations.

Standard 4201d: Consider spatial array of stand conditions when planning 

harvests to reduce their potential for mountain pine beetle epidemics. For 

example, silvicultural treatments may be appropriate within or adjacent to dense 

mature stands.

Guideline 4205: Consider applying preventive silvicultural treatments or other 

integrated pest management strategies to National Forest System land adjoining 

other land ownerships to reduce the likelihood of insect and disease epidemics 

and spread. Plan suppression strategies to reduce mountain pine beetle 

populations in pine stands during epidemics. Prioritize according to values, risk 

and management objectives. Priority should be given to areas in which values to 

be protected exceed the cost of protection.

Guideline 4206: Project plans should consider existing infestations of insects or 

disease within a project area. Activities should be designed to minimize the risks 

of spreading the infestation while still providing habitat for those wildlife species 

dependent upon the presence of insects and disease.

Management Area-specific Goals and Objectives

In addition to the Forest‐wide goals and objectives outlined in Chapter 1 of the Forest 

Plan, each Management Area (MA) has goals and objectives specific to that area (see 

Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan). In the event that a Forest‐wide goal or objective conflicts 

with a MA‐specific goal or objective, the more restrictive goal or objective will take 

precedent. Below is a summary of the needs and opportunities associated with the MAspecific goals and objectives in the Vestal project area.

MA 5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis (42% of the project area)

Goal 5.4-201: Manage tree stands for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

7

• Opportunity exists 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, Forest Plan pg III-92)

• Opportunity exists 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.

• Opportunity exists to utilize fuel treatments (including prescribed 

fire) in accomplishing insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

objectives. 

MA 5.1 Resource Production Emphasis (40% of the project area)

Goal 5.1-201: Manage tree stands to emphasize timber products, forage production, and 

water yield.

• Opportunity exists 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. 

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard to be compatible with 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.

• Opportunity exists 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, Forest Plan pg III-67)

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard to be compatible with objective of 

providing variety in the forested setting. 

Guideline 5.1-4101: Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including 

prescribed fire, to meet management objectives. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

8

• Opportunity exists to utilize fuel treatments (including prescribed 

fire) in accomplishing insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

objectives.

MA 4.1 Limited Motorized Use and Forest Product Emphasis (17% of the project 

area)

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

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire 

hazard reduction while concurrently contributing to wood-fiber 

production and benefiting wildlife habitat and visual quality.

Goal 4.1-202: Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes, shape, crown 

closure, age structure and interspersion. 

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard to be compatible with objective of 

providing variety in the forested setting.

Objective 4.1-203: 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, Forest Plan pg III-48)

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard to be compatible with objective of 

providing variety in the forested setting.

Guideline 4.1-4101: Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including 

prescribed fire, to meet management objectives. 

• Opportunity exists to utilize fuel treatments (including prescribed 

fire) in accomplishing insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

objectives.

MA 8.2 Developed Recreation Complexes (1% of the project area)

Goal 8.2-201: Manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to provide for public 

safety, to improve forest condition, or protect sensitive plants and plant species of local 

concern as needed to maintain or improve the desired recreation setting(s) and conserve 

botanical features. 

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire 

hazard reduction while concurrently providing the public with safe 

recreation areas, protecting sensitive plant species and habitat and 

enhancing/maintaining visual quality.

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

of wildfire damage to forest resources. 

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard while retaining a natural forested

setting. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

9

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...

• Opportunity exists to manage vegetation focused on reducing 

insect, fire and fuels hazard to be compatible with goal of 

controlling and reducing pest populations within and adjacent to 

recreation areas.

Other Direction

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 largescale 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.

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

specific types of National Forest land. The Vestal 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, Appendix H).

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. Custer County has completed a CWPP. The plan designates a 3 mile 

buffer as WUI. The ‘at-risk’-community of Custer lies within the project area. In total,

there are 17,693 acres (40%) of private lands, homes and businesses contained within the 

project area.

The following demonstrates the Vestal project’s consistency with applicable portions of 

the HFRA: 

• The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan

• The proposed action does not include treatments within designated 

wilderness, wilderness study areas or other Federal land where timber 

harvest is prohibited. 

• Collaboration with local governments, tribes and fire departments was 

conducted. 

• The proposed action is on land determined to contain a MPB epidemic 

with imminent risk to ecosystem components.

• The primary objective of the project’s purpose and need is to reduce MPB 

risk. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

10

Purpose and Need for Action

The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project area is to reduce the threat to forest 

resources from the existing MPB epidemic. This action is needed because there is a 

rapidly increasing MPB outbreak occurring within the project area which is resulting in 

substantial levels of pine mortality. Existing stand conditions across the project area are 

largely at high risk for MPB caused mortality. 

A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local communities and watersheds from 

large-scale, high intensity wildfire. This action is needed because the project area is 

located within and surrounding the City of Custer, SD and approximately 84% of the 

project area has a fire hazard rating of high to very high. This is due to dense stand 

conditions and dead, dry fuels resulting from MPB caused mortality. Approximately 

40% of lands in the project area are privately owned, with an estimated 3,194 private 

structures. 

Proposed Action

The action proposed by the Forest Service is designed to address the purpose and need 

for action described above. All proposed activities would occur on National Forest lands. 

Refer to proposed action maps 6, 7, and 8 in Appendix A for both vegetation treatments 

and fuels treatments, as well as the transportation map noting proposed adjustments to the 

transportation system. The proposed action and no action alternatives are presented in 

more detail in Chapter 2. 

Strategies proposed to reduce mountain pine beetle caused mortality include, mechanical 

thinning to reduce stand density to reduce risk, and sanitation which removes green trees 

that have live beetle brood in them. It is recommended that treatments be implemented as 

soon as possible to be most effective. In the Black Hills, stands that are less than 80 

ft2

/acre basal area, are at a reduced risk. Further lowering densities would further lower 

the MPB risk. Therefore, reducing stand basal area is a preventative treatment. 

Sanitation is considered a suppression strategy because it directly removes beetle larvae 

from the forest, directly reducing beetle populations.

Proposed activities include vegetation treatments on approximately 25,449 acres. 

Vegetation treatments would consist of commercial thinning, free selection, group 

shelterwood, hardwood conversion, hardwood release, overstory removal, pine 

encroachment, sanitation, shelterwood seedcut, variable density thinning, precommercial 

thinning, and products other than logs (POL) thinning. Other fuels treatments that focus 

on further reducing fire hazard within the project area include approximately 180 acres of 

fuelbreaks, 1,761 acres of prescribed burning and up to 23,693 acres of deadfall 

treatment. All proposed treatments are described in detail in Chapter 2. 

There are approximately 125 miles of Forest Service system roads in the project area. Of 

these roads, 48 miles are closed yearlong, 35 miles are open seasonally (May 15 to 

December 15), and 42 miles are open yearlong. In addition to Forest Service system 

roads, there are approximately 28 miles of County roads. The 2010 Forest Travel 

Management decision and associated Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

administratively closed all unauthorized roads in the project area (approximately 39 

miles) and prohibited all off-road motorized travel. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

11

The proposed action includes the following modifications to the transportation system in 

the project area: 0.6 miles of unauthorized road is needed for access and would be 

converted to system road then closed following use; and 0.9 miles of system road would 

be closed to protect resources either with physical closures or gates (see Map 8,

Appendix A).

Decision Framework

The deciding official will review the environmental analysis, all supporting documents 

and public input, in order to make the following decisions:

• Whether or not active management is appropriate in the Vestal project area at this 

time and if so, what actions should occur, and 

• Whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to make a reasoned decision. 

If the proposed action is selected, project activities could begin as early as spring 2012. 

Public Involvement

The following public involvement and collaboration efforts have occurred: 

• A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register

on April 22, 2011. The NOI requested public comment on the proposal and 

included the date and place of the scheduled public meeting. 

• A detailed scoping document was mailed to approximately 150 individuals, tribal 

representatives, groups, government agencies and other interested members of the 

public. This document also noted the time and place of the public meeting. 

• All scoping documents were posted to the Black Hills National Forest website and 

Schedule of Proposed Actions. 

• The proposal was discussed at the Custer Rotary Club meeting on 4-25-11

• The proposal has been discussed at several of the Custer County Commissioners 

meetings, as well as the City of Custer. 

• The proposal was presented as a topic at the Custer Volunteer Fire Department 

meeting on 5-3-11. 

• A News Release was sent to media outlets on 4-28-11, announcing the Vestal 

project, requesting comments on the proposal and noting the time and place for 

the public meeting. Articles appeared in both the Custer Chronicle and the Rapid 

City Journal. 

• A public meeting was held at the Custer High School on May 11, 2011. 

• The project was presented at the Tribal consultation meeting on 6-22-11. 

Using the comments from the public, other government agencies, groups, and tribal 

representatives the interdisciplinary team (IDT) identified issues that warranted further 

design criteria and determined whether additional alternatives or measures were needed.

Issues

Comments received during the scoping process are used to help define issues, determine 

whether additional actions alternatives or mitigation measures are necessary, and frame 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1

12

the analysis of environmental issues. A total of 27 parties provided feedback via letters,

fax, public meeting transcripts, hand delivery, or email during the formal scoping 

process. Comments received and the agency ‘response to comments’ are summarized in 

the Vestal project record located at the Hell Canyon Ranger District office, Custer, SD. 

The majority of the concerns raised during the scoping period were relatively minor 

issues that would be addressed through the application of Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines or other design criteria. None of the issues raised merited the development of 

additional action alternatives. 

A description of the two key issues, with measurement indicators, follows below: 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

Some commentors are concerned that the risk of MPB caused mortality will 

continue to be too high in the project area after proposed treatments are 

completed, either because some sites would be deferred or because the proposed 

treatments are not aggressive enough. Other commentors question whether an 

epidemic is occurring throughout the project area and suggest that proposed 

treatments are too aggressive and unnecessary. 

Measurement indicators: 

• Acres of Low MPB Risk 

• Acres of High MPB Risk

2. Wildfires and Fire Hazard

There is internal and external concern that the current MPB epidemic is creating 

and increasing fuel loadings in the project area. Fire hazard is high or very high 

over a substantially large portion of the project area (84%). The City of Custer is 

entirely within the project area boundary and would be threatened if a wildfire 

were to occur under such fire hazard conditions. 

Measurement indicators: 

• Acres of Fire Hazard Rating 

• Mechanical Treatments

• Fuel break Construction

• Natural fuel break maintenance or enhancement (aspen and meadow)

• Acres of Prescribed burning 

These issues lead the IDT to clarify components of the proposed action that were not 

made explicit during the scoping phase of the project. No issues raised merited the 

development of additional action alternatives. Documentation of each comment received, 

the issues identified in the comments and the rationale for identifying them as nonsignificant are located in the Vestal project record. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

13

CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES, 

INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered in detail for the Vestal

project, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action 

(Alternative 2). It also briefly describes alternatives not considered in detail and provides 

rationale for why they are not considered in detail. The alternatives are also presented in 

comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear 

basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed two alternatives: a no action and a proposed action

alternative. The alternatives considered in detail by the IDT are discussed below. This 

section provides the summary of activities proposed to occur during implementation of 

the action alternative. Exact figures, such as acres, miles, or other numerical units of any 

particular activity, may vary slightly. These figures, which are based on inventory and 

survey estimates, may vary during preparation of a timber sale, prescribed burn, or other 

project based upon various site factors such as topography, non-uniform site structure, 

fuels, refinement of the standard of road needed, etc.

The Vestal project is an authorized hazardous fuels project pursuant to Section 102 (a)(4) 

of the HFRA. Section 104 of the HFRA provides guidance on the range of alternatives 

studied in detail and disclosed in the NEPA document.

Alternative 1 – No Action

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the ‘No Action’ 

alternative as a basis for comparing effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively 

respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues presented during scoping. No 

effort would be made to modify existing vegetation or related fuel conditions within the 

project area. No vegetation treatments, fuels treatments, or prescribed burning would be 

implemented.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative was developed to meet the purpose and need for action. It would also 

move conditions within the project area toward desired future conditions as described in 

the Forest Plan. The proposed action would treat vegetation within the project area on a

broad landscape scale 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 large-scale wildfire. 

Strategies proposed to reduce MPB caused mortality include, mechanical thinning to 

reduce basal area, and sanitation which removes green trees that have live beetle brood in 

them. It is recommended that treatments be implemented as soon as possible to be most 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

14

effective. Therefore, reducing stand basal area is a preventative treatment. Sanitation is 

considered a suppression strategy because it directly removes beetle larvae from the 

forest, directly reducing beetle populations.

Proposed vegetation treatments for Alternative 2 include both commercial and 

noncommercial treatments. All treatments would occur on National Forest lands only 

and all forested acres would include sanitation treatment. Treatments are summarized in 

Table 3 below and displayed on Maps 6 and 7 in Appendix A.

Table 3. Alternative 2-Proposed Action Vegetation Treatments

Treatment Acres Description

CT – Commercial 

Thinning

CT50

3,626

1,831

Thinning of trees generally 5-15” DBH. The objective is to 

reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle (MPB) 

infestation by reducing basal area within sites. The 

thinning will reduce MPB risk in these stands to Low and 

will also reduce fire hazard, improve health, tree vigor, and 

future growth capacity of the site. Sites would be thinned 

from below, which means that trees would, in general, be 

removed from the lower crown classes. Typical target basal 

area (BA) is 60 ft2/ac. Some sites would be thinned to a 

BA of 50 ft2

/acre to further reduce fire hazard adjacent to 

private lands, and are noted as CT50.

FS – Free Selection 1,054 Would reduce susceptibility of stands to MPB infestation 

by reducing overall basal area within sites. The thinning 

would not result in a low MPB risk in these stands, but the 

reduction is density is a benefit to MPB susceptibility and 

would also reduce fire hazard. This treatment reduces 

overall density of the site to average 80 ft2/ac basal area by 

interspersing dense groups with interlocking crowns of 3 

trees up to 2 acres with openings, hardwoods and thinned 

areas. Within stand densities will vary from 0 to 120 ft2/ac 

basal area.

GSH – Group 

Shelterwood

10,044 Would reduce susceptibility of stands to MPB infestation 

by reducing overall basal area within sites. Would reduce 

overall MPB risk in these stands to Low and also reduces 

fire hazard and maintain stand diversity. This treatment 

represents the shelterwood silviculture system and is 

proposed within pine sites which are not homogenous, but 

rather have 2 or more patches or groups of trees of various 

age classes throughout the stand. The shelterwood system 

is a common silvicultural treatment system which begins 

with a commercial thinning of smaller diameter trees to 

increase the size and vigor of residual trees, followed by a 

seedcut which is done to encourage regeneration; then 

completed with an overstory removal which releases the 

established regeneration. This prescription is proposed in 

sites with stand conditions which represent at least 2 phases 

of a shelterwood system such as a commercial thin, seedcut 

or overstory. The overall density of these stands would not 

exceed 60 ft2/acre basal area.

HC – Hardwood 126 The objective is to increase natural fuelbreaks by 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

15

Treatment Acres Description

Conversion converting mixed conifer/hardwood stands to hardwood 

cover type. It is accomplished by removing all conifers 

from the stand. Hinging of non-commercial-sized conifers 

would follow commercial removal.

HR – Hardwood 

Release 

431 The objective is to maintain natural fuelbreaks by removing 

all conifers from existing hardwood habitat. Hinging of 

non-commercial-sized conifers would follow commercial 

removal.

OR – Overstory 

Removal

1,255 Results in MPB risk of stands to low and reduces fire 

hazard by removal of mature to over-mature trees in the 

overstory of sites which have successfully regenerated. 

This releases the established regeneration, which would 

also be thinned in a POL or PCT, unless deferred for 

wildlife cover.

PCT –

Precommercial 

Thinning

*54 Understory thinning of trees that are less than 5” DBH to a 

spacing of 12 x 12 feet. 

PE – Pine 

Encroachment

1,458 The objective is to maintain natural fuelbreaks by removing 

all conifers from existing meadows.

POL – Products 

Other Than Logs 

Thinning

*617 A thinning of pine sites to reduce MPB risk and fire hazard 

by reducing stand density. This treatment is proposed in 

sites generally made up of trees 1-9” DBH that do not 

contain enough 9” + trees to make sawtimber removal 

economically viable, or as a follow-up treatment to 

commercial thinning, variable density thinning, free 

selection, or the commercial thinning component group 

shelterwood, when the target basal area cannot be obtained 

by removal of sawtimber only. Overall stand density will 

not exceed 60 ft2/acre except in the VDT and FS sites 

where density will not exceed 80 ft2/acre basal area. 

The target residual tree spacing varies as follows: 

POL only – 18x18 feet

CT60 - 20x20 feet

CT50 - 22x22 feet

VDT and FS - variable spacing

Sani – Sanitation **3,655 Removal of green trees currently infested with MPB. This 

is a suppression method which directly removes MPBs 

from the forest. Sanitation may occur for up to 5 

consecutive years.

SWSC – Shelterwood 

Seedcut

226 Would reduce MPB risk in these stands to Low and will 

also reduce fire hazard, by reducing stand density to a basal 

area of 30-50 ft2/acre. This is an even-aged regeneration 

harvest used in mature sites, in which the most desirable 

seed trees are retained. 

VDT – Variable 

Density Thinning

1,072 Would reduce overall MPB risk in stands to Low and 

would also reduce fire hazard, by reducing overall stand 

density to a basal area of 60-80 ft2/ac. This thinning 

maintains or creates diversity within the stand by varying 

residual density from 30-90 ft2/acre to avoid even residual 

tree spacing. Sites would be thinned from below, which 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

16

Treatment Acres Description

means that trees would, in general, be removed from the 

lower crown classes.

* Acres shown are those where PCT or POL are proposed as individual treatments. Both PCT and POL would also occur following 

other treatments as noted. 

** The acres shown for sanitation treatment reflect where sanitation is the only treatment proposed. However, sanitation is included 

as a companion treatment on all pine sites in the project area. 

The vegetation treatments in Table 3 contribute to reducing fire hazard within the project 

area. Additional treatments that focus specifically on reducing fuels are also proposed, as 

noted in Table 4. 

Table 4. Alternative 2-Proposed Action Fuels Treatments

Treatment Acres Description

DF – Dead fall *23,693 Mechanical treatment of existing slash, resulting from 

mountain pine beetle caused mortality, to a target height of 

18 inches where possible, but no more than 24 inches from 

the ground. May include various methods but not limited 

to lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, or 

mastication. No standing dead would be cut as part of this 

treatment. The objective of this treatment is to reduce the 

dead ladder fuels within these stands, thus reducing the 

potential for a wildfire to move into the crowns.

FB - Fuelbreak 180 Thinning of pine sites to reduce fire hazard adjacent to 

private lands by reducing stand density. Fuelbreak 

treatment would occur up to 300 feet from private land 

boundaries. Trees up to 9” DBH would be cut to a residual 

tree spacing of 24’ x 24’. Residual slash will either be piled 

for burning, or include mastication of slash rather than 

piling and burning. This treatment is utilized in areas 

where no other treatment is proposed, or when proposed 

treatment does not sufficiently reduce fire hazard adjacent 

to private lands.

RX – Prescribed 

Burning

1,761 Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either 

their natural or modified state under specific environmental 

conditions. Fire is confined to a predetermined area and 

produces the fire behavior required to achieve planned 

resource management objectives. Prescribed Burning 

would establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation 

conditions to reduce occurrences of catastrophic fire, and 

facilitate firefighting capability. Objective of this treatment 

is to reduce fire hazard by reducing surface fuels.

* Deadfall is included on all pine sites in the project area.

Alternative 2 would produce approximately 85,750 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of 

commercial sawlog volume (42.875 MMBF) and approximately 33,054 cunits of POL as 

a byproduct of the mechanical treatments. 

There are approximately 125 miles of Forest Service system roads in the project area. Of 

these roads, 48 miles are closed yearlong, 35 miles are open seasonally (May 15 to 

December 15), and 42 miles are open yearlong. In addition to Forest Service system 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

17

roads, there are approximately 28 miles of County roads. The 2010 Forest Travel 

Management decision and associated Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) 

administratively closed all unauthorized roads in the project area (approximately 39 

miles) and prohibited all off-road motorized travel. 

The proposed action includes the following modifications to the transportation system in 

the project area: 0.6 miles of unauthorized road is needed for access and would be 

converted to system road then closed following use; and 0.9 miles of system road would 

be closed to protect resources either with physical closures or gates (see Map 8,

Appendix A).

The law generally prohibits the harvest of even-aged stands before they reach their 

maximum growth rate (National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1604(m)).

Exceptions in the law allow the harvest of individual trees, or even parts or whole stands 

of trees, before this time to thin and improve timber stands, and salvage damaged stands 

of trees (part m1 of the law). Further exceptions are allowed in order to achieve multipleuse objectives other than timber management (part m2).

The proposed action would harvest some trees before the maximum potential growth rate 

of some stands in the project area has been reached. These harvest treatments are 

consistent with the exceptions provided in part m2 of the law, and include the following:

precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, hardwood conversion or fuelbreak 

treatments. These treatments are proposed to meet the Forest Plan multiple-use 

objectives stated earlier in this analysis. Appendix E contains silviculture findings.

Design Criteria

Design criteria include Forest Plan standards and guidelines, USFS Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCPs), Best Management Practices, and site specific design to 

avoid resource impacts. They are applicable and to be implemented as a matter of 

standard operating procedure for the proposed action. Design criteria are applied to 

protect resources and forest users. All activities proposed in this project, including any 

post-sale activities or monitoring, must implement these design criteria. A list of project 

design criteria is available in Appendix B.

Monitoring

The Hell Canyon Ranger District is responsible for monitoring results and effects of the 

selected actions. The District would ensure that EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) 

direction including design criteria and any necessary mitigation measures are applied and 

carried out appropriately. 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 (See Appendix C).

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail

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

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

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The HFRA Sec. 104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii) 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

18

specifies consideration of additional alternative(s) meets the purpose and need of the 

project. Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these 

alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of the alternatives 

considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary 

environmental harm. Therefore, the following alternatives were considered, but 

dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

• An alternative that includes a 1⁄2 mile portion of FSR 284.1E to be eliminated and 

a new road be constructed to connect FSR 284 to FSR 284.1E (within T3S, R3E, 

Sec 12). 

- The existing FSR 284.1E provides adequate access for project 

implementation and other access needs. There is an existing Right-OfWay (ROW) granted to the Forest Service on FSR 284.1E. Therefore it is 

not necessary to construct a new road and abandon the ROW to achieve 

project objectives and to provide access. This alternative would not 

contribute toward meeting the purpose and need for action. 

• An alternative that includes Free Selection treatment that retains an overall basal 

area that would be no higher than 60 BA. Including ‘islands’ within the sites that 

would be cut to no less than an 80 BA. Also, Sanitation treatments would occur 

in these ‘islands’ to treat MPB infested trees on an annual basis or until the 

current epidemic ends. 

- The Free Selection treatment is only proposed on approximately 4% of all 

treated pine stands in the project area. Other proposed treatments would 

reduce pine stand densities to 60 BA or less. Sanitation is included within 

sites proposed for Free Selection and other commercial treatments. 

Sanitation may occur for up to 5 years. Sites where Free Selection is 

proposed are those which have particular wildlife habitat elements. The 

proposed action reduces MPB risk to low on 87% of the project area. This 

landscape reduction of risk is expected to provide some protection to more 

dense stands identified as important to wildlife which are therefore, 

expected to withstand the MPB epidemic. 

• An alternative that treats sites 030303-01 & 030303-04 with Sanitation only. 

These sites are adjacent to Calamity Peak, a well known landmark which holds 

high value for hiking and climbing. 

- The value of Calamity Peak as a hiking and climbing area is well known. 

The 2 noted sites are fairly large in size and occur on or adjacent to this 

Peak. Site 030303-04 is proposed as a Commercial Thin and site 030303-

01 is on the north side of Calamity Peak and is proposed as a Group 

Shelterwood. Limitations to harvest capabilities, such as access, soils, and 

slopes, will dictate where activities may occur in these sites. Very small 

portions of these two sites will be accessible and feasible to treat, based on 

project design for soils and slopes. It is expected that only the periphery 

of these sites would be treated. Due to the very active MPB outbreak, and 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

19

the location of these sites near private lands, reducing stand density and 

MPB risk is a main goal. 

• An alternative that includes non-conventional logging systems, such as tractor or 

skyline systems. These systems would allow for areas with slopes in excess of 

50% to be treated. 

- Generally, the inaccessible areas within the project area are due to large 

granite outcrops and peaks. Tractor logging may occur under the 

proposed action, although, the area is not conducive to skyline harvest 

systems due to the granite rock outcrops. 

• An alternative that includes: Individual Tree Selection, Group Selection, Group 

Retention, Hardwood Enhancement, Meadow Enhancement, Old Growth. 

- The proposed action includes treatments which maintain or enhance stand 

or landscape level diversity, including Free Selection, Variable Density 

Thinning, and Group Shelterwood. Hardwood enhancement (hardwood 

release) is included on all existing hardwood stands which contain 

conifers. Meadow enhancement (pine encroachment) is also included on 

all meadows that have conifers. The group retention treatment vastly 

opens stands and is not prescribed in this area due to the MPB epidemic 

which is actively reducing stand densities. Old growth is not a treatment 

type. There are currently 107 acres (<1%) of structural stage 5 (late 

succession) within the project area. Impacts to late succession are 

discussed in the EIS. 

• An alternative that treats all acres considered ‘high risk’ or ‘at-risk’ of being 

infested with MPB. An alternative that includes additional commercial treatment, 

besides Sanitation, in the following sites: 030401-36; 030404-21; 030501-18; 

030502-11, 19; 030903-20; 030805-10; 030906-4, 9, 27, 29; 030907-14; 

030909-13, 23, 37; 030912-12; 030914-6; 031307-2, 34; 031310-4.

- Sanitation is included for all pine sites within the project area, either as a 

stand-alone treatment or in conjunction with other treatments. Sanitation 

only treatments are included in some stands where MPB risk is low or 

other resource concerns exist. Not all stands with high risk are proposed 

for treatments to low risk due to other resource concerns. 

• An alternative that includes increased Free Selection and Variable Density 

Thinning, and decreased Commercial Thinning, in order to reduce MPB risk and 

fire hazard while providing more vegetative and visual diversity. 

- Due to the existing conditions in this area, and the vast amount of private 

lands, reducing MPB susceptibility is a main goal. Experience has shown 

that reducing the BA to 60 or less is an effective method of treatment. 

Free Selection and Variable Density Thinning is proposed in certain areas 

with specific wildlife habitat concerns. While these treatments would 

have a positive effect by reducing the overall BA, they are not as effective 

as standard Commercial Thins in reducing MPB susceptibility. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

20

• An alternative that includes harvest restrictions of the oldest and largest trees. 

With a main goal of saving these trees, as well as recruit replacements. 

- The purpose and need of this project would not be achieved is all old or 

large trees were restricted from harvest. The proposed action reduces 

susceptibility to MPB caused mortality and therefore, improves the 

potential for old and large trees to remain on the landscape. Each 

proposed treatment would retain some large trees. Overstory Removal, 

which generally is a removal of all overstory, includes design criteria to 

retain at least one large tree per acre. 

• An alternative that retains spruce within the following meadow sites: 030305-07, 

50, 70, 71, 72. 

- The proposed action includes Pine Encroachment treatment on these sites. 

Design criteria has been added to not remove any spruce from these sites.

• An alternative that would include Variable Density Thinning in site 030305-38, 

rather than Commercial Thinning, to manage for stand diversity for goshawks. 

- The proposed action includes treatments which maintain or enhance stand 

or landscape level diversity, including Free Selection, Variable Density 

Thinning, and Group Shelterwood. Site specific design criteria are 

included in the proposed action to manage for goshawk habitat. Field 

survey for goshawk were conducted in the noted site and surrounding 

sites. 

• An alternative which would split the project into 2 separate projects, removing a

portion of the project area which has been proposed by an interest group as the 

Okawita Paha National Monument and International Peace Park. 

- There is no National Monument in the project area. There is no indication 

that any portion of the project area is being considered by the President for 

designation as a National Monument under the Antiquities Act. 

Therefore, such as designation is not reasonably foreseeable. 

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of the two alternatives analyzed in this EIS. The 

alternatives are described and compared in terms of the effects each has on the project 

area. Appendix A, Maps 6-7 show vegetation treatments. The environmental

consequences of the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

The existing condition acreages used in the tables below represent conditions in year 

2011. Alternative conditions are futured to year 2018 because that is when project 

actions are expected to be substantially complete and when the MPB epidemic is 

predicted to have run its course in the project area.

 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

21

Table 5. Comparison of Cover Types

Cover Type

Existing Condition

Year 2011

Alternative 1

No Action

Year 2018

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Year 2018

Meadow 1,482 1,482 1,482

Aspen 431 431 557

Spruce 42 42 42

Ponderosa Pine 23,693 23,693 23,567

Water 29 29 29

Rock 146 146 146

Total 25,823 25,823 25,823

The following table presents estimated acres of pine structural stages for the existing 

condition and both alternatives at year 2018. The changes in Alternative 1 are due to 

expected changes from MPB caused mortality, based on assumptions developed by the 

project entomologist. The specific sites on where these structural stages would occur is 

speculative. Therefore, the total acres of projected structural stages is presented for 

comparison.

Table 6. Comparison of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages

Ponderosa Pine 

Structural Stages

(acres)

Existing Condition

Year 2011

Alternative 1

No Action

Year 2018*

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Year 2018*

SS1 87 7,082 77

SS2 269 2,530 1,275

SS3A 770 4,890 597

SS3B 1,270 1,168 111

SS3C 1,295 0 114

SS4A 6,924 6,716 18,438

SS4B 10,267 1,297 2,496

SS4C 2,704 0 352

SS5 107 10 107

Total 23,693 23,693 23,567**

*Total acreage for Alternative 2 is lower than existing and Alternative 1 due to Hardwood Conversion treatment which increases 

aspen acres by 126 acres.

Table 7 compares MPB risk rating and fire hazard risk rating between alternatives. 

Mountain pine beetle risk level is determined by structural stage (SS): 

Low Risk = SS1, SS2, SS3A, SS3B, & SS 4A

High Risk = SS3C, SS4B, SS4C, & SS5

Table 7. MPB Risk Rating by Alternative

Comparison Value

Existing Condition/

Alternative 1 No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

MPB Risk Rating (acres)

Low 9,320 (39%) 20,498 (87%)

High 14,373 (61%) 3,069 (13%)

Total 23,693 23,567
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

22

No change to MPB risk would occur with Alternative 1, No Action. Over time, the MPB 

would cause substantial pine mortality across this landscape because the MPB risk was 

not reduced. Risk ratings shown in Alternative 2 display how active management would 

reduce MPB risk.

Table 8. Fire Hazard Rating Acres by Alternative at Year 2018

Comparison Value

Existing Condition

Year 2011

Alternative 1

No Action

Year 2018

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Year 2018

Low 1,777 (7%) 1,632 (6%) 1,622 (6%)

Moderate 2,309 (9%) 1,264 (5%) 20,737 (82%)

High 11,125 (43%) 10,946 (43%) 160 (1%)

Very High 10,437 (41%) 11,806 (46%) 3,129 (12%)

Figure 1. Fire Hazard Rating Summary for Vestal Project Area.

Table 9. Alternative 2 Proposed Mechanical Vegetation Treatments

Treatment Acres

CT- Commercial Thinning – 60 BA 3,626

CT50-Commercial Thinning – 50 BA 1,831

FS – Free Selection 1,054

GSH – Group Shelterwood 10,044

HC – Hardwood Conversion 126

HR – Hardwood Release 431

OR – Overstory Removal 1,255

PCT – Precommercial Thinning 54

PE – Pine Encroachment 1,458

POL – Products Other Than Logs Thinning 617

Sani – Sanitation *3,655

SWSC – Shelterwood Seedcut 226

VDT – Variable Density Thinning 1,072

*Acres of sanitation presented in this Table represent acres of sanitation treatments where no other treatment is 

proposed. Sanitation is included as a treatment on the entire project area, for up to 5 years.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Existing 

Conditions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres

Fire Hazard Rating Summary

Low

Moderate

High

Very High
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2

23

Table 10. Alternative 2 Proposed Fuel Reduction Treatments

Treatment Acres

DF – Dead fall *23,693

FB - Fuelbreak 180

RX – Prescribed Burning 1,761

Table 11. Total Miles of Forest Service Roads on National Forest Land within the Project Area, 

by Alternative

Existing/Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Road Miles – Total 125 126

System Roads 125 126

Unauthorized Roads 0 0

Table 12. Designation of National Forest System Roads within the Project Area

Existing/Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

System Roads – Total 125 126

Roads Closed to All, Yearlong (as storage) 48 49

Roads Open to All, Seasonal 35 35

Roads Open to All, Yearlong 42 42
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

24

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the environment of the affected project area and the potential 

changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. 

The information presented here is based on analysis prepared by resource specialists from 

the interdisciplinary team (IDT). Analysis was accomplished by field observations and 

surveys, past experience and professional recommendations, aerial photography, resource 

modeling, literature review, information obtained through monitoring, Forest Plan 

direction and associated analysis, and public participation. The specialist reports are 

included in the project file, which is located at the Black Hills National Forest, Hell 

Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, South Dakota. All resource 

specialists used the best available science in completing their analysis, in accordance with 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Analysis of cumulative effects include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

activities that could affect the biological or social environments. See Appendix F for a 

listing of past, present, and future activities considered in the Vestal project cumulative 

effects analysis. The project area boundary was used to address cumulative impacts, 

unless otherwise noted in the resource discussions. Rationale for cumulative effects 

boundaries is noted in the cumulative effects discussions by resource.

Forest Vegetation

Affected Environment

Cover Types

Vegetation in the Vestal project area is dominated by ponderosa pine cover type (92%), 

but also includes aspen (2%) and spruce (<1%) forested types. Aspen also occurs as 

small inclusions within some pine stands. The project area also contains a minor amount 

of non-forested cover types. Non-forest cover types currently occupy approximately six 

percent of the project area. These areas are mostly grasslands, but include rock and water. 

Table 13 displays acres and percentages of cover types in the project area.

 Table 13. Existing Cover Types in the Vestal Project Area

Cover Type Acres Percent of Area

Aspen 431 2%

Spruce 42 <1%

Ponderosa Pine 23,693 92%

Meadow 1,482 6%

Water 29 <1%

Rock 146 <1%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

25

Cover Type Acres Percent of Area

Total 25,823 100%

Ponderosa Pine

Ninety-two percent of the project area is vegetated by the ponderosa pine cover type 

(Table 14). The majority of the project area is densely-stocked mature ponderosa pine. 

Much of the current tree cover originated with the beginning of extensive fire 

suppression. As a result of past management activities, natural disturbances such as 

wildfire and endemic mountain pine beetle activity, some structural stage diversity and 

vegetation diversity exists. The current mountain pine beetle infestation in the project 

area threatens to transform much of the area into structural stages 1 and 2 (Allen, July 

2011). Table 14 displays existing ponderosa pine structural stages within the entire 

project area.

Table 14. Existing Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages (SS) in the Entire Vestal Project Area

Structural Stage 

Ponderosa 

Pine Acres

SS1 – grasses and forbs 87

SS2 – seedlings and saplings 269

SS3A – young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover <40% 770

SS3B - young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover 40-70% 1,270

SS3C- young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover >70% 1,295

SS4A- mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover <40% 6,924

SS4B- mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover 40-70% 10,267

SS4C- mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover >70% 2,704

SS5 – Late succession 107

Total Acres 23,693

Management Areas 4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 have structural stage objectives (Objectives 4.1-203, 

5.1-204, and 5.4-206 respectively) within the ponderosa pine cover type. The objective 

percentages are the same for each management area and are displayed in Table 15. This 

objective applies to the entire management area, not the project level.

Table 15. Structural stage objective percentages for ponderosa pine in MAs 

4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 across the Black Hills National Forest

Structural

Stage

Objective

Percentage

Structural

Stage

Objective

Percentage

SS1 5% SS4A 25% *

SS2 5% SS4B 25% *

SS3A 10% SS4C 5% *

SS3B 15% SS5 5% **

SS3C 5%

The current condition of the structural stage percentages for ponderosa pine cover type 

throughout these three Management Areas, including the Vestal project area, is derived 

from the 2009 Black Hills Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA Forest Service 

2010) and is displayed in Tables 16-18 below.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

26

Table 16. Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 4.1

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

Percentages

MA 4.1

Existing Condition

Acres

MA 4.1

Existing Condition

Percentages

1 5% 486 1%

2 5% 461 1%

3A 10% 975 3%

3B 15% 1,253 3%

3C 5% 887 2%

4A 25% 9,668 27%

4B 25% 14,379 40%

4C 5% 7,055 20%

5 5% 896 3%

Table 17. Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.1

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

Percentages

MA 5.1

Existing Condition

Acres

MA 5.1

Existing Condition

Percentages

1 5% 26,760 6%

2 5% 16,673 3%

3A 10% 24,236 5%

3B 15% 17,047 4%

3C 5% 10,269 2%

4A 25% 185,062 39%

4B 25% 142,228 30%

4C 5% 50,437 11%

5 5% 1227 <1%

Table 18. Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.4

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

Percentages

MA 5.4

Existing Condition

Acres

MA 5.4

Existing Condition

Percentages

1 5% 45,616 13

2 5% 10,152 3

3A 10% 17,454 5

3B 15% 22,227 6

3C 5% 15,763 <5

4A 25% 86,487 25+

4B 25% 87,864 26

4C 5% 52,865 16

5 5% 1066 <1

Very Large Sized Trees

These same MA objectives also state: “10% of the structural stage 4 ponderosa pine 

acreage in the management area will have an average tree size of ‘very large.” The 

project area currently contains approximately 974 acres of SS4 pine which have an 

average tree size of very large. Table 19 displays current percentage of SS4 pine acreage 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

27

with an average tree size of very large within each management area, per the 2009 Black 

Hills Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA Forest Service 2010). Based on this data 

the objective is currently exceeded in MAs 4.1 and 5.1 and is near achievement in MA 

5.4.

Table 19. Existing Percentage of Very Large Sized Pine Acres by Management Area

Forest-Wide MA 

Objective MA 4.1 - Existing MA 5.1 - Existing MA 5.4 - Existing

10% 20% 13% 9%

Late Succession

There are approximately 107 acres of identified late succession (SS5) pine forest in this 

project area. Late succession forest is at high risk for MPB infestation.

Mountain Pine Beetle

There is currently a mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring within the project area 

(C.Bobzien, 2011). All measures of beetle activity indicate a rapidly exploding beetle 

situation with a significant increase in tree mortality over the past 3 years (Allen 2011b). 

Stand conditions across the project area are largely (61%) at high risk to increasing 

mountain pine beetle caused mortality (see Table 20). Combine the high stand hazard 

with the high risk of a large resident beetle population in place would indicate that tree 

mortality is going to keep increasing and likely increase at a rapid level.

Tree mortality from mountain pine beetle is most evident in the northern and western 

portions of the project area, at this time. Field surveys completed in the fall of 2011 

indicate that approximately 6 trees were infested by MPB in 2011 for every single tree 

attacked by MPB in 2010. These conditions signify a still rapidly growing outbreak in 

this area (Allen 2011b).

The risk of mountain pine beetle infestation is predicted from pine structural stages. The 

Black Hills National Forest Insect Rating Guide (revised August, 2011) identifies risk as 

either High or Low, as summarized in Table 20.

Table 20. Mountain Pine Beetle Risk Rating by Pine Structural Stage

Structural

Stage

Insect

Rating

1 Low

2 Low

3A Low

3B Low

3C High

4A Low

4B High

4C High

5 High

Based on this guide, currently, there are approximately 14,373 acres of ponderosa pine at 

high risk for mountain pine beetle infestation in the Vestal project area. This is about 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

28

61% of the pine stands in the analysis area. High-risk pine stands are at a greater 

potential for increased MPB activity. Most of the mortality is in trees that are greater 

than 7-inches in diameter, with lesser amounts in small trees. Mortality is also typically 

concentrated in stands where tree density is highest, typically over 100 basal area (Allen, 

March 2011). Stands above 60 ft2/ac of basal area or higher (generally structural stages 

3C, 4B, 4C and higher density 4A stands) are considered to be at high risk. Table 21

displays existing MPB risk ratings. The SS 4A stands which are identified as having 

stand density >60 ft2/ac of basal area and therefore are very close to being high risk, are 

displayed separately.

Table 21. Current MPB Risk Rating for Ponderosa Pine in Vestal

Mountain Pine 

Beetle Risk Acres Percentage

Low 3,145 13

Low

(4A>60BA)* 6,175 26

High 14,373 61

Hardwoods

There are 431 acres (~2%) of designated aspen stands within the analysis area. 

Hardwoods, mainly aspen, can also be found growing as inclusions within some conifer 

stands in the project area. Aspen is out competed by intruding conifers and aspen 

numbers could decrease by the reduction in the amount of light they receive.

Spruce

There are 42 acres of designated spruce stands in the project area. These are generally 

located along north facing slopes and on moist micro-sites. Mixed spruce and pine stands 

also occur. Spruce also occurs as stringers within some meadow sites.

Meadows

There are 1,482 acres (6%) of meadows in the Vestal area. These meadow sites have 

been encroached by conifers. Grassland and meadows have increased from 2008 to 2009 

forestwide. (Black Hills Forest Monitoring & Evaluation Report Sept 2010).

Environmental Consequences

This section compares the two alternatives at year 2018, when all management activities 

are expected to be completed and the mountain pine beetle infestation is expected to have 

run its course in the project area.

Alternative 1

Ponderosa Pine

Under this alternative, no new forest vegetation activities would occur in the project area. 

However, the project area would still experience change through other processes. The 

most prevalent process affecting the project area is the current mountain pine beetle 

infestation. The distribution of ponderosa pine structural stages within the project area 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

29

would experience great change due to the current mountain pine beetle infestation (Table 

22).

Table 22. Alternative 1 Pine Structural Stages in Entire Vestal Project Area, Projected to 

Year 2018 and Compared to Existing Condition.

Structural 

Stage

2011

Acres

2011

Existing %

2018

Acres

2018

Alt 1 %

1 87 <.1 7,082 29.9

2 269 1.1 2,530 10.7

3A 770 3.2 4,890 20.6

3B 1,270 5.4 1,168 4.9

3C 1,295 5.5 0 0

4A 6,924 29.2 6,716 28.3

4B 10,267 43.3 1,297 5.5

4C 2,704 11.4 0 0

5 107 <.1 10 <.1

Total 23,693 100 23,693 100

Estimates of MPB caused mortality were projected by the entomologist (Allen 2011) 

based on existing conditions in the project area, high populations of beetles and 

predominantly high (61%) MPB risk ratings. Field surveys of MPB activity in the fall of 

2011 confirm a rapidly increasing MPB outbreak in this area (Allen 2011). The specific 

sites on where these structural stages would occur is speculative. Therefore, the total 

acres and percentages of projected structural stages is presented for comparison.

The population of mountain pine beetles would increase at a greater rate because high 

risk stands would continue to exist and be available for infestation. As the population 

continues to increase at an epidemic rate more trees in low risk stands would also be 

attacked. Landscape scale changes in forest structure would occur with vast areas reduced 

to structural stages 1, 2, and 3A. These changes have been seen in previous outbreaks 

across the forest.

Infested trees would contain blue stain fungus which would lower the commercial value 

of the wood. Wood borers and weather checking would render much of the wood useless 

for commercial purposes within one year. Vast areas would be reduced to a level below 

the timber management zone (Stocking charts in Appendix H-see Guideline 2409). 

Structural stage 1 and other low density stands would take decades to reforest due to long 

distances between residual trees. Stands designated for goshawk and late successional 

habitat would likely be lost as tree mortality alters their structural stages and thus 

destroys the characteristics they have been designated for. Standing dead and fallen dead 

trees would create heavy concentrations of fuels causing large areas to be at high hazard 

for large scale high intensity wildland fires. These fires would likely spread to stands that 

have survived the beetle attack thus destroying more resource values. Private forest lands 

mixed in the project area would be subject to the same destruction and loss of resource 

and habitat values.

This alternative would not treat any acres to a low insect rating. The percentage of the 

ponderosa pine stands in the analysis area in 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C structural stages would 

go from 66% to 10% (see Table 23). The high population of mountain pine beetle attacks 

and resulting mortality not only affects the largest trees, but also smaller trees down to 3 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

30

inches diameter at breast height. Approximately half of these sites would change to 

structural stages 1 and 2. Single-storied sites lacking advanced regeneration would 

change to structural stage 1, while multi-storied sites with advance regeneration would 

change to structural stage 2. (See Table 23).

Structural stage changes projected to occur with Management Areas 4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 are 

presented below in Tables 23-25.

Table 23. Alternative 1 Pine SS in MA 4.1, Forestwide

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

%

MA 4.1

Existing

Condition

Pine Acres

MA 4.1

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

2018

Pine 

Acres

Alt 1

2018

%

1 5% 486 1% 1,716 5%

2 5% 461 1% 899 2%

3A 10% 975 3% 1,438 4%

3B 15% 1,253 3% 1,094 3%

3C 5% 887 2% 475 1%

4A 25% 9,668 27% 9,852 27%

4B 25% 14,379 40% 13,314 37%

4C 5% 7,055 20% 6,376 18%

5 5% 896 2% 896 2%

Total 100% 36,060 100% 36,060 100%

Table 24. Alternative 1 Pine SS in MA 5.1, Forestwide

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

%

MA 5.1

Existing

Condition

Pine Acres

MA 5.1

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

2018

Pine 

Acres

Alt 1

2018

%

1 5% 26,760 6% 29,559 6%

2 5% 16,673 4% 17,694 4%

3A 10% 24,236 5% 26,076 6%

3B 15% 17,047 4% 17,243 4%

3C 5% 10,269 2% 9,967 2%

4A 25% 185,062 39% 184,060 39%

4B 25% 142,228 30% 138,404 29%

4C 5% 50,437 11% 49,777 11%

5 5% 1,227 0.3% 1,159 0.2%

Total 100% 473,393 100% 473,939 100%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

31

Table 25. Alternative 1 Pine SS in MA 5.4, Forestwide

Structural

Stage

Forest Plan

Objective

%

MA 5.4 

Existing

Condition

Pine Acres

MA 5.4 

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

2018

Pine 

Acres

Alt 1

2018

%

1 5% 45,616 13% 48,539 14%

2 5% 10,152 3% 11,005 3%

3A 10% 17,454 5% 19,309 6%

3B 15% 22,227 7% 22,099 7%

3C 5% 15,763 5% 15,182 4%

4A 25% 86,487 25% 87,061 26%

4B 25% 87,864 26% 83,747 25%

4C 5% 52,865 16% 51,500 15%

5 5% 1,066 0.3% 1,052 0.3%

Total 100% 339,494 100% 339,494 100%

Very Large Sized Trees

The No Action alternative would reduce the acres of SS4 with an average tree size of 

very large within the project area, due to mountain pine beetle caused mortality, by 

approximately 67% from 974 acres to 324 acres (see Table 26). This change in acres 

however would not result in a change to the Forest-wide management area percentages 

(see Table 26). Objectives 4.1-203 and 5.1-204 would continue to be exceeded. 

Objective 5.4-206 would retain its percentage, but actually moves away from the 

objective based on acres.

Table 26. Alternative 1 Acres of SS4 with an Average Tree Size of Very Large at Year 

2018

Management Area

Existing Condition

Acres

Alt 1 Acres

Year 2018

4.1 50 16

5.1 208 69

5.4 716 239

Total 974 324

Table 27. Alternative 1 Percentage of SS4 with an Average Tree Size of Very Large at Year 

2018

ForestWide MA 

Objective MA 4.1 MA 5.1 MA 5.4

Existing Alt1 Existing Alt1 Existing Alt1

10% 20% 20% 13% 13% 9% 9%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

32

Late Succession

Total acres of late succession would be reduced in this alternative due to MPB caused 

mortality. Approximately 10 acres are projected to remain within the project area (Allen 

2011). The criteria for structural stage 5 is the stand must be at least 160 years old and to 

have a tree size class of Very Large (V), trees 16-inches in diameter at breast height 

(DBH) or greater. The remaining structural stage 4A and 4B stands would eventually 

grow into structural stage 5, however this would take several decades or longer to 

achieve. With the current MPB infestation it is highly likely that the development of 

structural stage 5 would be delayed due to an increase in MPB caused tree mortality.

Hardwoods

Aspen would benefit from the mountain pine beetle-caused mortality of overstory 

ponderosa pine, which decreases competition for sunlight and nutrients. However, 

ponderosa pine less than 3” DBH escape mortality and remain to compete with quaking 

aspen. They would eventually shade out the aspen within the following 50 years. 

Increased sunlight warming the ground would immediately stimulate aspen regeneration 

through root suckering, expanding existing clones outward a distance up to 1 to 1.5 tree 

heights (Shepperd & Battaglia 2002). The flush of new aspen suckers increases browsing 

damage, however, the large amount of ponderosa pine snags falling down mitigate the 

browsing pressure by physically blocking deer and elk from the suckers. This alternative 

would move toward forest Objective 201.

Spruce

No change to spruce acres would occur with this alternative. Ponderosa pine within the 

spruce stands could likely become infested with mountain pine beetle.

Meadows

Meadow sites in the project area continue to experience encroachment from ponderosa 

pine. The ponderosa pine encroaching on meadow sites is either not large enough or 

dense enough to experience heavy mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. Meadows are 

not expected to increase as their extent is limited by soil characteristics. This alternative 

is consistent with Objective 205.

Alternative 2

Ponderosa Pine

Total acres of ponderosa pine are reduced by 126 due to proposed hardwood conversion 

treatment. These stands were identified as past aspen sites which had been encroached 

by pine over time.

Effects to conifer structural stages from mountain pine beetle-caused mortality and 

vegetation treatments would be expected to move away from the Forest Objectives for

structural stages by Management Area, but not as much as in Alternative 1. Conifer sites 

treated to 3A and 4A or already in 3A or 4A can be expected to survive the mountain 

pine beetle infestation and grow into structural stages 3B and 4B within 20 to 30 years.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

33

This alternative would create more structural stage 4A than Alternative 1, but would also 

retain more structural stage 4B (see Table 28).

Table 28. Pine Structural Stages by Alternative

Structural 

Stage

2011

Acres

2011

Existing 

Percent

2018

Alt 1

Acres

2018

Alt 1

Percent

2018

Alt 2

Acres

2018

Alt 2

Percent

1 87 <.1 7082 29.9 77 <.1

2 269 1.1 2530 10.7 1275 5.4

3A 770 3.2 4890 20.6 597 2.5

3B 1270 5.4 1168 4.9 111 <.1

3C 1295 5.5 0 0 114 <.1

4A 6924 29.2 6716 28.3 18438 78.2

4B 10,267 43.3 1297 5.5 2496 10.6

4C 2704 11.4 0 0 352 1.5

5 107 <.1 10 <.1 107 <.1

Total 23,693 100 23,693 100 23,567* 100

*Pine acres are reduced in Alternative 2 as 126 acres are converted to aspen.

The MPB epidemic is currently threatening forest resources in the project area. 

Vegetation treatments in Alternative 2 are designed to reduce MPB susceptibility;

thereby reducing the potential for MPB caused mortality. Reducing the density of highrisk stands to a basal area of 60ft2/acre or less would dramatically reduce the risk of MPB 

susceptibility. In areas where there are ongoing beetle epidemics, lowering stand 

densities to 60ft2/acre provides a higher level of prevention (Allen, March 2011). 

Approximately 20,000 acres of treatments are proposed within pine stands.

Some stands adjacent to private lands would be thinned to 50ft2/acre for crown fire 

hazard reduction. A follow up Products Other Than Logs (POL) thinning of trees under 9 

inches DBH to a 22’ by 22’ spacing would also be done where the commercial sawtimber 

harvest (selected trees over 9 inches DBH) does not remove enough trees to reach the 

50ft2/ac objective.

Conversely, some stands would be left at higher density for wildlife habitat needs. These 

stands would receive a free selection thinning (1,054 acres) or sanitation cutting only 

(3,655 acres). These stands would be at higher risk of infestation but a higher level of 

infestation risk would be accepted within these stands.

Sanitation, removal of trees currently infested with MPB, would be applied to all forest 

stands. Sanitation cuts would effectively remove insect broods from infested trees in the 

forest and destroy the insects. Sanitation cuts would be done for up to five years in each

stand if necessary to remove newly infested trees.

All commercial entries would be limited by operability and access limitations resulting in 

something less than the total acres planned being actually treated with commercial 

harvest. This would amount to no more than 12% of the planned commercial treatment 

acres.

The result of this alternative is a lowered risk level and a decreasing level of MPB caused 

mortality relative to the current epidemic (see Table 29). The landscape is expected to 

encompass thinned stands, some very open stands, and some openings as a result of the 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

34

varying levels and concentrations of infested trees. Aspen clones would increase in size 

and viability as conifers are removed in and around them. As the infestation is slowed in 

the treated stands, areas left at higher densities for wildlife habitat would be more likely 

to avoid levels of mortality that reduce their structural stage condition.

Prescribed burning has little effect on the site structure following mechanical treatments 

that create structural stages 3A or 4A. However, prescribed burning in combination with 

drought can stress residual trees in mechanically-treated areas and leave them susceptible 

to mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. Therefore prescribed burning would be delayed 

until the passing of the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

Table 29. MPB Risk Rating-Alternative 2 Compared to Existing Condition

Mountain Pine 

Beetle Risk

Existing

Acres

Existing

Percentage

Alt 2

Acres*

Alt 2

Percentage

Low 9,320 39 20,498 87

High 14,373 61 3,069 13

*Total acres of pine is reduced in Alternative 2 due to hardwood conversion treatment

Thinning treatments would increase growth on remaining trees and improve the overall 

health of the stands because there would be more water, nutrients and sunlight for each 

tree. Thinning can put stands at risk to windthrow and breakage. Occurrence of 

windthrow and breakage would be minimized by thinning from below, i.e. harvesting 

mostly the smaller, shorter trees and leaving the tallest trees that have had more wind 

exposure and developed more sturdiness.

Managed healthy stands would maintain options for future forest management. Some 

reproduction of seedlings can be expected over time after thinning. This change in forest 

structure may be treated in future entries with prescribed burns or mechanical treatments 

to eliminate seedlings. Conversely, overstory removals, regeneration cuts or uneven-aged 

treatments may be prescribed to enhance or maintain the diversity in structure that is 

developed.

Table 30. Forest-wide Management Area 4.1 Pine Structural Stages by Alternative

Structural

Stage

Forest 

Plan

Objective

%

Existing

Condition

Acres

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 1

Year 

2018

%

Alt 2

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 2

Year 

2018

%

1 5% 486 1% 1,716 5% 486 1%

2 5% 461 1% 899 2% 905 3%

3A 10% 975 3% 1,438 4% 646 2%

3B 15% 1,253 3% 1,094 3% 889 2%

3C 5% 887 2% 475 1% 521 2%

4A 25% 9,668 27% 9,852 27% 11,877 1%

4B 25% 14,379 40% 13,314 37% 13,329 33%

4C 5% 7,055 20% 6,376 18% 6,511 37%

5 5% 896 2% 896 2% 896 18%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

35

Structural

Stage

Forest 

Plan

Objective

%

Existing

Condition

Acres

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 1

Year 

2018

%

Alt 2

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 2

Year 

2018

%

Total 100% 36,060 100% 36,060 100% 36,060 2%

Table 31. Forest-wide Management Area 5.1 Pine Structural Stages by Alternative

Structural

Stage

Forest 

Plan

Objective

%

Existing

Condition

Acres

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 1

Year 

2018

%

Alt 2

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 2

Year 

2018

%

1 5% 26,760 6% 29,559 6% 26,753 6%

2 5% 16,673 4% 17,694 4% 16,708 4%

3A 10% 24,236 5% 26,076 6% 24,230 5%

3B 15% 17,047 4% 17,243 4% 16,824 4%

3C 5% 10,269 2% 9,967 2% 10,021 2%

4A 25% 185,062 39% 184,060 39% 189,123 40%

4B 25% 142,228 30% 138,404 29% 139,143 29%

4C 5% 50,437 11% 49,777 11% 49,819 11%

5 5% 1,227 0.3% 1,159 0.2% 1,227 0.3%

Total 100% 473,393 100% 473,939 100% 473,848 100%

Table 32. Forest-wide Management Area 5.4 Pine Structural Stages by Alternative

Structural

Stage

Forest 

Plan

Objective

%

Existing

Condition

Acres

Existing

Condition

%

Alt 1

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 1

Year 

2018

%

Alt 2

Year 

2018

Acres

Alt 2

Year 

2018

%

1 5% 45,616 13% 48,539 14% 45,613 13%

2 5% 10,152 3% 11,005 3% 10,672 3%

3A 10% 17,454 5% 19,309 6% 17,616 5%

3B 15% 22,227 7% 22,099 7% 21,660 6%

3C 5% 15,763 5% 15,182 4% 15,196 4%

4A 25% 86,487 25% 87,061 26% 91,683 27%

4B 25% 87,864 26% 83,747 25% 84,278 25%

4C 5% 52,865 16% 51,500 15% 51,675 15%

5 5% 1,066 0.3% 1,052 0.3% 1,066 0.3%

Total 100% 339,494 100% 339,494 100% 339,459 100%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

36

Very Large Sized Trees

Alternative 2 would reduce the acres of SS4 with an average tree size of very large within 

the project area, by approximately 21% from 974 acres to 767 acres (see Table 33), 

which is less of a change than in Alternative 1. This change in acres however would not 

result in a change to the Forest-wide management area percentages (see Table 34) for 

Objectives 5.1-204 or 5.4-206. It would reduce the percentage in MA 4.1 and moves 

toward objective 4.1-203.

Table 33. All Alternatives: Acres of SS4 with an Average Tree Size of Very Large at Year 2018

Management 

Area

Existing 

Condition

Acres

Alt 1 Acres

Year 2018

Alt 2 Acres

Year 2018

4.1 50 16 36

5.1 208 69 178

5.4 716 239 553

Total 974 324 767

Table 34. All Alternatives Percentage of SS4 with an Average Tree Size of Very Large at Year 

2018

ForestWide 

MA 

Objective MA 4.1 MA 5.1 MA 5.4

Existing Alt1 Alt2 Existing Alt1 Alt2 Existing Alt1 Alt2

10% 20% 20% 19% 13% 13% 13% 9% 9% 9%

Late Succession

The action alternative would allow some structural stage 4A and 4B stands to eventually 

grow into structural stage 5 over several decades or longer. The potential to develop 

structural stage 5 is improved over the No Action alternative. Reducing the risk for MPB 

caused mortality increases the possibility of retaining mature stands that could develop 

into late succession.

Hardwoods

In this alternative, acres of aspen would be increased from an existing 431 to 557 acres. 

Conifers would be removed from existing hardwood stands and an additional 126 acres 

of ponderosa pine cover type would be converted to a quaking aspen cover type 

following treatment. The intolerant hardwoods cannot compete with the more tolerant 

conifers. Removing conifers from a hardwood stand would ensure that hardwoods would 

not become shaded out and the stand eventually taken over by conifers. In addition, 

scattered inclusions of aspen within pine stands would be released from competition by 

having conifers removed. A 33 foot buffer around each aspen inclusion would also have 

conifers removed to allow sunlight to the aspen and enhance further expansion of the 

aspen inclusion. Conifers less than 9” DBH are hinged and left on site to protect aspen 

suckers from browsing. Hinging is an effective method to deter browsing in the Black 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

37

Hills (Kota & Bartos 2005). This alternative moves closer toward Objective 201, than 

Alternative 1.

Spruce

There are 107 acres of white spruce in the project area within three of the four 

management areas. White spruce is rare on the landscape and in healthy condition at this 

time. No treatment within the spruce stands would occur with this entry except for 

Sanitation to remove MPB infested trees.

Meadows

Approximately 1,458 acres of pine encroachment treatments would occur in historic 

meadow sites. These historic meadow sites have been encroached upon by pine. They 

would be restored by removal of conifers of all sizes. As a result, increased grass and 

forage production would occur. This alternative better moves toward Objective 205, than 

Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

The time boundary used to analyze cumulative effects is 1980-2018. Harvesting and 

noncommercial treatments in the 1980s are the earliest known activities that still 

significantly affect the landscape today. The timber sales from this analysis are 

scheduled to sell in 2012 and 2013. Allowing 2 years for the sales to be harvested and 

three years for post sale activities to be accomplished all activities should be completed 

by approximately 2018. Predicted changes in structural stages from mountain pine beetles 

would be also be expected to occur by at least 2018.

The spatial boundary used to analyze cumulative effects is the project area boundary for 

all resource elements discussed in this section except for mountain pine beetle. The 

direct and indirect effects for most elements are contained within the project area 

boundary. The cumulative effects boundary for mountain pine beetle is the project area 

and the Wabash Resale Timber Sale area immediately adjacent to the southwest boundary 

of the project area. This boundary was selected because beetle populations are known to 

be at high level in the Wabash area and could affect Ponderosa pine within one mile of 

this sale area. Beetles generally move less than one-tenth of a mile per year but might 

travel up to several miles on rare occasions.

Ponderosa Pine

Much of the Vestal analysis area has been harvested in the past. At least 25 timber sales 

have taken place in portions of the project area since 1980. The effect of past treatments 

has been an increase of merchantable volume growth and improvement in the quality of 

timber. There has also been an improvement in the quality of timber through removal of 

damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. Precommercial thinning and weed & 

release have occurred and improved stand health by removing damaged, diseased, and 

poor quality trees.

Late Succession and Very Large Sized Trees

Past timber harvest has had both positive and negative impacts on late succession. It 

allowed some mature trees to grow into the ‘Very Large’ tree size (greater than 16+ 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

38

inches DBH) by increasing diameter growth as a result of less competition. In addition, 

MPB risk to mature stands has been reduced due to harvest. Past harvest has also 

removed old trees from stands that may have had the potential to become late 

successional.

The action alternative would have a beneficial cumulative effect by increasing the 

potential for retention of Very Large and old trees on the landscape because of reduced 

MPB risk. The no action alternative would not reduce MPB risk and therefore would not 

have a beneficial cumulative effect.

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk

The Black Hills, including the Vestal analysis area, has recently emerged from a 10 year 

on-going drought condition. While MPB does not depend on drought conditions for the 

insect to continuously increase their population, the drought has aided the MPB by 

increasing stress in healthy trees thus making the trees more vulnerable to a successful 

insect attack.

With the no action alternative, lack of vegetation treatment within pine sites would 

increase the potential for MPB populations to increase within the project area. Pine sites 

near the most highly infested areas to the north and east and the Wabash Resale Timber 

Sale would be expected to become affected first. Sites to the south have numerous small 

infested patches and are probably a year behind in intensity of infestation. The no action 

alternative would therefore have an adverse cumulative effect on ponderosa pine as 

related to MPB infestation.

There would be positive cumulative effects to MPB risk under the proposed action 

alternative. Treatment of pine stands to lower stand density reduces the susceptibility of 

a stand to MPB infestation. Past and present activities combined with the proposed 

activities would result in mountain pine beetle-caused mortality being decreased with the 

action alternative.

Hardwoods

Past treatments have removed conifers from almost all hardwood stands. This action has 

prevented hardwoods from becoming shaded out and the stand eventually taken over by 

conifers.

Under no action, the aspen stands and scattered inclusions of aspen within pine stands 

would be not be released from competition by having conifers removed. Under the 

proposed action alternative the aspen areas would be released and not be further invaded 

by conifers as conifer seed sources would be removed.

Meadows

Some meadows have been successfully released from pine competition in the past.

Approximately 1,458 acres of pine encroachment would occur in the proposed action 

alternative. These historic meadow sites have been encroached upon by pine. They 

would be maintained by removal of conifers of all sizes. As a result, increased grass and 

forage production would occur.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

39

The cumulative effect under no action would be that pine would remain in these 

meadows and seed more trees further into the meadows. Grass and forage production 

would continue to decrease.

Wildlife and Fish

Affected Environment

Existing vegetation habitat conditions are discussed under Forest Vegetation, earlier in 

this document. Additional discussion of some specific habitat components, snags and 

down woody material is presented below. Riparian habitat is discussed in the Hydrology 

specialist report. 

Snags and Down Woody Material

The MPB outbreak that has been occurring for the last 3-4 years has created snag habitat 

in the Vestal Project Area, especially in the northern and western portion of the project 

area. However, trees killed by MPB are only expected to remain intact on the landscape 

for about 5 years (Schmid et al. 2009). 

Currently, cutting snags for fuelwood is allowed within 300’ of roads where dispersed 

camping is permitted as shown on the Forest Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The 

majority of the Vestal project area is included. No other snag cutting areas occur within 

the project area. 

Down woody material amounts vary across the project area. Most of the project area 

currently contains down woody material at levels noted in Objective 212.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Forest Plan-FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005) lists 

MIS to be considered during project-level planning. The MIS species which have habitat 

or populations present within the Vestal project area were analyzed (see Table 35). Some 

MIS species have dual designations as also R2 sensitive species or Species of Local 

Concern (SOLC), as noted in the analysis presented.

Table 35. MIS list and rationale for inclusion in project-level analysis

Species

Analyzed

in Rep. Rationale Habitat Description

Beaver

(Castor 

canadensis)

YES

There is an active 

colony at Bismark 

Lake. 

Large rivers and lakes down to streams, 

marshes and small lakes with 

seepage/weak flows adequate for 

damming and suitable woody vegetation 

(Higgins et al. 2000).

White-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus 

virginianus)

YES

Species was 

observed 

throughout the 

Project Area. 

Very adaptable species that can live in 

almost any habitat. In South Dakota, 

this includes grasslands, wetlands and 

woodlands (Higgins et al. 2000).

Golden-crowned 

kinglet (Regulus 

satrapa)

YES

Suitable habitat is 

found in spruce 

stands within the 

project area.

Found almost exclusively in white 

spruce habitat but occasionally present 

in habitats with a spruce component 

(Panjabi 2003).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

40

Species

Analyzed

in Rep. Rationale Habitat Description

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

NO

Suitable habitat is 

not found within 

the Project area.

Found almost exclusively in native 

mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003).

Black-backed 

woodpecker

(Picoides 

arcticus)

YES

Suitable habitat is 

found within the 

project area.

Burned areas with a high density of preburn snags; mountain pine beetle 

infested areas; dense and/or mature 

forests with a high snag density 

(Anderson 2003, Panjabi 2003, Bonnot 

et al. 2008).

Brown creeper 

(Certhia 

americana)

YES

Species was 

observed or heard 

throughout the 

project area in 4B 

and 4C pine sites.

In the Black Hills, white spruce and late 

successional pine appears to be the most 

important habitat type for this species 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003).

Ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus) YES

Potential habitat 

exists in aspen 

throughout the 

Project area.

Variable aged aspen stands, other 

hardwoods and pine forests provide 

habitat. Winter habitat is almost 

exclusively aspen (DeGraaf et al. 1991, 

Tallman et al. 2002).

Song sparrow 

(Melospiza 

melodia)

YES

Riparian corridors 

provide desirable 

habitat throughout 

the project area.

Streamside thickets, particularly shrubby 

willows, are required for habitat. 

Occasionally found in adjacent spruce 

habitat (Panjabi 2003).

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus)

YES

French Creek 

provides potential 

habitat for this 

species.

Large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, prairie 

streams but most often in cool, clear, 

moderately swift mountain streams with 

mud, cobble, or boulder substrate (Isaak 

et al. 2003).

Beaver (MIS)

The beaver was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of riparian and hardwood forest conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a).

In the Project Area, there is an active colony at Bismarck Lake; another active colony is 

close to the project area up Sylvan Lake Road. 

Baseline beaver surveys were conducted on the Forest in the fall of 2004. The species 

was most commonly found in the Bearlodge Mountains and central Black Hills (USDA 

Forest Service 2005b). Forest-wide, long-term beaver population trend has increased 

since heavy trapping has decreased, but it is less than its potential. The current 

distribution of beaver is reduced based on the number of inactive beaver sites that were 

observed (during monitoring efforts in 2007), especially in headwater streams, where 

water and/or a suitable food supply is lacking (USDA Forest Service 2008). In addition, 

Forest-wide, the long-term trend in beaver habitat is one of decline. The reduction in 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

41

beaver activity that occurred from heavy trapping likely caused a lowering of water tables 

and a subsequent loss of willows and other riparian vegetation (Parrish et al. 1996). This, 

in conjunction with other factors, has reduced the quality and quantity of riparian willow 

habitat in the Black Hills following European settlement. The amount of aspen and other 

hardwoods on the Forest has also declined (USDA Forest Service 2005b).

White-tailed Deer (MIS)

White-tailed deer were selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of forest conditions, including the presence of understory shrubs, to meet 

their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

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). 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. Management actions that increase 

habitat and structural diversity across the Forest will better meet necessary forage and 

cover requirements for deer. The primary limiting factor for white-tailed deer in the 

Black Hills may be a lack of desirable shrubs for food and cover (DePerno et al. 2002). 

Another factor that can affect deer habitat is road construction and road density (SAIC 

2003).

Habitat trend at the Forest-level suggests that summer habitat trend is increasing, and 

winter habitat trend is stable to slightly decreasing (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The 

Forest is meeting Objective 238a, with regard to summer habitat, but the Forest may not 

be maintaining winter habitat, although the decline might not be significant (USDA 

Forest Service 2009).

During field surveys, deer were often observed throughout the project area. The high 

amount of meadows (mostly on private land) and SS4A pine stands have provided areas 

for foraging, although shrubs are lacking in Vestal. Also, much (42%) of the project area 

is in big game winter range, which contains seasonal motorized use closure areas. The 

project area contains approximately 2.2 mi/mi2 of roads (includes Forest Service and 

county roads), with open road density at approximately 1.5 mi/mi2. In Management Area 

5.4 (Big game winter range) only, road density is higher at approximately 5 mi/mi2. 

However, seasonal road closures from December 15-May 15 reduce open road density 

during this time to approximately 2.2 mi/mi2

.

Big Game Screening 

Hiding or 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. There are 12 collector and arterial 

roads in the Vestal project area where the screening cover guideline (Guideline 3203) 

applies. Currently adequate screening cover is provided by vegetation or topography on 

all collector and arterial roads (Table 36).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

42

Table 36. Current Screening Cover in the Vestal Project Area on Forest Service Land 

Road Numbers Functional Class Percent Screening Cover

285 Collector 50

653 Collector 80

286 Collector 70

284 Arterial 50

297 Arterial 65

336 Collector 20

337 Collector 48

343 Collector 46

342 Collector 55

344 Collector 60*

345.1 Collector 65*

*Screening cover along these roads provided mainly by vegetation.

Golden-crowned Kinglet (MIS)

The golden-crowned kinglet was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest 

Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species 

that rely on a variety of conditions in spruce habitat to meet their needs (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Habitat for the golden-crowned kinglet has increased over the long-term and is exceeding 

the Forest-wide target of 20,000 acres (Objective 239) (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Forest monitoring results show that kinglet relative densities were highest in 2005 (white 

spruce) and showed the lowest densities in 2007. Relative densities rebounded in 2009 in 

both late successional and white spruce habitats (USDA Forest Service 2010). Goldencrowned kinglets were also found in northern ponderosa pine, montane riparian and 

foothill riparian habitats; however, white spruce was present at some level within each 

one of these (Beason et al. 2006).

There are currently only 42 acres of designated spruce stands in the project area. Spruce 

also occurs within some pine and meadow sites, which would also be used by this 

species.

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species and MIS)

Black-backed woodpeckers were selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on mature and late successional forest, burned forest, insects, and snags to meet their 

needs. The black-backed woodpecker is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to 

this species are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation.

Overall, habitat for this species is being provided consistent with Objectives 221 and 

238b. The “aging” of large burned areas into habitat less suitable for black-backed 

woodpeckers is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insect-infested timber 

stands. 

Black-backed woodpecker relative densities (birds/km2

) in burned habitat reached a high 

in 2002 and declined thereafter until 2009 when it reached the highest density. The jump 

in relative density in 2009 could be from the abundance of insect activity occurring 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

43

across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010). The Forest-wide relative density for this 

species is probably higher than “normal” given the current habitat conditions. Blackbacked woodpecker populations are “eruptive” as reflected in their densities in burned 

habitat. This pattern of rapid colonization and subsequent decline is consistent with 

findings of other studies (Anderson 2003). The overall condition on the Forest is still for 

a high beetle infestation. This translates into a short-term favorable habitat condition for 

the black-backed woodpecker (USDA Forest Service 2010). This species’ Forest-wide 

population trend is likely to decline in the future as vegetation management efforts to 

reduce the fire-hazard and insect-risk continue. (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Additionally, SS4C and 5 (habitat needed when no burned or MPB areas are available) 

combined declined in 2009. 

Potential suitable habitat is present in the project area. Late succession stands containing 

large diameter dead trees (snags) created by natural events (wind, lightening), and areas 

of MPB activity are currently present within or adjacent to the Vestal project area. 

Observations have occurred within the project area. 

Brown Creeper (MIS)

The brown creeper is selected as an MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of spruce, late-successional and dense mature pine conditions to meet their 

needs.

This small forest bird occurs in low abundance throughout the Black Hills and is 

associated with mature and late succession forest (SS4C and 5) conditions and spruce 

forests. The preferred nesting habitat for this species is mature, old growth forest (SS5)

that is undisturbed and contains a closed canopy (Hejl et al. 2002, Wiggins 2005). 

Results from monitoring data identify white spruce and late successional pine as the most 

important habitat type for this species (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2005). Other important 

habitat requirements are areas of large trees (i.e., >10” DBH), loose bark, areas infested 

with bark beetles and snags (DeGraaf et al. 1991, Wiggins 2005). Dead or decaying trees 

and snags provide substrate for nests and foraging. Nesting habitat generally contains 

trees that are >9” DBH (Hejl et al. 2002). Evidence also suggests that this species is 

sensitive to the effects of forest fragmentation (Wiggins 2005). It is considered an 

uncommon permanent resident of the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002), largely tied to 

late successional pine and white-spruce habitats (Panjabi 2003, 2005).

In 2009, brown creeper relative densities continued to decline in northern pine habitat, 

rebounded slightly in white spruce habitat and rebounded considerably in southern pine 

and late successional habitat (SS 4C and 5). Blakesly et al. (2008) determined it may 

take 25 years to detect a 3% annual decline for this species in pine-north, late 

successional and white spruce habitats and 30 years in pine-south habitat. However, in 

the short-term, relative densities declined in 2007 compared to previous years, but 

rebounded in 2009 in most habitats sampled (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Observation data for the brown creeper reveals a short-term downward Forest-wide 

population trend. It appears that Objective 238a is being met, although short-term 

activities to meet the structural stage 4C objective may be affecting the Forest’s ability to 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

44

provide very large trees in structural stage 4C. Continued effort and additional time is 

needed to increase the acres of structural stage 5 (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2009).

The species was observed in low numbers but scattered throughout the project area in 

structural stage 4B and 4C ponderosa pine sites. Currently, there are a total of about 

13,000 acres of structural stage 4B, 4C and 5 ponderosa pine, and 42 acres of white 

spruce in those same structural stages. However, the preferred large diameter trees are 

only found occasionally. Additionally, there are pockets of MPB that have opened up 

some of these stands.

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

The ruffed grouse is selected as a Forest MIS to be an indicator of aspen quantity and 

vigor in pure and mixed stands. It was selected to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of conditions in aspen to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

Ruffed grouse prefer young to medium -aged aspen stands (Tallman et al. 2002) but have 

been observed in other habitat types in the Black Hills, including open pine forests 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003). Ruffed grouse can survive on a diverse diet in the spring, summer 

and fall (Bolen and Robinson 2003), which may explain the range of habitat types the 

species has been recorded in from RMBO monitoring data (Panjabi 2001, 2003). 

However, ruffed grouse feed on tree buds in the winter and are almost completely 

dependent on aspen for food, shelter and escape cover. Ideal ruffed grouse habitat

consists of plentiful aspens in all age-classes (i.e., sapling, pole-sized and mature; Bolen 

and Robinson 2003). 

Ruffed grouse are a resident species where found and range from central Alaska to 

northwestern California, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Montana. They extend east through 

Minnesota, Ohio and the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia to northeastern Georgia 

(DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered an uncommon permanent resident in the Black 

Hills (Tallman et al. 2002) with greatest abundance in the northern Hills (Panjabi 2003). 

The long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline. Aspen acreage has been 

reduced from the historic condition overall. However, there has been a slight increase in 

aspen acres during the past five years. More time and effort will be needed to increase 

aspen acreage in the future. Implementation of a ruffed grouse monitoring protocol 

should allow for the detection of a long-term population trend (USDA Forest Service 

2010).

Aspen acreage in the project area currently totals 431 acres. This does not include 

scattered hardwood clones within conifer dominated sites. The hardwood sites represent 

all of the structural stages. This species has been observed within the project area.

Song Sparrow (MIS)

This species is an indicator of riparian habitat condition. The song sparrow was selected 

as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change 

on the ability of the Forest to support characteristic riparian species that rely on a variety 

of riparian conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

45

The song sparrow can be found throughout the Black Hills but is primarily dependent on 

riparian habitat with streamside thickets and willows. Highest densities were recorded in 

montane riparian habitat and to a lesser extent foothill riparian and white spruce habitat 

types. The spruce habitat the species was observed in usually occurred adjacent to 

riparian areas (Panjabi 2003). The latest estimate of riparian habitat on the Forest is 

about 64,000 acres. This includes riparian areas with an overstory of hardwoods or 

conifers. Of this acreage, about 12,000 acres have a shrub (willow) component. No 

Forest-wide data on riparian resource condition was collected in FY 2008 (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). 

Data from the Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills (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 (USDA 

Forest Service 2009). Further monitoring and analysis is required to clarify the 

population trend. Because the quality of riparian habitat has decreased since preEuropean settlement, this would indicate a long-term declining habitat trend. However, 

in the short-term, small riparian habitat enhancement projects that have improved riparian 

conditions in some areas contribute to habitat enhancement and to achievement of 

Objective 238a. More monitoring and habitat restoration projects are warranted for a 

better assessment of the song sparrow trends (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

Song sparrows have been reported within the Vestal project area. Habitat exists along 

most perennial streams and even some ephemeral and intermittent streams.

Mountain Sucker (MIS and R2 Sensitive)

The mountain sucker was designated as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) to 

evaluate the quality and connectivity of stream habitat on the Black Hills National Forest. 

The mountain sucker is also a Region 2 sensitive species. The effects to the mountain 

sucker are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation.

The Forestwide trend for this species is one of decline (USDA Forest Service 2005, 

2010). The mountain sucker historically occurred in French Creek. The first recorded 

occurrence was in 1893 at Custer, SD (Evermann and Cox 1896). Stream surveys in 

French Creek in 1960 found mountain suckers downstream of Stockade Lake/Dam 

(Stewart and Thilenius 1964). French Creek upstream of Stockade Lake was not 

surveyed. Surveys in 1984 and 1992-93 captured mountain suckers in French Creek 

downstream of Stockade Lake, but not upstream of the lake (Ford 1988, SDGFP 2009). 

SDGFP fisheries surveys in 2009 in streams within the Vestal project area did not collect 

any mountain suckers.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

Black Hills Supplement “r2_bh_2600-2011-1” to Forest Service Manual 2600 became 

effective September 6, 2011 and provides direction for the management of SOLC (USDA 

Forest Service 2011). As defined by this supplement, a species of local concern is a 

plant, fish or wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) that does not meet the 

criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining trends in only a 

portion of R2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local area. The 

local area is defined as Forest Service lands within the Black Hills National Forest. This 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

46

supplement also provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria used to select 

species of local concern and a current list for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2011). 

Table 37 lists potential SOLC for the Black Hills National Forest. Rationale is provided 

for those species not analyzed. 

Table 37. SOLC List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis

Species

Species 

Present?

(Y/N)

Habitat 

Present?

(Y/N)

Include in 

NEPA 

document?

(Y/N)

Rationale for not carrying 

species forward into the 

NEPA document

Atlantis fritillary

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapae)

YES YES YES

Tawny crescent

(Phycoides batesii) NO YES YES

Callused vertigo

(Vertigo arthuri) YES YES YES

Mystery vertigo

(Vertigo paradoxa) NO YES YES

Frigid ambersnail

(Catinella gelida) NO YES YES

Striate disc

(Discus shimekii) NO YES YES

Sharp-shinned hawk

(Accipiter striatus) YES YES YES

Cooper’s hawk

(Accipiter cooperi) YES YES YES

Broad-winged hawk 

(Buteo platypterus) NO YES YES

Northern saw-whet owl

(Aegolius acadicus) YES YES YES

Pygmy nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea) YES YES YES

American dipper

(Cinclus mexicanus) NO NO NO

The project area lacks habitat for 

this species. This species inhabits 

clear, fast-flowing streams 

(Anderson 2002).

Black and white warbler

(Mniotilta varia) NO NO NO

This area lacks the lower elevation 

bur oak woodlands and associated 

edges that is typical habitat for this 

species in the Black Hills (Beason 

et al. 2006)

Northern long-eared myotis

(Myotis septentrionalis) NO YES YES

Small-footed myotis

(Myotis ciliolabrum) NO YES YES

Long-eared myotis

(Myotis evotis) NO YES YES

Long-legged myotis

(Myotis volans) NO YES YES

Northern flying squirrel

(Glaucomys sabrinus) NO YES YES

Meadow jumping mouse YES YES YES
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

47

Species

Species 

Present?

(Y/N)

Habitat 

Present?

(Y/N)

Include in 

NEPA 

document?

(Y/N)

Rationale for not carrying 

species forward into the 

NEPA document

(Zapus hudsonius 

campestris) 

Mountain goat 

(Oreamnos americanus) YES YES YES

Bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis) NO NO NO

The Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep is a R2 sensitive species and 

is analyzed in the Wildlife BA/BE. 

Atlantis Fritillary (SOLC)

The Atlantis fritillary is an endemic butterfly of the Black Hills and is restricted to 

Custer, Lawrence, and Pennington counties. It prefers wet meadows and moist canyons 

(Marrone 2002). Recent surveys indicate species presence appears to be correlated with 

spruce, flowing water and relatively high elevation (Reiser and Spomer 2005). 

Due to the restricted nature of the Atlantis fritillary’s distribution in the Black Hills,

development or management activities within suitable habitats pose a risk to long-term 

persistence. Much of the fritillary’s habitat is privately owned. Surveys conducted in 

2005 throughout the forest identified 20 sites with Atlantis fritillary. Of these 20 sites, 

only three were known to have Atlantis fritillary presence prior to this survey. Although 

the species may be more common than previously thought, it still has a limited range and 

appears tied to permanent montane wetlands in the Black Hills. Habitat consisted of a 

wet area along the riparian corridor with some spruce present (Reiser and Spomer 2005). 

No surveys were conducted within the project area; however, there were observations of 

this species within the project area (French Creek and Tenderfoot).

Tawny Crescent (SOLC)

The tawny crescent is found in open meadows, stream bottoms, roads, trails, and riparian 

woodlands (Stefanich 2001). It is also found in mesic forest corridors across an ecotone 

between mixed-grass meadows or prairie grasslands to adjacent woodlands (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). Elsewhere in the Dakotas, adults are known to forage for nectar from a 

variety of floral species, including dogbane, leafy spurge and various composite flowers. 

Tawny crescent larvae appear dependent on asters as a food source although the specific 

host species and their relationship remain unclear (Stefanich 2001). 

In South Dakota, the tawny crescent is restricted in its distribution to the Black Hills. 

The populations inhabiting the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming are considered 

genetically isolated and disjunct from crescents elsewhere (Royer and Marrone 1992). 

Tawny crescents were observed at two of 20 monitoring sites on the Mystic Ranger 

District in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004). However, there continue to be no reliable 

estimates of local abundance or population estimates for the Black Hills (Stefanich 2001). 

Stefanich (2001) hypothesized that the only limiting factor in the Black Hills is the 

destruction of this butterfly’s habitat or isolation of colonies to the extent that populations 

are unable to disperse. This species was observed several times just outside the project 

area. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

48

Callused Vertigo (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Callused vertigo was found sparingly 

in 63 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. The sites where callused vertigo was found 

were wet, relatively undisturbed forest, most often closed canopied white spruce or 

ponderosa pine with a varied understory containing relatively diverse floras and deep 

litter, generally on shaded north-facing slopes and often at the slope base or extending 

slightly onto the adjacent floodplain. The most common substrate was limestone, but 

callused vertigo also occurred occasionally on schist-derived soils. Down woody 

material that helps maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an 

important habitat element. Foraging substrate appears to consist of decayed deciduous 

leaves and herbaceous plants. 

Callused vertigo has been found at one site in (Site 112) the project area and sites near 

the area, indicating that the species may be found throughout the Project Area in similar 

habitat (refer to Frest and Johannes 2002 for exact location of that site). The narrowly 

restricted geographical range of the callused vertigo includes South Dakota (51 sites), 

Wyoming (12 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains), North Dakota, Minnesota, and Alberta 

(Frest and Johannes 2002). The callused vertigo is currently ranked secure globally but 

imperiled in South Dakota (NatureServe 2011).

The monitoring protocol for snails was not funded in 2005 - 2008 (USDA Forest Service 

2006b, 2007, 2008, 2009); therefore data to assess the status of SOLC snails is not 

available for then. Tronstad and Anderson (2011) modeled potential habitat in the Black 

Hills for these snails, and monitored some of the Frest and Johannes (2002) sites, but 

none were monitored in the project area. Avoidance of known sites is currently the best 

available option for conserving and/or enhancing habitat at known snail colonies.

Mystery Vertigo (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor

357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Mystery vertigo was found in 23 of 

the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. They were not generally abundant at any site. 

Mystery vertigo is generally restricted to rich lowland wooded sites, quite often in the 

white spruce community, but occasionally in the ponderosa pine community. The forest 

canopy is generally closed or nearly so, with well-developed litter and a rich understory.

Sites are usually in leaf litter at the base of a wooded, north-facing slope on limestone or 

schist substrates. Down woody material that helps maintain moist soil conditions and 

lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. Mystery vertigo was not common 

in taluses but could be found crawling on rock surfaces in moist weather and appears to 

feed on the organic coating of rock surfaces and partially decayed leaves. All sites with 

mystery vertigo were in the central or northern Black Hills or the Bear Lodge Mountains. 

This species was not found within the project area, but it was found relatively close to the 

project area, indicating it could be present.

The mystery vertigo is rare in the United States and occurs only in South Dakota (21 

sites); Wyoming (2 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains); Michigan (1 site); Maine (2 

counties); and a few northern Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota sites (Frest and 

Johannes 2002). The species appears to be more common in adjoining areas of southern 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

49

Canada, generally from the Great Lakes eastward. Mystery vertigo is currently ranked 

“apparently secure” globally and critically imperiled in South Dakota (NatureServe 

2011).

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)

Nekola (2003) considered this species a “duff-specialist.” Duff specialists were strongly 

affected by human activities, suggesting that protecting soil and surface characteristics 

are important in their conservation. In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a 

contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). 

The frigid ambersnail was found in 12 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. The frigid 

ambersnail was rare at all locations, and very few live adults were observed during the 

early 1990s surveys. Live specimens were identified at one site close to the Project Area 

(Site 349), indicating that the species may be found throughout the project area in similar 

habitat (refer to Frest and Johannes 2002 for exact location of this site). Locations are 

widely distributed geographically across the Forest at varying elevations (3,800 to 6,800 

feet). The species was usually found on limestone but also on schist soils, and colonies 

were often found in somewhat dry wooded limestone talus, generally near the slope base. 

They were most often found in rather open ponderosa pine forest, often with a secondary 

deciduous tree and shrub component, although white spruce was a minor component at a 

few sites. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), the family of land mollusks that

includes the frigid ambersnail is associated not only with rather moist forest sites but also 

with quite dry and open settings in much of the western United States.

The frigid ambersnail is currently found only in Iowa (14 sites), South Dakota (12 sites),

and Wisconsin (Frest and Johannes 2002). The frigid ambersnail is currently ranked as 

critically imperiled globally and in South Dakota (NatureServe 2011).

Striate Disc (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). The striate disc was found live in 

only 18 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. Striate disc was most often found in litter 

in rich mesic forest, generally on shaded, north-facing slope bases, often bordering or 

ranging slightly onto stream floodplains. They were most frequently in white spruce 

communities but also aspen and riparian habitats at the base of slopes where deciduous 

trees and shrubs were often common. Most sites had soils derived from weathered 

limestone, although four sites were on schist substrate. Foraging substrate consists of 

decayed deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants. Down woody material that helps 

maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. 

Sites where the striate disc occurs appear restricted to the higher elevations of the 

limestone plateau of the west-central and north-central portions of the Black Hills. No 

specimens were found within or near the Project Area.

The range of the striate disc includes Wyoming (2 sites), Montana (1), Colorado (perhaps 

26 sites), South Dakota, Oregon (1), California (2), Utah (5), Arizona (3), and New 

Mexico (7) (Frest and Johannes 2002). NatureServe (2009) also lists 5 records in 

Montana. Live sites have also been reported from several Canadian provinces. The 

striate disc is currently ranked globally as G5 (secure), and S2 (imperiled) in South 

Dakota (NatureServe 2011).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

50

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC)

Sharp-shinned hawks nest almost exclusively in conifers, with the exception of some 

densely leafed deciduous trees that also provide nest concealment (Platt 1976, Reynolds 

et al. 1982, Joy 1990). On the Forest, nests occur in white spruce (Stephens and 

Anderson 2002) and in pine forest. Sharp-shinned hawks have also recently been 

detected in ponderosa pine, riparian, aspen, and burned habitats on the Forest, but these 

were not observations of nest sites (Panjabi 2001, 2003 and 2005).

The association between nesting habitat and young seral stage has been noted by several 

authors (Bildstein and Meyer 2000, Bosakowski and Smith 2002, Stephens and Anderson 

2002), but they have been found nesting in mature sites. On the Black Hills National 

Forest, one of the two documented sharp-shinned hawk nests was located in a 42-acre 

stand of white spruce sapling/pole-sized trees. Young stands with mid-to-high canopy 

cover levels for nesting correspond most closely with structural stages 3B (sapling-pole 

stands with 40 percent to 70 percent canopy closure) and 3C (sapling-pole stands with 

greater than 70 percent canopy closure). Canopy closure ranged from 30 to 70 percent, 

but previous studies have tended to find high canopy closure (i.e., ≥68 percent) 

characterizing nesting habitat (Bildstein and Meyer 2000, Bosakowski and Smith 2002). 

Habitat loss or alteration resulting in a loss of suitable nesting habitat as well as a 

decrease in prey abundance and availability are thought to be the most significant threats 

to accipiter species’ persistence (Reynolds 1983, Stephens and Anderson 2002). Habitat 

loss may also occur as forests mature beyond early seral stages. 

The sharp-shinned hawk breeds from Alaska to Newfoundland, south throughout much of

North America, Mexico, and into Central and South America wherever suitable habitat 

occurs (Stephens and Anderson 2002). The species is considered a partial to longdistance migrant, with northern-most individuals wholly abandoning their breeding 

ranges and wintering in the southern United States. Other birds may remain on their 

breeding ranges throughout the winter. In South Dakota, the sharp-shinned hawk is 

considered “uncommon,” with the only recorded occurrences in the western part of the 

state (Peterson 1995). In the Black Hills, they have been observed at all elevations 

(Peterson 1995), but estimates of local abundance are not available due to their low 

numbers (Panjabi 2003). The species has been observed an average of three times per 

year since bird monitoring began in 2001 (Panjabi 2005). In 2011, an active sharpshinned nest was found in site 030905-10 in the project area. Additionally, sharp-shinned 

hawks have been observed within the town of Custer (personal observation).

Currently, the amount of potential nesting habitat (SS 3B and 3C pine) in the project area 

is 2,565 acres or 10% of the project area.

Cooper’s Hawk (SOLC)

The Cooper’s hawk has been observed in a variety of habitats in the Black Hills, 

including ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrublands, and burned areas (Panjabi 

2001, 2003 and 2005; Peterson 1995). The species appears to be widespread but 

uncommon on the Forest. Bird monitoring over the past three years has yielded an 

average of about five sightings per year (Giroir et al. 2007). 

The Cooper’s hawk is considered a habitat generalist but typically requires wooded areas 

for nesting. The most common forest type in the Black Hills, ponderosa pine, is used for 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

51

nesting in other areas of the species range (Stephens and Anderson 2002). The bird is 

known to nest in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests (Stephens and Anderson 2002). 

Stephens and Anderson (2002) analyzed the likely habitat preferences of the Cooper’s 

hawk on the Forest based on information from nearby regions. Range-wide, most pairs 

nest in patches of mature forest with moderate-to-high (i.e., 60 to 90 percent) canopy 

closure near openings (Stephens and Anderson 2002). Nest tree diameters are usually 

larger than what is randomly available. The Cooper’s hawk forages opportunistically 

across a diversity of habitats and preys on a variety of mid-sized birds and mammals 

(Stephens and Anderson 2002).

In ponderosa pine, structural stages 4B (mature stands with 40 to 70 percent canopy 

closure) and 4C (mature stands with >70 percent canopy closure) correspond most 

closely to the nesting habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk. The Cooper’s hawk 

often nests near and hunts along forest edges and clearings. Riparian-woodland 

communities also provide potentially important habitat for the Cooper’s hawk. 

The Cooper’s hawk breeds throughout the United States, southern Canada, and northern 

Mexico. Some birds may remain on their breeding ranges throughout the winter. In 

South Dakota, the Cooper’s hawk is considered “uncommon,” with the only recorded 

occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson 1995). In Wyoming, it is regarded 

as a “common summer resident” (Luce et al. 1999). 

Active Cooper’s hawk nests (2) were discovered within the project area. 

Broad-winged Hawk (SOLC)

The broad-winged hawk is one of eastern North America’s most common woodland 

hawks. It is generally associated with dry to wet deciduous, mixed, or occasionally 

coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). Broad-winged hawks forage in mature to oldgrowth forests, along forest streams, roads, and openings (Stephens and Anderson 2003). 

In the Black Hills, the broad-winged hawk nests primarily in ponderosa pine in mixed 

pine and deciduous habitats, occasionally with a white spruce component (Powder River 

Eagle Studies 2000). Although considered rare in both Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999) and 

South Dakota (Peterson 1995), the species was the second most frequently encountered 

raptor during surveys in 1996 and 1997 (Powder River Eagle Studies 2000). Of 27 

broad-winged hawk nests found on the Forest, 25 were in ponderosa pine while one was 

in an aspen and one was in a paper birch. Nest trees had an average DBH of about 16 

inches; canopy closure in nest stands averaged 66% with a range of 45 to 96% (Stephens 

and Anderson 2003). These nest-stand characteristics equate to structural stages 4B, 4C

and 5. Nest sites typically were in areas with slopes <10%. No association between nest 

sites and forest openings or wetlands was detected on the Forest (Stephens and Anderson 

2003). There were 24 broad-winged hawks identified along transects in 2004, mainly in 

the northern Black Hills and Bear Lodge mountains. Fourteen of these were located in 

aspen, eight in late-successional pine and two in the Jasper Burn Area (Panjabi 2005).

Nineteen were detected in 2005. Only two were detected in 2009 (USDA Forest Service 

2010), and in 2010, a nesting pair were found within Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (personal 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

52

observation). The species was not observed in the Project Area during field 

reconnaissance.

The broad-winged hawk breeds from Nova Scotia to central Alberta, south to Texas, and 

east to the Atlantic coast (Johnsgard 1990). These hawks are complete migrants, best 

known for their migratory congregations of thousands of individuals as they head south 

into Central and South America (Johnsgard 1990, Stephens and Anderson 2003). 

Northern Saw-whet Owl (SOLC)

The northern saw-whet owl is a habitat generalist found at lower to middle elevations in 

forested habitat, particularly in riparian areas. The highest densities of this species tend 

to be found in coniferous forests (Cannings 1993). This species nests in cavities in snags 

excavated by flickers (Collaptes auratus) and other large woodpeckers. Nests tend to be

in mature forest, while dense, sapling-pole-sized stands are preferred for roosting 

(Johnson and Anderson 2003). Saw-whet owls also utilize dense riparian woodlands for 

roosting. This species often forages along forest edges, preying on small mammals 

(Cannings 1993). 

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble the preferred breeding and nesting 

habitat for the saw-whet owl. These structural stages contain mature and old growth 

forest with at least 70% canopy cover in the 4C stage. Snags are an integral part of 

nesting habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. There would likely be 

some areas with higher snag densities that will allow the species to persist. Large trees 

are also important for this species because they provide future large snags, if not killed by 

MPB. 

Saw-whet owls occur from the southern boundary of Alaska, across most of Canada and 

into the northern tier of states from Maine to Minnesota (Johnson and Anderson 2003). 

The Rocky Mountains, the Cascade Range, Coastal Range and the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains all support year-round populations. In the Black Hills, seasonal migration is 

likely among high- and low-elevation habitat (Johnson and Anderson 2003). In South 

Dakota, the northern saw-whet owl is considered an uncommon resident (Tallman et al. 

2002). The saw-whet owl was determined to be widely distributed and common in the 

Black Hills (Fauna West Wildlife Consultants 2003, Drilling 2010). The northern sawwhet owl is tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP) as a rare 

species and is ranked three on a rarity scale of one to five, with one being critically 

imperiled and five being secure (SDNHP 2007). This species has been observed within 

the project area.

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)

The pygmy nuthatch is a primary cavity nester that also uses secondary cavities 

(Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and Ghalambor 2001) found in mature yellow-pine 

communities throughout the West (Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches prefer old or 

mature undisturbed forests, but are also known to use open, park-like stands of ponderosa 

pine (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). This presents a challenge in the Black Hills where 

ponderosa pines typically grow very densely in the absence of disturbance. Roosting 

habitat for the pygmy nuthatch varies seasonally. Foraging habitat is primarily in pine 

stands with high canopy closure (Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches likely need 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

53

heterogeneous forests with a mixture of well-spaced old trees and trees of intermediate 

age (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001).

The preference for undisturbed forests may relate to the availability of large snags. The 

nuthatch is a weak cavity excavator, requiring soft, large snags for nesting and communal 

winter roost sites (USDA Forest Service 1996, Appendix H). Dead or decaying 

coniferous trees and snags provide substrate for nest cavities. Nesting habitat generally 

includes trees that average 15 to 27 inches in diameter (Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and 

Ghalambor 2001). Suggested practices include managing for at least three to five snags 

(19 inches in diameter) per acre (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001).

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble one component of preferred habitat (old 

or mature undisturbed forest). Structural stage 4A most closely resembles open, parklike, mature forest conditions. Phase II structural stage objectives are designed to 

manage for the various structural stages across the landscape in a diversity of sizes and 

shapes. Snags that are greater than 15 inches in diameter are an integral part of pygmy 

nuthatch nesting and roosting habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. 

There will likely be some areas with higher snag densities that will allow the species to 

persist. Large trees are also important for this species because they provide foraging 

habitat, and because they are source for future large snags used for roosting and nesting. 

The pygmy nuthatch subspecies of the Black Hills (Sitta pygmaea melanotis) is found 

from southern interior British Columbia and south throughout the forests of the Rocky 

Mountain West into Mexico and western Texas (DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered an 

uncommon resident in both Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999) and South Dakota (Peterson 

1995). There are no reliable estimates of pygmy nuthatch abundance for the Black Hills 

(Ghalambor 2003).

On the Black Hills, as elsewhere, identified limiting factors are thought to be the 

availability of snags for nesting sites and winter roosting habitat and the availability of 

productive foraging habitat (Ghalambor 2003). Estimates of local abundance are 

unavailable due to the scarcity of this species and its unpredictable distribution (Panjabi 

2003). Three pygmy nuthatches were recorded by RMBO in 2009 (USDA Forest Service 

2010). Pygmy nuthatches have been observed within the project area. 

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

At the western edge of its range, the northern myotis is found in the wooded riparian zone 

in badlands and prairies to higher elevation coniferous and deciduous woodlands 

(Schmidt 2003a). In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured at elevations 

ranging from 4,000 to 6,500 feet (Schmidt 2003a). Luce et al. (1999) listed habitat 

associations as dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest.

Hibernacula include caves and mines. Individuals tend to wedge into crevices and are 

not easily detected or counted (Schmidt 2003a). During the summer, non-reproductive 

bats roost singly or in small groups of fewer than 10 individuals. Day roosts of males and 

non-reproductive females have been reported in buildings; under shingles; behind 

shutters of buildings; underneath exfoliating tree bark; inside cavities or crevices of trees; 

and in caves, mines, and quarries (Schmidt 2003a). Maternity roosts have been reported 

in buildings, under loose bark, and in crevices and cavities of deciduous trees and 

ponderosa pines. Northern myotis have been documented using ponderosa pine snags as 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

54

summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe 

et al. 1998). Rabe et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for the northern 

myotis and four other Myotis species in Arizona; roost snags were generally larger in 

diameter, had more loose bark, and were found at higher densities. Cryan et al. (2001) 

reported the average snag size for roosts in the Black Hills was about 15.6 inches. 

Maternity roosts are typically small and comprise 5 to 65 individuals (Schmidt 2003a). A 

single offspring is born in late July (Higgins et al. 2000).

Foraging areas may include hillsides, ridge tops, and riparian woodlands (Luce et at. 

1999, Schmidt 2003a). The availability of suitable hibernacula, maternity roosting sites, 

and foraging areas all represent potential risk factors for this species (Schmidt 2003a).

The northern myotis ranges across most of eastern North America, extending from

central Quebec, Ontario, and the southern half of Manitoba, south through all of the 

Dakotas, eastern Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and then east to the Atlantic coast. 

Turner (1974) reported northern myotis from Pennington and Custer counties in South 

Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming. The South Dakota Natural Heritage Program 

reported records of this species from Meade, Lawrence, Jackson, and Harding counties as 

well. Luce et al. (1999) reported records of northern myotis from latitude 7 and longitude 

21, which includes Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming and one historical record from 

the western part of the state. 

Suitable roosting habitat exists within the project area.

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC)

The small-footed myotis is found in a variety of habitats ranging from arid desert and 

badland habitats to riparian zones and grasslands. It is usually associated with rocky 

areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, and major rock outcroppings within 

these habitats. In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured at elevations 

ranging from 3,800 to 6,000 feet (Schmidt 2003b).

Hibernacula for this species include mines and caves. Relatively warmer areas of caves 

with the least climatic fluctuations seem to be the preferred microsite. Mine hibernacula 

are also documented (Turner 1974). Maternity and summer roosts are usually associated 

with rock features (e.g., bluffs, ridges, cliffs, boulders, and major outcroppings) within a 

variety of habitats (Schmidt 2003b). The small-footed myotis is one of the few bat 

species that actually roosts in cavities at ground level. Day roosts include buildings, 

behind the bark of pine trees, in rock crevices, under rocks on the ground, in holes in 

banks and hillsides, and in abandoned swallow nests. The availability of suitable 

hibernacula, maternity roosting sites, and foraging areas all represent potential risk 

factors for this species (Schmidt 2003b).

The small-footed myotis ranges across most of western North America, extending from 

central British Columbia, southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan, south to the 

central States of Mexico (Schmidt 2003b). It has been reported from all five South 

Dakota counties of the Black Hills (Turner 1974). Luce et al. (1999) reported records 

from latitude 7, and longitude 21 and 28 in Wyoming, which is most of the area 

bordering South Dakota with the possible exception of Weston County. However, Turner 

(1974) reported seven records from Weston County, Wyoming and recorded this species 

as widespread but not abundant in the Black Hills. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

55

Suitable roosting habitat exists within the project area.

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

The only records of long-eared myotis in the Black Hills come from unpublished reports 

(Schmidt 2003c). It is unknown whether the Black Hills supports a self-sustaining 

population (Schmidt 2003c). This species is associated with coniferous montane habitats 

and has been reported foraging among trees and over woodland ponds (Schmidt 2003c). 

Limited data suggest that the long-eared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as summer 

and maternity roosts in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998, Vonhof and Barclay 1997). Rabe 

et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for the long-eared myotis and four 

other bat species in Arizona: roost snags were generally in larger DBH, had more loose 

bark, and were found at higher densities. Stumps, also of large diameter, have been 

documented as summer roost sites for the long-eared myotis in British Columbia (Vonhof 

and Barclay 1997).

Although relatively little is known about this bat’s specific hibernation needs, hibernation 

sites include caves and mines (Higgins et al. 2000), but there are no known reports of 

them hibernating in the Black Hills (Schmidt 2003c). Reproductive females have been 

found in buildings, rock crevices, and hollow trees. Reported day roosts for this species 

include buildings (often abandoned), under loose tree bark, in hollow trees, among 

timbers of an unused railroad trestle, in caves and mines, in cliff fissures, and in portable 

latrines (Schmidt 2003c). This bat often uses caves and mine tunnels as nightly roosts 

(Higgins et al. 2000, Schmidt 2003c). 

The long-eared myotis ranges across much of montane western North America, extending 

from central British Columbia; the southern half of Alberta and the southwestern corner 

of Saskatchewan; south to Baja California along the Pacific coast; along the western

edges of the Dakotas; and most of Wyoming and Colorado to northwestern New Mexico 

and northeastern Arizona (Schmidt 2003c). 

Suitable roosting habitat exists within the project area.

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC)

The long-legged myotis is primarily associated with montane forest. In the Black Hills, 

this species occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 feet (Turner 1974). 

This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity 

roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998). 

Cryan et al. (2001) found the long-legged myotis roosting in rock crevices in the Black 

Hills where they may be subject to disturbance by rock climbing activities. Snags used 

for roosting in the Black Hills were larger in diameter, in a greater state of decay, and 

were in higher densities when compared to random snags (Cryan et al. 2001). Roosts 

were generally on south-facing slopes within late-successional pine forests. Day roosts 

are usually under the bark of ponderosa pine and in snags. These bats prefer dead snags 

characterized by reduced needles and twigs, loose bark, broken tops, hard-to-spongy 

heartwood, and spongy-to-soft sapwood. Roost snags are generally taller than 

surrounding trees, close to other available trees, and surrounded by a relatively open 

canopy. Reproductive females have been found roosting in buildings, rock crevices, 

under the bark of trees, and in hollow trees (Schmidt 2003d). Hibernating individuals are 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

56

known to use caves in the Black Hills, including Bush’s and Jewel Caves (Schmidt 

2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Turner 1974).

The long-legged myotis forages over meadows, ponds, streams, and open mesic habitats 

of the Black Hills where it feeds on flying insects, particularly moths (Luce et al. 1999, 

Turner 1974). Although this species is the most common and widely distributed bat in 

the Black Hills (Turner 1974), general limits to persistence include availability of roost 

sites, hibernacula, and foraging areas. The reported preference of this bat for roosting in 

snags suggests that the availability of mature forests with abundant snags may be a 

limiting factor (Schmidt 2003d).

The long-legged myotis is common across the western United States. Its range extends 

across most of western North America, from southeastern Alaska through the western 

and southern half of British Columbia and the southern half of Alberta, down the western 

edge of the Great Plains states and into central Mexico (Schmidt 2003d). This species is 

considered the most common and widely distributed member of the genus Myotis in the 

Black Hills region and has been reported from all counties occupied by the Black Hills in 

both South Dakota and Wyoming (Schmidt 2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Clark and Stromberg 

1987, Turner 1974). Suitable roosting habitat occurs within the project area.

Northern Flying Squirrel (SOLC)

Throughout their range, northern flying squirrels inhabit a wide variety of woodland 

habitats, typically dominated by conifers or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests (WellsGosling and Heaney 1984). Recent studies have indicated northern flying squirrels 

occupy a variety of forest types and are not necessarily old growth dependent (Cotton and 

Parker 2000). Turner (1974) noted that the highest densities are likely found in whitespruce forests in moist canyons of the northern Black Hills. Duckwitz (2001) found 

flying squirrels in Wind Cave National Park in ponderosa pine types that had an open 

canopy allowing understory grasses to prosper. Open pine types may provide the 

“openness” necessary for gliding. Locations where flying squirrels were found in Wind 

Cave National Park did have large pines. Stands of dense doghair pine were avoided 

(Duckwitz 2001). 

Hough (2008) found that ponderosa pine is the most important foraging habitat in the 

Black Hills. Flying squirrels selected areas with larger trees and more canopy cover. 

Structural stages 1, 2 and 3B were avoided, structural stages 3C and 4B were selected for, 

and structural stages 3A, 4A and 4C were used in proportion to availability. Aspen and 

birch were avoided. Grass and shrub areas do not provide good foraging habitat due to 

the lack of fungus growth and seed production (Hough 2008). Structural stages 3A, 3C, 

4A, 4B, 4C and 5 all provide suitable habitat on the Forest. Standing snags and downed 

logs are also habitat components. Northern flying squirrels typically nest in tree cavities 

or abandoned woodpeckers holes in winter and summer. They may also build nests of 

twigs, bark, and roots and use abandoned bird nest platforms in summer (Wells-Gosling 

and Heaney 1984). 

Although flying squirrels are thought to prefer mesic, mature, spruce forests in the Black 

Hills, mature and late-successional stage pine forests (structural stages 4C and 5) on more 

mesic sites may also contain the snag resource northern flying squirrels appear to require. 

The Forest is conserving habitat for the northern flying squirrel in regards to spruce 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

57

habitat, but progress towards increasing the acres of structural stage 5 and the very large 

tree component in Management Areas 5.4 and 5.43 is still needed to enhance habitat 

(USDA Forest Service 2010).

This nocturnal mammal is a resident of the mountainous areas of the western United 

States and boreal forests of North America. The northern flying squirrel in the Black 

Hills is an isolated population with the nearest population located in the forests of 

western Wyoming (Clark and Stromberg 1987, Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). 

Meadow Jumping Mouse (SOLC)

This species is strongly associated with riparian habitats along small streams in meadows 

and habitats beneath forests with an understory of deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs and 

fallen logs; it is presumed to disperse primarily along stream corridors (Luce et al. 1999). 

The meadow jumping mouse is a profound and continuous hibernator, retreating to 

burrows in dry ground from October to May. Burrows are also used for nests (Luce et al. 

1999). 

Domestic animal overgrazing, which consistently removes dense vegetation along eastern 

creeks in Wyoming, is thought to have contributed to this species’ scarcity (WYNDD 

2002). However, there is little evidence that the mouse is scarce relative to historic 

abundance. Zapus in general tend to occur at relatively low abundance and it is uncertain 

whether the current abundance is different than the past. Limits to abundance and 

distribution include reduction of understory shrubs, grasses and forbs in low-to-mid 

elevation riparian areas (Luce et al. 1999, WYNDD 2002). Fragmentation of appropriate 

riparian habitat may limit this species’ ability to disperse.

Meadow jumping mice range across Alaska through Canada, the northern and eastern 

United States, and across the Great Plains to the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains 

(WYNDD 2002, Whitaker 1972). The Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius campestris) is a separate subspecies that occurs in the Black Hills region 

(Beauvais 2001) and is listed as rare in Wyoming (Luce et al. 1999). There are seven 

recorded occurrences of this species on the Bearlodge Mountains of the Black Hills, 

including the type specimen collected in 1864 (WYNDD 2002). Turner (1974) collected 

a total of 207 specimens from across the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains in South 

Dakota and Wyoming. He collected the species as far south as Wind Cave National Park 

and characterized it as common throughout the study area (Black Hills and Bear Lodge 

Mountains). Cryan and Ellison (2005) found the species still occurs throughout the Black 

Hills area. An observation of this species occurred within the Vestal project area along 

Upper French Creek. 

Mountain Goat (SOLC)

This species inhabits rugged terrain including cliffs, rock faces, ledges, and talus slopes, 

typically above timberline. The mountain goat is found most abundantly on rock 

outcrops and high elevation meadows. The range of the mountain goat extends from the 

northern United States Rocky Mountains to southeast Alaska (Clark and Stromberg 

1987). Mountain goats are characteristically found in sub-alpine and alpine tundra areas 

in the Northern Rockies and coastal mountain ranges of western North America (Higgins 

et al. 2000). Foraging habitat is alpine meadow, grassland, and montane shrubland 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

58

(Benzon and Rice 1987). Recommendations for improving habitat for the species consist 

of thinning dense stands of ponderosa pine, maintaining meadows and placing clear-cuts 

next to or interspersed between granite outcroppings (Ted Benzon, Big Game Biologist, 

SDGFP, Division of Wildlife, personal communication).

Mountain goats feed throughout the morning, rest at midday, and resume feeding in the

late afternoon, continuing into the evening. A wide range of forage is utilized including 

chokecherry, Russian buffaloberry, grasses and sedges, quaking aspen, serviceberry, wild 

rose, willow, and hazel (Richardson 1971). Usually the most available forage rather than 

the most palatable forage is consumed (Richardson 1971). 

Primary range and habitat of the mountain goat in the Black Hills covers about 2,000 

acres and is centered around Harney Peak and the Needles (Richardson 1971). Mountain 

goat populations appear to be trending downward from an estimated population of 168 

animals in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004) to 80 animals in 2009 (Huxoll 2010). 

However, in 2010, population increased little to 90 animals (Huxoll 2011). The cause of 

the mountain goat population decline is unknown. Possible causes include high predator 

(mountain lion) numbers, genetics (all descendants from a small number of goats in 

1924), and/or loss of or lack of habitat. The Forest will continue to coordinate with the 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to determine if more specific habitat 

management actions are needed to conserve/enhance habitat for this species (USDA 

Forest Service 2010). Since 2007, no hunting licenses have been issued for this species. 

The Black Hills mountain goat population occurs largely within the Black Elk Wilderness 

(MA 1.1A), somewhat in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve (MA 5.4A), Buckhorn Mountain 

(MA 4.1) where patch clearcuts have been created to provide for forage, and within 

Crazy Horse boundary.

Threatened and Endangered Species

A list of federally threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and last verified on 

September 1, 2011 (USFWS 2011a). The USFWS lists the following endangered and/or 

threatened species for Custer County, South Dakota: whooping crane, sprague’s pipit, 

and black-footed ferret. 

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species considered 

on the Black Hills National Forest under Section 7 consultation (letter of concurrence 

from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, dated August 8, 2003). 

It was determined that management activities on the Forest would have ‘no effect’ on 

these species because the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the conservation status of Sprague’s Pipit to 

determine whether the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

The status review found that listing Sprague’s Pipit as threatened or endangered is 

warranted, but that listing the species at this time is precluded by the need to complete 

other listing actions of a higher priority. To ensure this review was comprehensive, the 

Service solicited information from state and federal natural resource agencies and all 

interested parties regarding the Sprague’s pipit and its habitat.

Refer to Appendix G which contains a summary of the BA/BE completed for this project. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

59

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on 

June 10, 2011. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species home webpage (USDA Forest Service, 

2011). 

The pre-field review of Region 2 Sensitive Species was completed using survey results, 

district records, literature reviews, on-line databases, and the South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Database. There are fourteen R2 sensitive species which occur or could 

potentially occur (habitat may be present) in the Vestal project area. 

Species Presence Confirmed & Habitat Present:

• Bald eagle

• Northern goshawk

• Black-backed woodpecker

• Northern leopard frog 

• Black Hills redbelly snake

• Fringed myotis

• Townsend’s big-eared bat

• Black-tailed prairie dog

• Mountain sucker

Species Presence Expected and Habitat Present:

• Hoary bat

• American marten

• Flammulated owl

• Cooper’s mountain snail

• Regal fritillary butterfly

These sensitive species were analyzed in the Vestal Wildlife BA/BE due to the species 

presence and/or presence of potential habitat in the project area. Two of the species 

listed, the black-backed woodpecker and mountain sucker, are also designated as MIS 

species. 

Bald Eagle (R2 Sensitive Species)

Bald Eagles have been documented in all counties in the Black Hills. In South Dakota, 

approximately 300 bald eagles winter in the Black Hills and along the Missouri River 

(USFWS 2011d). This species population is a rare breeder in South Dakota, although the 

nesting population is slowly expanding (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks [SDGFP] 

2011a). South Dakota trends based on mid-winter surveys are reported by the SDGFP 

(2011b). One eagle successfully fledged in 2008 (USDA Forest Service 2010) and again 

in 2011 (Patti Lynch, 2011, BHNF, Mystic RD, personal communication).

Bald eagles may roost near Bismarck Lake. This species has been observed within the 

project area. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

60

Northern Goshawk (R2 Sensitive Species) 

In the Black Hills, this species is usually found in ponderosa pine, especially in more 

closed canopy with multiple vegetation structure. Goshawks typically nest in relatively 

dense (dependent on forest type) forest areas and use a mosaic of structural stages for 

foraging within their home range (Kennedy 2003).

In the Black Hills, this species is considered a rare permanent resident and has been 

found nesting in all the counties in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002). 

There are 2 known goshawk territories that are monitored within the project area. Each 

has been active within 5 years. There is potential over-wintering habitat in the Vestal 

Project Area. Goshawk surveys were conducted June-July of 2006 through 2011 within 

the area. In 2011, only one goshawk territory was active; however, sightings of 

goshawks have occurred within the project area.

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species, MIS) 

This species existing condition is discussed under MIS, earlier in this document. 

Northern Leopard Frog (R2 Sensitive Species)

This species requires three types of habitat. Winter habitat, usually lakes, streams or 

ponds, is needed for winter torpor. High oxygen saturation is best in the winter waters. 

Summer habitat for this insectivorous frog is considered upland forage ground often near 

the breeding ponds. The third habitat is breeding/tadpole habitat. This is usually shallow 

bodies of water with little to no current, aquatic vegetation, good water quality, and little 

overhead canopy. Warmth from the sun is needed for proper development of the 

tadpoles. Larval development becomes an issue if water is too cold. This could explain 

why frogs are not breeding at springs in the Black Hills (Smith and Keinath 2007). 

In the Black Hills, this species’ current distribution is considered high where suitable 

habitat is available (USDA Forest Service 2004). This species is vulnerable to habitat 

alteration/loss, introduced predaceous fish, susceptible to overgrazing, low water quality 

and wetland loss (Smith and Keinath 2007).

Suitable habitat exists in the Vestal project area. This species has been observed along 

streams and at one pond. 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake (R2 Sensitive Species)

The Black Hills subspecies is an isolated population; the next nearest population is 

located in the eastern part of South Dakota, some 300 miles away. Suitable habitat may 

be broadly distributed or abundant in the Black Hills. The snake is not rare in good 

habitat and is considered quite common in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2000, 

SDGFP 2011c). The biggest threat appears to be removal of large, downed woody 

material and logging in wet areas. Predation, wildfire and road use can impact this 

species. 

Suitable habitat exists in the Vestal project area. Observations have occurred within the 

project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

61

Fringed Myotis (R2 Sensitive Species)

This subspecies only occurs in the Black Hills and possibly northwest Nebraska. This 

species is considered a rare to uncommon year-round resident. Known locations are 

found in Lawrence, Meade, Pennington and Custer Counties of South Dakota and 

possibly Crook and Weston Counties in Wyoming (Luce et. al. 1997, Tigner and Stukel 

2003). Factors that affect this species are human disturbance of roosting and hibernation 

sites, low reproductive rate and habitat loss. Disturbance by humans, especially in 

hibernacula and maternity roosts, can be a threat to survival of these animals (Keinath 

2004).

No known caves that serve as bat hibernacula were identified in the project area; 

however, there are abandoned mine sites (Ventling) adjacent to and within the project 

area where this species has been detected hibernating (B. Phillips, District Wildlife 

Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, 2011). This site most likely serves as a day/night 

roost site for this species. The entire project area contains many rock outcrops, as well as 

snags and large trees that may be used as roost sites for many species of bats. There are 

other mine sites in and around the Project Area that could have potential bat habitat.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (R2 Sensitive Species)

Within the Black Hills, the species has been recorded in Fall River, Meade, Pennington, 

Custer and Lawrence counties (Higgins et al. 2000). Population trends appear to be 

declining in the Black Hills as well as throughout their range. Loss of habitat is the main 

contributor to lower numbers, which is attributed to the loss of large caves and 

dilapidation of mines. 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 (Gruver and Keinath 2006).

There are abandoned mine sites within and around the Project Area. There are also manmade structures, rock outcrops, and cliff-face crevices and fissures. This species was 

detected hibernating at the Ventling mine. This site most likely serves as a day/night 

roost site for this species. Other abandoned mine sites within or around the project area

most likely also provide hibernation and roosting habitat.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (R2 Sensitive Species)

Suitable prairie dog habitat on the Black Hills National Forest is limited to non-rocky 

grassland soils on the Hell Canyon RD. In 2005, there were approximately 400 acres of 

prairie dog towns on the Forest consisting of about 10 active colonies (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). The colonies are comparatively small and disjunct from adjacent known 

colonies. Prairie dog towns on the Forest have remained stable or have increased despite 

recreational shooting and disease. All of the prairie dog towns occur within grazing 

allotments (District records). Black-tailed prairie dogs are found to be more abundant in 

heavily grazed areas than in un-grazed areas in the Black Hills of southwestern South 

Dakota. 

In South Dakota the black-tailed prairie dog’s range includes most all western counties 

(Higgins et al. 2000).

There is an active, small prairie dog town (031303-36; Glen Erin) in the project area. 

This area was mapped in 2011, and is 9.3 acres. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

62

Mountain Sucker (R2 Sensitive Species, MIS)

The mountain sucker occurs most often in cool, clear mountain streams with moderate 

water velocities. Stream substrate associated with mountain sucker habitat varies widely 

and ranges from mud to sand, gravel and boulders, although cobbles are most common. 

This species is found on the stream bottom and is closely associated with cover (exposed 

roots, undercut banks, log jams and boulders). Mountain suckers are benthic feeders and 

their diet is primarily simple plants like diatoms and green algae, but small invertebrates 

are also ingested. Spawning occurs in the spring, but the exact timing varies by elevation 

and water temperature. In the Black Hills, the spawning period for mountain suckers is 

probably June and maybe early July (Shearer personal communication, 2006). This 

species is an open substrate spawner (broadcast spawner), meaning it does not build or 

defend a nest or redd. The incubation period of mountain sucker embryos is thought to be 

short, around 8 to 14 days (Belica and Nibbelink 2006).

The status of the mountain sucker in the Rocky Mountain Region and the Black Hills was 

assessed by Belica and Nibbelink (2006) and Isaak et al. (2003), respectively. Mountain 

suckers are native to the Black Hills and comprise the eastern-most range of the species. 

Recent surveys suggest mountain suckers occur in many of its historic drainages 

throughout the Black Hills (Isaak et al. 2003), but localized population reductions or 

absence at selected sites has occurred (USDA Forest Service 2010).

The mountain sucker historically occurred in French Creek. The first recorded occurrence 

was in 1893 at Custer, SD (Evermann and Cox 1896). Stream surveys in French Creek in 

1960 found mountain suckers downstream of Stockade Lake/Dam (Stewart and Thilenius 

1964). French Creek upstream of Stockade Lake was not surveyed. Surveys in 1984 and 

1992-93 captured mountain suckers in French Creek downstream of Stockade Lake, but 

not upstream of the lake (Ford 1988, SDGFP 2009). SDGFP fisheries surveys in 2009 in 

streams within the Vestal project area did not collect any mountain suckers.

Hoary Bat (R2 Sensitive Species)

The hoary bat is a solitary species, roosting primarily among foliage in deciduous and 

coniferous trees, often along the edges of clearings. They have been observed in 

numerous forested cover types, including mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, 

pinyon-juniper, and riparian areas with cottonwood and willow. Hoary bats forage on a 

wide variety of insects, especially moths (Shump and Shump 1982, Valdez and Cryan 

2009). They are long-distance, seasonal migrants (Cryan et al. 2004). 

Because hoary bats are not known to use caves or abandoned mines or go into a 

prolonged hibernation, they are not thought to be vulnerable to the disease referred to as 

‘white-nose syndrome’ (WNS), as are some cave hibernating bat species.

In South Dakota this species is considered state-wide in distribution (Higgins et al. 2000),

and the hoary bat is known to occur throughout the Black Hills region.

Data on hoary bat population trends are scarce; however, even in the absence of these 

data, there is evidence that this species is experiencing a downward population trend. 

The bark beetle epidemic in R2 has killed more than 3 million acres of pine forests, 

decreasing the quality and quantity of this vital roosting habitat. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

63

This species is new to the R2 Sensitive Species list as of June 10, 2011. Therefore, this 

species has not been tracked in the project area, or there are no known 

observations/recordings of this species. However, it is expected that suitable habitat is 

present within the project area. 

American Marten (R2 Sensitive Species)

Recent research on the Black Hills National Forest indicates that high quality marten 

habitat consists of mature spruce stands with canopy cover >50% near riparian areas at 

elevations >5,200 feet (Fecske et al. 2002). However, spruce stands that are too small, 

have little canopy cover and/or located long distances from water provide little suitable 

habitat (Fecske and Jenks 2002). Ponderosa pine is not considered optimum habitat, 

although there is evidence that martens use pine habitat in the Black Hills.

In South Dakota, this species was reintroduced to the central Black Hills between 1980 

and 1993 (Fecske et al. 2002).

Track-plate boxes for detection of marten were set up in Vestal in the Tenderfoot area. 

No marten were detected or observed at the track-plate boxes or within project area. 

However, a small amount of suitable habitat does exist.

Flammulated Owl (R2 Sensitive Species)

There have been two reports of flammulated owls 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. In 2002 at least two and maybe three flammulated owls were 

observed in the northern Black Hills (Panjabi 2003). 

Migration in this species is still poorly understood but recent review of the data suggests 

that this species may be a long distance, north-south, migrant. Experiments have found 

that this owl does not become torpid in cold temperatures. It is likely that prey 

availability also plays a large role in the migratory behavior of this species (McCallum 

1994).

There are no records for this species in the project area, but based on published 

information, and Black Hills sightings, it is reasonable to expect that suitable habitat for 

flammulated owls is currently present in the Vestal project area. The ponderosa pine 

structural stages corresponding most closely to potential flammulated owl nesting and 

foraging habitat on the Forest are 4A, 4B, and 5 (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Cooper’s Mountain Snail (R2 Sensitive Species)

In the Black Hills, the Cooper’s mountain snail is mostly found in the higher elevations 

of the Limestone Plateau, along limestone outcrops, talus, and isolated exposed 

limestone. Sites range from open to closed canopy coniferous overstory to mixedconiferous to deciduous tree overstory with well developed litter layer (Anderson 2005). 

Dead and down woody debris is important characteristic at the micro-site level. Risk 

factors for the Cooper’s mountain snail are loss of moist habitat conditions through 

drought, fire, vegetation management, trampling, overgrazing, development, road 

construction, and habitat fragmentation. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

64

Distribution data for the United States and Canadian provinces is known to be 

incomplete. Current identified distribution is in the Black Hills of South Dakota and 

Wyoming. Populations are limited in the Black Hills to suitable habitat mostly in 

Spearfish Creek, upper reaches of Rapid Creek, Higgins Gulch, Prospect Gulch and 

Grand Canyon near Deadwood, SD. This species could also be found in other drainages 

in the northwest region of the Black Hills. According to Frest and Johannes (2002),

others cited a wider range. 

There are 2 Frest snail survey sites that occur within the project area: 030906-9 (#112)

and 030904-8 (#67). This species was not found at either site (refer to Frest and 

Johannes 2002 for details on site location, species found and habitat). Snail surveys were 

conducted during summers, but no snails were found. 

Regal Fritillary Butterfly (R2 Sensitive Species)

Suitable habitat is limited to larger native meadows in the Black Hills where native 

violets exist (Royer and Marrone 1992, Marrone 2002).

Historically, this species ranged from New England to the Great Plains. The Black Hills 

is at the western edge of this species’ range. Distribution within the Black Hills may be 

related to moisture gradient (USDA Forest Service 2000). Threats to the species include: 

overgrazing, herbicide/pesticide use, fire, cultivation of prairie, loss of meadows to trees, 

and invasion of non-native plants (Royer and Marrone 1992, USDA Forest Service 

2000).

The regal fritillary has not been documented within the Vestal project area. Potential

suitable habitat occurs in wet meadows and riparian areas.

Migratory Birds

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small 

ranges, loss of habitat, observed population declines and other factors. Species of 

concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources, 

including the Endangered Species Act, the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, the 

Black Hills National Forest MIS and Species of Local Concern list, internal and public 

scoping efforts, and the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS 2008). 

BCC 2008 publication partitions North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCRs, Fig. I). The Black Hills is included in BCR 17 – Badlands and Prairies, and this 

table has changed since the existing condition report was written. Of the 28 bird species 

found in BCR 17, 15 are duplicated on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, and 

are evaluated in the BA/BE if they have potential to occur in the Black Hills. Six species

are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of habitat. There are 7 remaining 

species that could potentially occur in the Black Hills: golden eagle, prairie falcon, 

upland sandpiper, black-billed cuckoo, red-headed woodpecker, pinyon jay, and 

dickcissel. Of these seven species, only the golden eagle has the potential to occur within 

the project area. The prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, black-billed cuckoo, red-headed 

woodpecker, pinyon jay, and dickcissel will not be analyzed because suitable habitat is 

not present in the Vestal project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

65

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird)

The golden eagle is typically found in open country from desert grasslands to above 

timberline. It usually avoids densely forested areas. Typical habitat is grass-shrub, 

shrub-sapling and/or open coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). This species prefers large 

trees and cliffs for nesting, roosting and perching. Additionally, cliffs overlooking 

grasslands serve as typical nest sites. They may use the same nest or alternate nests 

between years (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Golden eagles hunt by soaring-searching and using 

perch sites to identify prey (Johnsgard 1990). Typical food items include: marmots 

(Marmota flaviventris), prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus spp.), weasels (Mustela spp.), lagomorphs (Sylvilagus and Lepus spp.), 

rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), and most medium-sized birds (DeGraaf et al. 1991).

Golden eagles breed from western Alaska east through Canada, south to Baja California, 

northern Mexico, west-central Texas, western Oklahoma, Nebraska and the Dakotas. 

The species winters from south-central Alaska, southern Canada and throughout the 

western breeding range (Johnsgard 1990). They are considered uncommon permanent 

residents in western South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002) and only ten have been detected 

during recent bird monitoring efforts (Giroir et al. 2007). Golden eagles were observed 

in the project area during 2008 surveys. Golden eagles are commonly seen feeding on 

carrion along roads in the Black Hills during winter.

Environmental Consequences

Snags and Down Woody Material

Alternative 1

The no action alternative would provide the greatest opportunity for increased snag 

numbers, in the short-term (approximately 15-20 years) and down woody material. This 

alternative allows forested stands that are denser and more mature to become more 

stressed and vulnerable to MPB attack and wildfire – variables that can significantly 

increase snag densities and downed wood in an area. Mountain pine beetle activity in the 

project area is increasing, and infestations are spreading across the project area, with 

most tree mortality currently occurring in the northern part of the project area. It is 

expected that snag densities would increase as a result of MPB caused mortality in the 

area. However, these snags are expected to break or fall in about 5 years, contributing to 

an excess of downed woody material. Species that utilize snags and the provided habitat 

will benefit with this snag increase in the short-term. 

Alternative 2 

This Alternative is expected to increase snags and down woody material in the project 

area, but not as much as Alternative 1 does in the short-term. Design criteria is included 

with this alternative to protect existing snags. No snags would be cut unless they are 

deemed a safety hazard during operations, consistent with Standard 2301.

Vegetation treatments, both commercial and non-commercial, have the potential to 

reduce snags and downed wood. Proposed fuel treatments including mechanical 

thinning, prescribed burning and deadfall treatment, also have the potential to reduce 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

66

snags and downed wood. Snags created by fire may stand longer than those created by 

insect attacks. 

This alternative also proposes sanitation treatment on all pine stands within the project 

area. Sanitation removes trees which are infested with MPB and which would provide 

short-term snag habitat, if left on site. However, MPB are expected to create a large 

number of snags, which generally break and fall within 5 years. Down woody material 

would subsequently increase throughout the project area, as these trees fall. 

This alternative increases opportunities for future large snags in this area. The proposed 

treatments are expected to retain more mature, live trees on the landscape which may 

become future snags, because it would reduce potential MPB caused mortality. Because 

snag densities are currently increasing, and snags would be retained, unless a safety 

hazard, this alternative would meet or even exceed, in the short-term, Forest Plan

Objectives 211 and 212. 

Cumulative Effects

Past firewood cutting, timber harvest, wildfires and fuels management activities have 

contributed to the loss of snag and downed wood habitat. Fire, insects and other causes 

of tree mortality continue to create snag/downed wood habitat. Mountain pine beetle 

activity and potential wildfires will likely increase snags, although MPB-killed trees may 

only remain on the landscape for 5 years. Conversely, the current fuelwood cutting 

policy which allows snags to be removed within 300 feet of many roads in the project 

area, may cause a decrease in snag numbers, although it would most likely be negligible.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Summary of Effects on MIS

The following is a summary of effects to wildlife MIS. A detailed analysis can be found 

in both the Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist Reports in the project record.

Table 38: Summary of Effects on MIS

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Beaver (Caster 

canandensis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct effects. Habitat may 

decrease as pine encroaches into 

riparian areas and hardwood stands. 

However, expected MPB caused 

mortality of pine trees has the 

potential to increase or improve 

hardwood and riparian habitats by 

reducing encroaching pine,

generally over 7” diameter. This 

would benefit Beaver. Smaller pine 

would likely remain in hardwoods 

and riparian areas, and would 

continue to encroach on these 

habitats. 

No direct effects are expected. 

Treatments would improve or enhance 

habitat for beaver. Hardwoods along riparian 

corridors would be released from pine 

competition. Smaller pines would also be 

removed to maintain hardwood habitats. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse cumulative 

effects. 

Would not have adverse cumulative effects.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

67

Summary

Beaver habitat at Bismarck Lake would not be negatively impacted by either 

alternative, although the proposed action would release aspen. Post-harvest 

activities in hardwoods planned under the proposed action may be beneficial for 

beaver. Treatment activities within the Vestal project area would meet Forest Plan 

Objective 238a. Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase 

II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be 

maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. 

The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. Under both alternatives, there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining populations for beaver. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

White-tailed Deer

(Odocoileus 

virginianus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

It is predicted that structural stages 

1, 2, 3A and 4A which provide 

foraging habitat, would increase 

substantially from the existing 

condition, due to MPB activity. 

This increase of forage results in a 

similar substantial decrease in 

thermal cover (SS 3C, 4C, and 

possibly 5) for this species. 

Fawning cover (eg. logs, shrubs, 

forest floor debris) would increase 

due to the expected increase of 

down woody material, from MPB

killed trees. There is potential for 

shrubs and hardwoods to increase 

due to predicted open stand 

conditions created by MPB caused 

mortality. Competition between 

livestock and big game is expected 

for this improved forage. 

Screening/hiding cover would 

remain adequate and in time, pine 

seedlings may provide some

additional cover along roads. No 

change to existing open road 

densities would occur. 

Increased hiding and thermal cover than no 

action, in the short-term and the long-term.

Foraging habitat is expected to increase as a 

result of proposed activities as well as MPB. 

Shrubs, hardwoods and meadows may 

improve habitat enough that deer may 

increase in number within the project area, 

but may move outside of the project area to 

seek denser pine stands. Mountain pine 

beetle activity is expected to create pockets 

of forage throughout the Vestal project area. 

Screening cover of at least 20 percent would 

be provided along all arterial and collector 

roads with this alternative. Therefore, 

Guideline 3203 would be met. 

Vegetation treatments and/or post-harvest 

projects proposed under this alternative may 

disturb individuals and cause temporary 

displacement. Deer would be expected to 

return to the affected areas in a short time 

period. 

Road density would remain similar to the no 

action alternative. Open road density does 

not change, however, total road miles is 

increased by one mile. A non-system road is 

proposed to be converted to a system road 

but would remain closed. 

Cumulative Effects

Adverse cumulative effects may 

occur. Forage is expected to 

increase, but MPB activities may 

decrease hiding and thermal cover. 

Activities from recreational use and 

private land management would 

also reduce habitat.

Would add to positive effects of past 

prescribed burns and timber harvests by 

increasing diversity of forage, and increasing 

early successional vegetative stages. May 

slightly reduce screening cover, and would 

greatly reduce thermal cover. Potential to 

decrease winter habitat for big game species. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

68

Expected to add to disturbance by OHV and 

recreation use. Activities from recreational 

use and private land management would also 

reduce habitat.

Summary

Screening cover would be provided at levels noted in Guideline 3203 on all arterial 

and collector roads within the project area. Monitoring data suggests habitat is not 

limiting population growth of deer and the Forest is meeting Objective 238a. 

Neither of the alternatives would contribute to a Forest-wide loss of summer habitat,

therefore, the alternatives would contribute to attainment of Objective 238a. 

However, because of the current MPB infestation along with treatment, the proposed 

action is expected to lessen cover habitat, which is important during hunting season 

and winter for deer and other big game. Adequate habitat across the Forest will 

allow for the attainment of Forest Plan Objective 217 (USDA Forest Service 2005a 

and 2006b). Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II 

Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be 

maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. 

The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Golden-crowned 

kinglet 

(Regulus satrapa)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative no spruce 

sites would receive any treatment, 

so 42 acres are expected to remain 

within the project area. Trees may

continue to mature and eventually 

become snags. Small openings may 

naturally occur in spruce sites 

allowing succession. However, 

MPB is expected to spread across 

the entire project area, killing 

ponderosa pine trees, which may 

eventually allow spruce to increase.

No direct effects to this species are expected 

to occur because of project activities because 

no spruce habitat is going to be cut or 

burned, although sanitation may occur. 

However, vegetation treatments adjacent to 

spruce sites or skid trails running through 

spruce may disturb/displace individuals 

temporarily, but they would be expected to 

return to the project area. 

Forty-two acres of spruce habitat are 

expected to be retained within Vestal. The 

difference from Alt. 1 is that 7 acres would

transition from SS4C to SS4A, which would 

not be expected to change golden-crowned 

kinglet density within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

No adverse cumulative effects 

expected. No adverse cumulative effects expected.

Summary

The potential habitat available in the project area is on a small scale when compared 

to Forest-wide potential habitat. This would mean that the Forest-wide habitat trend, 

population trend and Objective 238c would not be influenced by the Vestal proposed 

action. As a result, golden-crowned kinglets are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Adequate habitat across the Forest will maintain a viable population of goldencrowned kinglets (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. lll-263).

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

69

to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined 

that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this 

species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed 

action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to 

persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

(Picoides articus)

Note: Also R2 

Sensitive Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

Would provide for an increase in 

habitat in the short-term due to 

expected MPB activity. Existing 

dense stands are more susceptible to 

MPB infestations and/or wildfires. 

The risk of stand-replacing fire is 

very high, and thus, if that were to 

occur, more habitat, in the shortterm, would be available for blackbacks because of their association 

with burned areas. This alternative 

would provide the greatest potential 

for increase in woodpecker habitat, 

short-term. However, it would also 

result in the greatest decrease in 

dense habitat types that are used 

when no burned or MPB habitat is 

available. 

Snags would increase due to natural 

mortality. 

Habitat would be provided as MPB caused 

mortality continues in the project area, shortterm. However, actions to reduce MPB risk 

are expected to result in less mortality than 

Alternative 1, No Action. The potential for 

large-scale fire is reduced in this alternative. 

Proposed actions are expected to retain more 

mature, dense stands (SS4B, 4C and 5) 

which are important when mpb stands or 

recently burned stands are not available.

Snags will be plentiful in the short-term. 

There is potential for accidental removal of 

snags/cavities being used by woodpeckers by 

proposed fuel and harvest treatments. 

Prescribed burning may destroy snags, but it 

may also create snags. Greatest potential to 

create future (in the long-term) nest snags for 

this species. 

May disturb nesting woodpeckers if harvest 

occurs during nesting season, expected to be 

a short-term impact. 

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires and past and existing 

MPB infestations have created 

habitat throughout the Forest and 

project area. 

Continued MPB activity throughout the 

forest and project area would continue to 

provide habitat for this species. Fuel (fire) 

management treatments would reduce habitat 

potential for this species. 

Privately owned lands within and adjacent to 

the project area may also provide suitable 

habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. 

Fire-hazard and mpb reduction activities are 

likely to increase on some of these lands in 

effort to prevent loss from wildfire. Cutting 

of snags for fuelwood may reduce the 

number of snags. This could result in a loss 

of habitat, but the amount of area within 

these private lands is relatively small 

compared to what is on the forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2008). The indirect effects 

mentioned above would be an incremental 

impact additional to those on private lands. 

Summary

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for increasing woodpecker habitat. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

70

Alternative 2 may decrease preferred and/or potential habitat, but would not affect 

the habitat or population trend Forest wide because of providing for Objective 211

(snags). Snags are not allowed to be cut unless deemed a safety hazard or within 

designated firewood cutting areas. The project area is only a small portion of the 

currently available habitat, new habitat acres are currently being created across the 

Forest. 

Habitat conditions would be provided, consistent with Objective 238b. The 

proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; 

therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Brown Creeper

(Certhia Americana)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Spruce habitat would remain at 42 

acres. Mountain pine beetle caused 

mortality would substantially reduce 

preferred habitat in pine (4B, 4C and 

5) throughout the project area. 

This change in habitat is expected to 

impact the brown creeper by causing 

displacement of individuals to more 

suitable habitat, which may be 

outside of the project area. In 

addition, the high fire hazard is a 

threat to brown creeper habitat. This 

alternative is expected to increase the 

risk of habitat fragmentation and loss 

from stand replacing fire and 

mountain pine beetles for this 

species.

Direct effects to this species may occur 

during timber harvesting or prescribed 

burning because nests may be destroyed. 

Vegetation treatments may temporarily 

disturb individuals. Mountain pine beetle 

caused mortality would reduce habitat and 

may cause displacement of individuals to 

more suitable habitat, which may be outside 

of the project area.

Risk of MPB infestation would be reduced. 

More preferred habitat would remain than in 

Alternative 1, as pine SS 4B, 4C and 5. In 

addition, substantially more structural stage 

4A would remain and would be expected to 

develop into preferred habitat in the longterm, creating future habitat. 

Fire hazard is also substantially reduced, 

increasing the potential for retention of 

preferred habitat. Wildfire threat is less in 

this alternative than the no action 

alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

MPB activity would decrease habitat. 

Additionally, vegetation treatments 

on private land may also reduce 

habitat for this species. Habitat 

fragmentation is expected.

Would add to preferred habitat reduction 

within the project area, however with lack 

of treatment habitat may be lost to fire or 

MPB. Additionally, vegetation treatments 

on private land may also reduce habitat for 

this species. Habitat fragmentation is 

expected.

Summary

Both alternatives retain 42 acres of preferred spruce habitat. However, Alternative 2 

would retain more mature and late successional stands and therefore, results in the 

most potential for preferred habitat for the brown creeper. Both action alternatives 

would reduce SS4B from the existing condition; however treatment would reduce 

MPB risk and fire hazard. Habitat would be maintained and the project meets 

Objective 238a. 

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; therefore this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

71

Ruffed Grouse

(Bonasa umbellus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat may improve due to MPB

caused mortality of pine. However, 

pine encroachment into aspen stands 

would continue. Fallen MPB killed 

trees may provide cover for this 

species and would reduce potential 

browsing impacts to aspen habitat. 

Direct effects may occur from vegetation 

treatments, but it is expected that 

individuals would leave the area before that 

occurs. Individuals would be expected to 

return to the area. 

Proposed treatments would increase and 

enhance habitat. Acres of aspen would be 

increased. 

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality may 

also benefit this species by killing overstory 

pine. 

The dead trees that have fallen or the live 

trees that are hinged would provide cover 

for this species and would discourage 

browsing so that suckering may occur. The 

increased aspen may improve habitat 

enough to provide the opportunity for a 

population increase.

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse cumulative 

effects. 

Would help offset negative impacts from 

past activities. Future hardwood treatments 

would continue to improve habitat. 

Summary

Because of proposed hardwood release and hardwood conversion treatments, the 

proposed action is expected to be more beneficial to ruffed grouse than the no action 

alternative. However, because of MPB activity killing pine, hardwoods may 

increase in both alternatives. 

This project is contributing to Objective 238a because the proposed action increases 

the amount of habitat available for ruffed grouse. The proposed action would meet 

all standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Song sparrow

(Melospiza 

melodia)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Ponderosa pine may continue to 

become denser and encroach into 

hardwoods and shrubs, competing 

with them for resources. However, 

because of the predicted MPB

effects to conifers, hardwoods and 

shrubs may increase, providing 

improved habitat along riparian

corridors for this species. This 

alternative would be expected to 

benefit the song sparrow.

Direct effects are possible, but it is expected 

that individuals would leave the area before 

that occurs. Vegetation treatments may 

disturb individuals temporarily, but song 

sparrows are expected to return to the area.

Proposed treatments would increase and 

enhance habitat. Some meadows and aspen 

stands near or adjacent to riparian areas 

would be released from pine encroachment. 

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality may 

also benefit this species by killing overstory 

pine along riparian areas. 

Because of vegetation treatments and MPB

activity, hardwoods will increase. 

Additionally, pine habitat will become more 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

72

open causing the potential for shrubs to 

increase in the understory. The additional 

habitat may increase enough for a population 

increase of song sparrow. 

Cumulative Effects

Adverse cumulative effects may 

occur because of livestock grazing.

Adverse cumulative effects may occur 

because of livestock grazing. Project 

activities are expected to outweigh effects.

Summary

The proposed action is expected to have more beneficial impacts to song sparrows 

because of treatments within meadows and hardwood stands that may include 

riparian habitat. Additionally, because of MPB activity, both alternatives have the 

potential for an increase in hardwoods and shrubs.

This project is contributing to Objective 238a because all alternatives increase the 

amount of habitat available for song sparrows. The proposed action would meet 

these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the 

Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus)

NOTE: Also an 

R2 Sensitive 

Species

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct or indirect effects. Potential direct effects are largely avoided by 

the seasonal inwater work restriction to avoid 

the mountain sucker spawning, incubation 

and emergence period. Indirect effects to 

aquatic/riparian habitat are predicted to be 

negligible. 

Proposed reconstruction of FSR 342.1E 

would include one new road-stream crossing 

on French Creek downstream of Stockade 

Lake. This may have short-term adverse 

effects resulting from some streambank 

disturbance and additional sediment input 

into the stream. The use of vegetative buffers 

to trap sediment and other techniques that 

minimize ground disturbance, protect 

streambank stability and maintain overhead 

tree canopy to shade streams will mitigate 

adverse impacts to fisheries habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, such as recreational fishing, nonnative fish stocking, livestock grazing, road use/maintenance and water 

impoundment will continue to directly or indirectly affect fish populations and/or 

their habitat. Existing instream structures that are barriers to fish passage, such as 

dams and “perched” culverts, will continue to fragment the stream network and 

affect fish distribution. These conditions and activities may have either a positive or 

negative effect depending on the fishery resource (native vs. non-native fish) or the 

type of activity (habitat restoration vs. degradation) being considered. Most of these 

effects are long-term because of their chronic, ongoing nature though their 

magnitude and intensity may vary over time.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

73

Summary

This project would have a neutral effect on the Forestwide population trend of the 

mountain sucker because of the minimal amount of occupied habitat (lower French 

Creek) in the project area and the minor degree of adverse effects to that habitat. The 

implementation of resource conservation measures would meet the intent of Forest 

Plan Objective 238d to maintain stream quality and connectivity. 

The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Standards 1106, 1109, 

1113, 1201, 1203 and Guidelines 1115 and 3212), regional watershed conservation 

practices and project-specific design criteria will avoid and minimize long-term 

negative indirect effects to fisheries consistent with Forest Plan Objectives 103, 217 

and 219. Potential adverse effects to aquatic habitat and control nonpoint surface 

water pollution are mitigated consistent with Objective 221 of the Forest Plan.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned wildlife SOLC. A 

detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report in the project record.

Table 39: Summary of Effects to SOLC

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Atlantis Fritillary

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapae)

Tawny Crescent

(Phycoides batesii)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Conifers would continue to 

encroach into meadows/grasslands 

and riparian hardwood 

communities, resulting in a decrease 

in foraging plants for butterflies. 

Fire hazard would continue to 

increase. However MPB caused 

mortality of pine could increase 

meadow, hardwood, spruce and 

riparian acreage that would benefit 

these butterfly species. 

These species are expected to benefit more 

with this alternative because habitat adjacent 

to riparian areas is expected to increase in 

size because of vegetation treatments. Even 

in riparian areas not proposed for any 

mechanical treatments, spruce, hardwoods 

and open, grassy areas may increase because 

of MPB killing encroaching conifers. This 

increase may improve habitat enough to 

provide the opportunity for a population 

increase. 

Noxious weed treatments would positively 

impact these species by aiding in native plant 

restoration, however there is potential to 

harm the species by treating nectar or larval 

host plants. Rx burning & vegetative 

treatments have potential for direct mortality 

to individuals; however positive impacts 

would be created through pine encroachment 

by opening up meadows/grasslands. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse cumulative 

effects. MPB activity could 

contribute to enhanced butterfly 

habitat. 

Would have beneficial cumulative effects. 

Improvement of current habitat conditions 

would offset negative effects from livestock 

grazing. Would benefit species due to 

habitat enhancement from past grazing and 

timber harvest. 

Summary

Both alternatives would improve habitat for these butterflies. Alternative 2 would 

result in a greater benefit by further enhancing habitat, in particular by removing 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

74

encroaching pine from hardwoods and meadows, which may be adjacent to riparian 

areas. 

The proposed action would meet these objectives, standards and guidelines. The 

proposed action alternative would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. 

Both species are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Callused Vertigo

(Vertigo arthuri)

Mystery Veritgo

(Vertigo paradoxa)

Frigid Ambersnail

(Catinella gelida)

Striate Disc (Discus shimekii)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Existing forested stands would be 

expected to become more dense. 

However, because of the current 

MPB epidemic, dense pine stands 

(SS 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5) are 

expected to decrease from existing 

condition. Canopy would decrease 

as well as moisture levels for these 

snail species. MPB risk and wildfire 

risk would not be decreased. 

Conifer would continue to encroach 

into hardwood stands. Conversely, 

hardwoods may increase with MPB

activity, which would increase 

deciduous litter.

The proposed action would allow for more 

riparian and hardwood enhancement and may 

provide better habitat conditions for these 

snail species through post-harvest activities. 

Overall, this alternative should decrease the 

risk of stand replacement wildfire, which 

would more than likely destroy the 

microclimate and habitat desired by these 

snail species. 

Of the two alternatives, this alternative 

retains more acres of dense habitat, and 

increases hardwood stands through hardwood 

conversion treatments by 126 acres. 

Therefore more habitat for the callused 

vertigo, mystery vertigo and striate disc snail 

species would be provided.

Rx burning and vegetation treatments would 

have potential to cause direct mortality to 

individual snails & potential to impact 

habitat, negatively. However, opening up 

forested sites would create more potential 

habitat for the frigid ambersnail. These same 

treatments may decrease available habitat for 

the callused vertigo, mystery vertigo and 

striate disc snails. Hardwood treatments 

would enhance sites, enhancing snail habitat. 

MPB & wildfire risk would be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

Would not have adverse cumulative 

effects. Would not enhance snail 

habitat.

The trend of forest succession and fire 

suppression has decreased available water to 

riparian and mesic hardwood habitat and thus 

negatively impacted snail habitat. The recent 

precipitation (past 3 years) may improve this 

situation. Also, beneficial impacts to water 

yield, and hardwood and riparian habitat 

have resulted from past and current removal 

of pine trees, wildfires and prescribed burns. 

These treatments may have also negatively 

impacted snail habitat through eliminating 

the overstory resulting in drying out of wet 

sites used by snails. These impacts are sitespecific. Timber sales and fuels reduction 

projects have contributed cumulatively to 

both the beneficial and negative impacts to 

snails. Past activities have reduced the area 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

75

of dense conifer stands while fire suppression 

has allowed natural succession to occur 

which has developed dense stands. 

Past and current off-road motorized traffic 

has negatively impacted some snail habitat 

(primarily in riparian areas) through 

removing plants and cover and compacting 

soil. Motorized traffic can also cause 

mortality to snails directly. 

Livestock grazing and recreational use, both 

with the potential to cause negative impacts 

to snails and their habitat, would be expected 

to continue within the project area. 

Summary

The proposed action is expected to increase hardwood acres through hardwood 

conversion and release treatments and retains more SS4A. Therefore, all snail 

species’ habitat would benefit from this alternative. However, this alternative also 

has the potential to cause the most impact to the snail species and their habitat due to 

vegetative treatment as well as prescribed burning. 

The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Therefore the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 221. These 

species are likely to persist on the Forest.

The proposed action would maintain more dense forest conditions than no action 

due to MPB caused mortality. Both action alternatives would create a more open 

pine forest condition. These actions would have potential for both positive and 

negative impacts on individual snails and habitat. The frigid ambersnail would 

benefit from opening stands. Vegetative treatments along with prescribed burning 

would follow Forest Plan Standard 3103, and would not result in cumulative 

impacts to known snail colonies. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Sharp-shinned 

Hawk

(Accipiter striatus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Would reduce nesting habitat due to 

MPB caused mortality, which may 

cause displacement. The threat of 

stand replacing wildfire would 

increase. However, because of the 

MPB infestation in the project area, 

it is predicted that changes from the 

existing condition will occur. 

Spruce is expected to remain at 42 

acres. 

Would reduce nesting habitat. May cause 

displacement and unknown nests could be 

disturbed, short term effect. Provides for 

habitat diversity. Would decrease existing 

MPB and wildfire risk. 

Cumulative Effects

Would have adverse cumulative 

effects to habitat. Potential for 

long-term adverse cumulative 

effects due to stand replacing 

events. 

Activities such as fire suppression, livestock 

grazing, recreational activities and other 

management activities have and are expected 

to continue in the Vestal Project area. These 

activities will likely occur on private lands as 

well. The action alternative is expected to 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

76

incrementally offset some of the effects of 

past fire suppression by reducing pine 

encroachment into spruce, meadow, and 

hardwood habitat through vegetation 

treatment activities. Treatment activities are 

expected to temporarily produce disturbance 

impacts to sharp-shinned hawks, but the 

impacts are expected to cease once the 

project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is 

also expected to incrementally offset some of 

the above effects naturally by reducing pine 

encroachment into spruce, meadow, and 

hardwood habitat. However, because of the 

effects of MPB, there is expected to be 

adverse cumulative effects to sharp-shinned 

hawks because of loss of suitable nesting 

habitat. 

Private lands may continue to be developed, 

some of which may include roads. All may 

affect sharp-shinned hawks through direct 

mortality, modification of behavior, habitat 

alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance. 

There are no known future activities which 

would affect spruce habitat. 

Summary

The no action alternative retains the most suitable nesting habitat, with the most 

potential for more future nesting habitat than the proposed alternative. However, no 

SS3C is left because of MPB effects. The same amount of spruce is available in 

both alternatives. The proposed action is expected to increase hardwood acreage 

because of hardwood conversion treatments, although this habitat type for nesting is 

not significant. This alternative would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 

221. This species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Cooper’s Hawk

(Accipiter cooperi)

Direct and Indirect Effects

MPB risk and wildfire risk would 

not decrease. Nesting habitat would 

decrease substantially as conifer

stands become less dense due to 

MPB caused mortality. 

Preferred nesting habitat would decrease

from existing conditions. However, this 

alternative retains more preferred habitat 

than no action. Potential for short-term 

disturbance to known and unknown nests. 

Reduces the MPB risk and wildfire risk to 

habitat. Would enhance hardwood sites, 

adding diversity. 

Cumulative Effects

Would have adverse cumulative 

effects to nesting habitat. 

Potential for long-term adverse 

cumulative effects due to stand 

replacing events.

Would have adverse cumulative effects to 

nesting habitat, but to a lesser degree than no 

action. Positive cumulative effects to other 

habitat components, including meadows, and 

hardwood stands. Short-term cumulative 

effects of disturbance. 

Summary

Both alternatives would reduce preferred nesting habitat, although Alternative 2

would provide the most acres of preferred nesting habitat, current and future. The 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

77

potential for loss of habitat to fire or MPB is high in No Action, but reduced in 

Alternative 2. Known nests would be protected through Standard 3204. The 

alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and would contribute 

toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore this species is likely to persist on the 

Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Broad-winged 

Hawk

(Buteo platypterus

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, pine stands 

may become denser. Conifers would 

continue to encroach into meadows 

and hardwoods. The threat of stand 

replacing wildfire would increase. 

Nesting habitat for the broad-winged 

hawk would most likely decline with 

the current MPB infestation within 

the project area. Spruce and 

hardwoods may increase because of 

the effects of MPB on conifers.

Retains more preferred nesting habitat than 

No Action. Spruce acreage would remain 

the same as Alternative 1. Hardwood 

habitat would increase. 

May cause temporary disturbance and 

displacement. 

Cumulative Effects

Would have adverse cumulative 

effects to nesting habitat. Potential 

for long-term adverse cumulative 

effects due to stand replacing events.

Cumulative effects to nesting habitat are 

offset by reduced potential for loss of 

habitat to fire and MPB. 

The action alternative is expected to 

incrementally offset some of the effects of 

past fire suppression by reducing pine 

encroachment into spruce, meadow, and 

hardwood habitat through vegetation 

treatment activities. Treatment activities are 

expected to temporarily produce disturbance 

impacts to broad-winged hawks, if present, 

but the impacts are expected to cease once 

the project is complete. Mountain pine 

beetle is also expected to incrementally 

offset some of the above effects naturally by 

reducing pine encroachment into spruce, 

meadow, and hardwood habitat. However, 

because of the effects of MPB, there is 

expected to be adverse cumulative effects to 

broad-winged hawks because of loss of 

suitable nesting habitat. 

Private lands will likely continue to be 

developed, some of which may include 

roads. All may affect broad-winged hawks 

through direct mortality, modification of 

behavior, habitat alteration, spread of 

exotics, or disturbance. Additionally, 

private lands most likely would continue to 

be thinned to reduce the threat of MPB.

Summary

Nesting habitat is probably the most important factor for long-term persistence of 

the broad-winged hawk. The proposed action proposes treatments that could
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

78

decrease the chances of stand replacement wildfire or MPB activity that may 

negatively impact the habitat desired by this species. The proposed action provides 

more acres of nesting habitat, although small in scale, for the broad-winged hawk. It 

also provides treatments in hardwoods that may increase nesting habitat within 

hardwood communities because of conifer removal treatments.

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, but because 

of MPB activity within the project area, little preferred nesting habitat would 

remain. The proposed action would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 

221. This species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Northern Sawwhet Owl

(Aegolius acadicus

Direct and Indirect Effects

Increased roosting habitat, but little 

to no nesting habitat would remain. 

High risk for loss of habitat to MPB

and fire. 

Preferred nesting habitat would be reduced, 

although more remains than in No Action. 

Higher potential for future nesting habitat as 

more mature stands remain than No Action. 

Preferred roosting habitat would decrease 

substantially. Hardwood habitat would 

increase. 

Potential for short-term disturbance and 

displacement. 

Cumulative Effects

Adverse cumulative effects to 

nesting habitat. Potential for longterm adverse cumulative effects due 

to stand replacing events.

Cumulative effects to nesting habitat are 

offset by reduced potential for loss of 

habitat to fire and MPB. 

The action alternative is expected to 

incrementally offset some of the effects of 

past fire suppression by reducing pine 

encroachment into spruce, meadow, and 

hardwood habitat through vegetation 

treatment activities. Treatment activities are 

expected to temporarily produce disturbance 

impacts to northern saw-whet owls, but the 

impacts are expected to cease once the 

project is complete. Mountain pine beetle is 

also expected to incrementally offset some 

of the above effects naturally by reducing 

pine encroachment into spruce, meadow, 

and hardwood habitat. However, because of 

the effects of MPB, there is expected to be 

adverse cumulative effects under both 

alternatives to northern saw-whet owls 

because of loss of suitable nesting habitat. 

Private lands would likely continue to be 

developed, some of which may include 

roads. All may affect northern saw-whet 

owls through direct mortality, although 

unlikely, modification of behavior, habitat 

alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance. 

Additionally, private lands will continue to 

be thinned to reduce the threat of MPB.

Summary
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

79

Alternative 2 retains more nesting habitat, but less roosting habitat than No Action. 

Alternative 2 also increases the potential for retention and development of nesting 

habitat into the future. 

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

proposed action would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. This 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Pygmy Nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea 

melanotis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Preferred nesting habitat would 

decrease substantially. Highest 

potential for snag habitat in the 

short-term, 5 years. Lowest 

potential for snag habitat long-term. 

The threat of loss of nesting habitat 

to wildfire would increase. 

Preferred nesting habitat would decrease, but 

less than No Action. Increased snag habitat, 

although less than No Action. Improved 

potential for development of preferred 

habitat. 

Potential for short-term disturbance and 

displacement.

Cumulative Effects

Greatest potential for adverse 

cumulative effects due to stand 

replacing events, MPB and fire. 

Adverse cumulative effects may occur 

because treatments, MPB, or both are 

expected to significantly decrease nesting 

habitat, although the proposed action would 

retain more nesting habitat than No Action. 

Potential for short-term disturbance 

cumulative effect. Mountain pine beetle is 

also expected to incrementally offset. 

However, because of the effects of MPB, 

there is expected to be adverse cumulative 

effects to pygmy nuthatches because of loss 

of suitable canopy cover in both alternatives. 

Cumulative benefit to snag habitat in short 

and long term. 

Summary

Alternative 2 provides more nesting habitat for the pygmy nuthatch than the No 

Action alternative. It also would decrease potential loss of habitat to wildfire. More 

mature trees would be expected to remain for replacement snags in the future in 

Alternative 2.

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and would 

contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. This species is likely to persist on 

the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Northern Longeared Myotis

(Myotis 

septentrionalis)

Small-footed 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Pine may become denser, and 

increase in size and provide larger 

future snags. The dense pine 

conditions could lead to stand 

May result in disturbance or displacement of 

roosting bats, likely short-term. 

Foraging habitat would be improved. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

80

Myotis

(Myotis ciliolabrum)

Long-eared 

Myotis

(Myotis evotis)

Long-legged 

Myotis

(Myotis volans)

replacing wildfires and/or beetle 

infestation. Conifers would 

continue to encroach into meadows 

and riparian zones where these 

species may forage. However, 

because of the MPB activity already 

occurring within the project area, 

large pockets of snags are expected 

to occur on the landscape; however, 

MPB-caused snags are expected to 

only remain standing for 5 years. 

Mature structural stages are 

expected to decrease significantly, 

potentially leaving large trees as 

snags for the short term. 

Hardwoods, shrubs, and grasses 

may increase because of the MPB

killing conifers, potentially 

increasing prey species.

Potential impact to snag roosting habitat, but 

less than in the no action alternative. Higher 

potential for future large snag roosting 

habitat than No Action. 

The project may somewhat decrease or slowdown snag recruitment because the thinning 

units would be less susceptible to wildfire 

and insect outbreaks; however, MPB activity 

is expected to increase the amount of snags, 

in the short-term, in parts of the project area. 

If a stand-replacing wildfire were to occur, 

snags may be created.

Cumulative Effects

Foraging habitat may have both 

beneficial and adverse cumulative 

effects. 

The proposed action for this project is not 

expected to influence spread of white-nosed 

syndrome. There is only one known 

abandoned mine, which gated to prohibit 

unauthorized entry. 

Possible cumulative impact of disturbance, 

short-term. 

Positive cumulative impact to foraging 

habitat. 

Possible adverse cumulative impact to snag 

roosting habitat, but less than in No Action. 

Summary

The proposed action is expected to provide the most habitat for bats and prey and the 

most potential for future large snags remaining on the landscape. Suitable roosting 

snags would also be available. There are abandoned mines within the project area, 

but standards, guidelines and design criteria will be implemented to protect the 

known mines used for roosting/hibernating. Therefore, impacts from the proposed 

action on these bat species should be minimal. 

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. The northern long-eared, 

small-footed, long-eared and long-legged myotis bat species are likely to persist on 

the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Northern Flying 

Squirrel

(Glaucomys sabrinus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Preferred nesting habitat would 

decrease significantly. Fire hazard 

and MPB risk would not change 

and potential for loss of habitat 

Direct mortality, although unlikely, from 

treatment activities may occur. Possible 

short-term disturbance. Possible long-term 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

81

remains high. 

Habitat fragmentation is expected to 

occur.

Snag habitat would be increased 

substantially in the short term. 

Long term snag potential would be 

decreased. 

displacement. 

Treatments, in conjunction with MPB 

activity, are expected to cause habitat 

fragmentation.

In the short-term, snags are expected to be 

plentiful, although less than No Action. 

Long term snag potential is improved over 

No Action.

Would reduce MPB and wildfire risk. 

Cumulative Effects

Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, 

recreational activities and other management activities have and are expected to 

continue within the project area. These activities will likely occur on private lands 

as well. Private lands will likely continue to be developed, some of which may 

include roads. All may affect flying squirrels through direct mortality, modification 

of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, or disturbance. Additionally, 

private lands will continue to be thinned to reduce the threat of MPB. Northern 

flying squirrels have relatively small ranges, generally less than 42 acres (Cotton and 

Parker 2000), and are non-migratory. Privately-owned lands within and adjacent to 

the project boundary may also provide suitable northern flying squirrel habitat, but 

resource management and conservation by private citizens and companies depend on 

a number of factors (e.g., desired goals, market prices, development potential). 

Private lands managed for timber harvest may tend toward fewer acres in the latesuccessional stage forest and fewer snags. Potential northern flying squirrel habitat 

is assumed to occur on private lands across the project area; however, the extent and 

persistence of such habitat is uncertain.

Summary

Both alternatives affect habitat for the flying squirrel. However, the proposed action 

treats stands to mostly SS4A, and more acreage of SS 4B, 4C, and 5 would remain 

within the project area, providing little more habitat for this species. More future 

replacement snags would also be expected to remain on the landscape.

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. This species 

is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse

(Zapus hudsonius 

campestris)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No treatments in riparian areas 

would occur under this alternative. 

Conversely, MPB activity is 

expected to continue in the area, 

increasing hardwoods and 

meadows. This may increase 

quality habitat for this mouse 

species.

Possible direct effects from proposed 

activities. 

Enhancement of meadow and riparian 

hardwood habitat. 

Cumulative Effects

Activities such as vegetation management, fire suppression, livestock grazing, 

recreational activities and natural events such as drought and flooding have caused 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

82

impacts to riparian areas within the project area. Fire suppression has resulted in an 

increase of pine trees which may lead to a change in water tables. Other 

management activities have and will continue in and adjacent to the project area. 

These activities will likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands will likely 

continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect 

jumping mice through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, 

spread of exotics, or disturbance. 

Private lands occur frequently within riparian areas. These private lands provide 

suitable habitat, but conditions may have been altered by private land management 

activities such as livestock grazing or draining to convert to drier site conditions for 

subsequent haying. 

Summary

Neither of the alternatives is expected to cause detrimental impacts to riparian areas 

within the project area. The proposed action proposes timber treatments to enhance 

hardwoods and meadows next to riparian streams, which is expected to benefit this 

species. Therefore, the proposed action would move the riparian areas to better 

condition overall in the project area. 

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. This species 

is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Mountain Goat

(Oreamnos 

americanus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would increase the 

amount of forage and open pine 

stands available to mountain goats, 

which would be used for foraging, 

traveling corridors, and cover. The 

increased forage and decrease in 

dense pine sites, especially on 

Buckhorn Mountain, may improve 

habitat enough to provide the 

opportunity for a population 

increase.

No direct effects to this species are expected 

to occur because of project activities. 

However, vegetation treatments may disturb 

individuals. 

This alternative would increase the amount 

of forage and open pine stands available to 

mountain goats, which would be used for 

foraging, for traveling corridors, and cover. 

The increased forage and decrease in dense 

pine sites, especially on Buckhorn Mountain, 

may improve habitat enough to provide the 

opportunity for a population increase. 

Cumulative Effects

Treatment activities are expected to temporarily produce disturbance impacts to this 

species in addition to those from recreation activities, but the impacts are expected 

to lessen once the project is complete; however, recreational disturbance is expected 

to continue. The proposed action could incrementally lead to additional invasive 

weeds, but include control activities to mitigate these impacts. Both alternatives are 

expected to increase forage (grasses/forbs and browse) for these species, which may 

incrementally reduce conflicts and competition with grazing livestock. However, 

the proposed action includes vegetation treatments that are expected to further 

enhance forage. Although there could be short-term adverse indirect effects to this 

species from the proposed action, adverse cumulative effects are not expected. 

Because of current MPB activity, spruce stands and dense stands of pine are 

expected to be greatly reduced. This is expected to benefit this species. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

83

Summary

Both alternatives increase foraging habitat. However, the proposed action also 

includes prescribed burning to maintain clearcuts created for mountain goat forage. 

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

this project would be consistent with Forest Plan Objective 221 for mountain goat. 

This species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Threatened and Endangered Species

This project would have ‘no effect’ on Threatened or Endangered species. Refer to the 

BA/BE in the project record and Appendix G which contains a summary of the BA/BE 

completed for this project. 

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

Summary of Effects on Sensitive Species

The following is a summary of effects to wildlife Sensitive Species. A detailed analysis 

can be found in the Wildlife and Fisheries Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation

in the project record.

Table 40: Summary of Effects on Sensitive Species

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Fringed Myotis

(Myotis 

thysanodes)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Short-term increase in snags used 

for roosting, but substantial 

decrease in mature pine as roosting 

habitat. Potential increase in 

foraging habitat (riparian areas, 

meadows) due to MPB activity and 

high fire hazard. 

Increase in snag roosting habitat, but less 

than in Alternative 1. Reduced MPB risk 

and fire hazard increases potential for 

maintaining roosting habitat long-term. 

Foraging habitat is expected to improve. 

Potential for disturbance of roosting bats.

Cumulative Effects

Incremental impacts to roosting 

habitat are expected as MPB

continues to reduce mature habitat, 

but create snags, on both National 

Forest and private lands. 

Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are 

expected to be minimal because direct and 

indirect impacts are expected to be minimal. 

The incremental impacts of disturbance are 

expected to be minimal because bats are 

normally active during the night when 

project activities will be minimal.

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

The proposed alternative would be consistent with these standards and guidelines. 

The Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat (Objective 221) for this species 

through cave, mine and snag management. This species is likely to persist on the 

Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

84

Townsend’s bigeared bat 

(Corynorhinus

townsendii)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fire hazard remains very high. If 

wildfire were to occur, conditions at 

roosting sites may change by 

changing the microhabitat. Fire is 

known to affect insect populations 

which could reduce prey items for 

bats foraging in the area. 

In addition MPB activity is 

expected to continue, which in the 

long-term, may result in a loss of 

roosting habitat if conditions 

change around a roosting area. 

Potential for direct impacts and disturbance. 

Reduced fire hazard. Mountain pine beetle 

activity is expected to continue, which in the 

long-term, may result in a loss of roosting 

habitat if conditions change around a 

roosting area, but to a lesser degree than No 

Action. 

Prescribed burning could affect air quality in 

cave and mine roosts, as well as further 

contribute to the loss of existing snag roost 

habitat. Fire is known to affect insect 

populations which could reduce prey items 

for bats foraging in the area. 

Cumulative Effects

Incremental impacts to habitat 

quantity are expected to be 

minimal. 

Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are 

expected to be minimal for both alternatives 

because direct and indirect impacts are 

expected to be minimal. The effects of 

disturbance are expected to be minimal since 

bats are normally active during the night 

when project activities will be minimal.

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

The proposed action would likely have the more impact on the bat species due to the 

larger acreage of treatment, but it is also expected to retain more live trees into the 

future. The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat for this species through cave and mine 

management therefore, both alternatives contribute to conservation of bat habitat 

Forest plan Objective 221. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fire hazard remains very high. If 

wildfire were to occur, conditions at 

roosting sites may change by 

changing the microhabitat. Fire is 

known to affect insect populations 

which could reduce prey items for 

bats foraging in the area. 

In addition MPB activity is 

expected to continue, which in the 

long-term, may result in a loss of 

roosting habitat if conditions 

change around a roosting area. 

Potential for direct impacts and disturbance. 

Reduced fire hazard. Mountain pine beetle 

activity is expected to continue, which in the 

long-term, may result in a loss of roosting 

habitat if conditions change around a 

roosting area, but to a lesser degree than No 

Action. . 

Prescribed burning could affect air quality in 

cave and mine roosts, as well as further 

contribute to the loss of existing snag roost 

habitat. Fire is known to affect insect 

populations which could reduce prey items 

for bats foraging in the area. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

85

Cumulative Effects

Mountain pine beetle activity will 

continue in the project area. 

Increased pine beetle activity and 

wildfire will create additional dead 

trees (potential for roosting) and 

grass/forb structural stage which 

could increase prey base for this 

species; however roosting habitat 

would be lost. These activities will 

likely occur on private lands as 

well. Private lands will likely 

continue to be developed, some of 

which may include roads. All may 

affect bats through direct mortality, 

modification of behavior, habitat 

alteration, spread of exotics, or 

disturbance.

Activities such as vegetation management, 

fuels management, livestock grazing, 

recreational activities and other management 

activities have and will continue. Mountain 

pine beetle activity will continue in the 

project area. Increased pine beetle activity 

and wildfire will create additional dead trees 

(potential for roosting) and grass/forb 

structural stage which could increase prey 

base for this species; however roosting 

habitat would be lost. These activities will 

likely occur on private lands as well. Private 

lands will likely continue to be developed, 

some of which may include roads. All may 

affect bats through direct mortality, 

modification of behavior, habitat alteration, 

spread of exotics, or disturbance.

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

The proposed action may limit individual use of treated areas but would not be 

expected to affect species viability throughout the planning area. Habitat for this 

species is expected to remain because both live coniferous and deciduous trees are 

expected to remain on the landscape. The Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat 

and contributes to Objective 221. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Black-tailed 

prairie dog

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct or indirect effects. Potential direct effects. Potential short-term 

disturbance. Habitat is expected to improve 

with removal of pine within the known 

colony. Preferred habitat may increase for 

this species.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects Livestock grazing does occur and could lead 

to expansion of black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat. Recreational shooting does occur 

within the prairie dog town. There is always 

a risk of disease (sylvatic plague) that can 

eliminate local prairie dog populations. 

Wildfires may occur, creating openings and, 

thus, increasing the quantity and quality of 

grassland forage available to livestock and 

wildlife. Development on private lands 

within the project area could occur, 

decreasing acreage for this dogtown. 

Additionally, human intolerance of the 

species is expected to continue, decreasing 

numbers.

Summary
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

86

The determination of ‘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’. The No Action alternative would have ‘no impact’. The Forest is meeting 

Objective 237 which prompts the Forest to manage for 200-300 acres of prairie dog 

towns in at least 3 different towns (USDA Forest Service 2009).

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Forest is 

conserving and enhancing habitat for this species and is contributing to Objective 

221. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

American marten

(Martes 

americana)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct effects. Mountain pine 

beetle would impact habitat by 

reducing preferred dense mature 

habitat, but also increases down 

woody material. Preferred spruce 

habitat would remain. 

Possible direct effects. 

Impacts to marten from any logging 

activities would mainly be in stands 

adjacent to occupied habitat. Potential for 

short-term displacement. No change to 

spruce stands. Treatments and MPB caused 

mortality would reduce the amount of dense 

pine stands and could reduce prey habitat 

and future downed woody material desired 

by marten. However, it is expected that 

downed woody material already present 

would not be moved and would remain in 

those areas, and MPB-killed trees would 

fall, creating sufficient downed material. In 

addition, treatment to pine adjacent to 

spruce stands is expected to reduce, in the 

long-term, the wildfire risk to spruce 

habitat. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects from MPB

caused mortality on private lands. 

Vegetation treatments and 

development on private lands may 

also add to impacts. 

Very little marten habitat occurs on forest. 

Cumulative effects from vegetation 

management actions that remove spruce, 

drastically reduce forest canopy, or remove 

large down woody debris would reduce 

available habitat for the species. Recreation 

in suitable habitat may have and may 

continue to impact the American marten.

Where private lands include high quality 

habitat, it could be subject to low-density 

development (e.g., rural residences). 

Landowners may be conducting thinning 

activities to protect their homes and 

viewshed from MPB and/or high fuel 

loading. Furthermore, they would not likely 

apply any mitigation to minimize effects to 

marten. Due to the combination of these 

factors, habitat on the Forest will likely 

become more important.

Summary

The proposed action ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result 

in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

87

listing’.

Little preferred spruce habitat is contained within the project area. The proposed 

action would retain more dense, mature habitat than the no action alternative. 

However, the proposed action proposes treatments to improve stand health and 

reduce the risk of wildfire, thus, retaining more acres of dense, mature trees for 

connectivity. The proposed action contributes to conservation of marten habitat 

(Forest plan Objective 221).

The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Fire suppression 

during the last century has allowed spruce to increase in abundance and density in 

the Black Hills. The Forest is conserving habitat for the American marten (USDA 

Forest Service 2010). Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Mountain pine beetle are expected to 

kill large trees creating snags for 

roosting. Potential future roosting 

trees are reduced due to MPB caused

mortality of large trees. 

No direct effects are expected. Individuals 

may be displaced

Mountain pine beetle are expected to kill 

large trees creating snags for roosting, but to 

a lesser degree than No Action. Therefore, 

the potential to maintain large trees for 

future roosting sites is improved over No 

Action. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects expected MPB 

caused mortality continues on private 

lands. Treatments to reduce MPB

risk on private lands would also 

remove roosting trees. 

Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are 

expected to be minimal because direct and 

indirect impacts are expected to be minimal; 

however, there may be some incremental 

impacts from disturbance and from MPB

activity killing roosting trees.

Summary

Both alternatives would have ‘no impact’ on the bald eagle.

This project will be implemented consistent with any of the relevant standards, 

guidelines that protect bald eagles or provide for eagle habitat, and contributes to 

Objective 221.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Northern 

goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct effects. Reduction of 

suitable nesting habitat throughout 

the project area due to MPB caused 

mortality. High fire hazard remain 

and is a threat to suitable nesting 

habitat. Increase of foraging 

habitat due to MPB. Prey species 

such as chipmunks and some birds 

would benefit by increasing grasses 

and forbs (cover and food source) 

or young-forest conditions, while 

other prey species like woodpeckers 

No direct effects to known nests, potential 

for direct effects to unknown nests. Would 

enhance and protect goshawk nesting areas 

by reducing MPB risk, MPB infested trees 

and fire hazard. Would retain more suitable 

nesting habitat on the landscape than No 

Action. Increase in foraging habitat. Some 

prey species could be adversely affected as 

well by removing canopy, snags, down 

woody material and ground cover. Similar 

impacts to prey species as No Action. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

88

and squirrels that favor a mature 

over-story may decrease.

Cumulative Effects

Past timber harvest has contributed 

to the loss of large mature trees, and 

blocks of mature, dense forested 

stands have been reduced in size so 

that they are no longer considered 

large enough to meet the nesting 

requirements for the goshawk. 

Wildfires and pine beetles have also 

contributed to the loss of large 

mature pine trees in the area. 

Past timber harvest has contributed to the 

loss of large mature trees, and blocks of 

mature, dense forested stands have been 

reduced in size so that they are no longer 

considered large enough to meet the nesting 

requirements for the goshawk. Wildfires and 

pine beetles have also contributed to the loss 

of large mature pine trees in the area. The 

proposed action would continue to remove 

potential nest trees, but would provide 

protection around the existing nest territory. 

The possibility of future large-scale, high 

intensity wildfires does exist for this project 

area. Development and vegetation treatment 

of private lands is expected to continue. Any 

changes to this acreage are not expected to 

contribute to habitat loss. Incremental 

impacts from the proposed action are 

expected to offset some of the potential 

effects of large wildfires and insect 

epidemics that result from past, present and 

future fire suppression. However, because of 

MPB activity that is already occurring and 

expected to occur throughout the entire 

project area, large trees are expected to 

significantly decrease. 

Summary

Both alternatives ‘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’.

Alternative 2 would provide more dense habitat, and SS4A habitat that may increase 

more quickly to become suitable nesting habitat, than No Action. The proposed

action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and meet Objectives 221. 

Mountain pine beetle is expected to reduce habitat, but the effects would be lessened 

in Alternative 2, because more suitable habitat would remain. Therefore, this 

species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Flammulated owl

(Otus flammeolus)

Direct and Indirect Effects

High potential for loss of large tree 

habitat from MPB mortality and 

wildfire. Reduction of preferred 

habitat due to expected MPB caused 

mortality. 

Potential direct effects. Potential short-term 

disturbance. Potential reduction of preferred 

habitat by removing large over-story trees, 

and possibly removing snags (if within snag 

cutting areas or if deemed as safety hazards 

to harvest operations). The proposed action 

retains more preferred habitat than the no 

action. Structural stage 4A, open park-like 

pine forest, increases greatly in the proposed 

action. Increases in the owl’s prey 

population may occur from activities that 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

89

release understory vegetation, thus 

improving insect and small mammal habitat. 

There is expected to be sufficient downed 

woody material remaining in the project area 

because of snags falling. In addition, the

proposed action would increase the potential 

for maintaining mature pine habitat longterm by reducing MPB susceptibility and fire 

hazard.

Cumulative Effects

Large areas of snag habitat have been made available from insect outbreaks in the 

Black Hills and the Vestal project area, and large expanses of MPB-killed trees are 

expected to cover the landscape. However, these ‘open areas’ are not considered 

preferred flammulated owl nesting habitat. They may improve prey species 

abundance on a general scale. Mature trees, relatively open, park-like, stands are 

considered more suitable habitat. Timber harvesting, on public or private lands, that 

removes mature overstory, and a loss of snags would reduce potentially suitable 

habitat.

Summary

Both alternatives ‘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’.

This project is consistent with pertinent standards and guidelines and contributes to 

Objective 221. However, due to the low occurrence of this species on the Forest in 

relation to the amount of potentially suitable habitat, no alternative is likely to affect 

the colonization by or establishment of flammulated owls on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Black-backed 

woodpecker

(Picoides arcticus)

Note: is also a 

Forest MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Would provide for an increase in 

habitat in the short-term due to 

expected MPB activity. Existing 

dense stands are more susceptible to 

MPB infestations and/or wildfires. 

The risk of stand-replacing fire is 

very high, and thus, if that were to 

occur, more habitat, in the shortterm, would be available for blackbacks because of their association 

with burned areas. This alternative 

would provide the greatest potential 

for increase in woodpecker habitat, 

short-term. However, it would also 

result in the greatest decrease in 

dense habitat types that are used 

when no burned or MPB habitat is 

available. 

Snags would increase due to natural 

mortality. 

Habitat would be provided as MPB caused 

mortality continues in the project area, shortterm. However, actions to reduce MPB risk 

are expected to result in less mortality than 

Alternative 1, No Action. The potential for 

large-scale fire is reduced in this alternative. 

Proposed actions are expected to retain more 

mature, dense stands (SS4B, 4C and 5) 

which are important when MPB stands or 

recently burned stands are not available.

Snags will be plentiful in the short-term. 

There is potential for accidental removal of 

snags/cavities being used by woodpeckers by 

proposed fuel and harvest treatments. 

Prescribed burning may destroy snags, but it 

may also create snags. Greatest potential to 

create future (in the long-term) nest snags for 

this species. 

May disturb nesting woodpeckers if harvest 

occurs during nesting season, expected to be 

a short-term impact. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

90

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires and past and existing 

MPB infestations have created habitat 

throughout the Forest and project area. 

Continued MPB activity throughout the 

forest and project area would continue to 

provide habitat for this species. Fuel 

(fire) management treatments would 

reduce habitat potential for this species. 

Privately owned lands within and 

adjacent to the project area may also 

provide suitable habitat for the blackbacked woodpecker. Fire-hazard and 

MPB reduction activities are likely to 

increase on some of these lands in effort 

to prevent loss from wildfire. Cutting of 

snags for fuelwood may reduce the 

number of snags. This could result in a 

loss of habitat, but the amount of area 

within these private lands is relatively 

small compared to what is on the forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2008). The 

indirect effects mentioned above would 

be an incremental impact additional to 

those on private lands. 

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for increasing woodpecker habitat. 

Alternative 2 may decrease preferred and/or potential habitat, but would not affect 

the habitat or population trend Forest wide because of providing for Objective 211

(snags). Snags are not allowed to be cut unless deemed a safety hazard or within 

designated firewood cutting areas. The project area is only a small portion of the 

currently available habitat, new habitat acres are currently being created across the 

Forest. 

Habitat conditions would be provided, consistent with Objective 238b. The 

proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; 

therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Northern leopard 

frog

(Rana pipiens)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Reductions in canopy density may 

cause surface temperature and soil 

moisture (drying) changes that 

would not favor this species.

Potential direct effects. Potential for habitat 

disturbance or loss. Reductions in canopy 

density may cause surface temperature and 

soil moisture (drying) changes that would not 

favor this species. Herbicide treatment of 

noxious weeds may potentially affect water 

quality and plant species diversity. The 

proposed action is expected to reduce the risk 

of MPB and wildfire, which is expected to 

reduce the risk of post-fire flood, erosion and 

sedimentation in riparian habitat. 

Cumulative Effects
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

91

Livestock grazing at breeding sites (streams) is expected to negatively impact this 

species. Recreational activities that use and/or impact streams (e.g., horse and ATV 

trails through streams) are occurring and will continue to occur. Available habitat 

could be supplemented if harvests increase spring/seep water yields, new 

springs/seeps surface, or if soil moisture levels are maintained. Decreasing soil 

moisture through timber harvest, slash/fuels disposal projects, and the disposal of 

existing down woody material (fuel treatments) is expected to continue to reduce 

adult foraging habitat and adversely affect dispersal. Wildfires have removed 

canopy which can unfortunately increase ground temperatures, and may limit 

distribution of this species the Forest. At sites where there are introduced predatory 

fish, leopard frog productivity has been adversely affected (Smith and Keinath 

2007). Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are expected to be minimal because 

direct and indirect impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

proposed action would meet the intent of Objectives 213 and 221, and continue to 

provide habitat for the northern leopard frog. Therefore, this species is likely to 

persist on the Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Black Hills 

redbelly snake

(Storeria 

occipitomaculata

pahasapae)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Reductions in canopy density may 

cause surface temperature and soil 

moisture (drying) changes that 

would not favor this species

Potential direct impacts. Potential habitat 

disturbance or loss may occur from road 

reconstruction. Reductions in canopy density 

may cause surface temperature and soil 

moisture (drying) changes that would not 

favor this species. Herbicide treatment of 

noxious weeds may potentially affect water 

quality and plant species diversity. The 

proposed action should enhance habitat for 

this species by providing protection to 

riparian areas. 

Cumulative Effects

May be directly impacted by livestock grazing and recreationists in suitable habitat. 

Timber harvesting, fuel treatments, and thinning where this species is present (den 

sites) may adversely alter site conditions (e.g. warming, drying, soil compaction, and 

den disturbance). Recreation is expected to continue and would negatively impact 

this species. Livestock overgrazing in riparian areas degrades potential suitable 

habitats through trampling, sedimentation, loss of vegetation, and effects to water 

quality, chemistry, and temperature. Additional levels of these impacts to riparian 

areas are not expected from the proposed action. The proposed action is expected to 

offset some of the adverse effects of past and present fire suppression by reducing 

the potential risk of fire and insects. 

Summary

The proposed action ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result 

in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

92

listing’. The No Action alternative would have “No Impact”.

The proposed action would meet the intent of Objectives 213 and 221, and continue 

to provide habitat for the redbelly snake.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Mountain sucker

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus)

NOTE: also a 

Forest MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct or indirect effects Slight potential for direct effects. 

Indirect effects to the mountain sucker 

resulting from changes to aquatic/riparian 

habitat are anticipated to be negligible. 

Mechanical vegetation treatment adjacent 

French Creek is proposed on only 36 acres. 

The proposed road crossing on French Creek 

would result in some streambank disturbance 

and sediment input/mobilization. Potential 

adverse indirect effects would largely be 

avoided by installing a temporary bridge 

rather than culverts and fill, to minimize 

sediment input into French Creek. Adverse 

effects are further reduced because of the 

small area of disturbance, approximately 30 

feet of stream length, resulting from the 

crossing.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects The proposed action is likely to have a 

discountable cumulative effect. Inwater 

construction activities at the road-stream 

crossing on French Creek may have a minor 

incremental impact regarding sediment input. 

This negative impact would be additive to 

other sediment input resulting from ongoing 

road use/maintenance and livestock grazing 

on public and private land adjacent to French 

Creek. Overall, assigned fisheries beneficial 

uses are likely to be maintained. Non-native 

fish populations will persist that may 

negatively impact the mountain sucker. 

Stream fragmentation remains largely 

unchanged due to Stockade Dam and perched 

culverts on lower French Creek.

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

Mountain sucker viability is not at risk due to the minor amount of aquatic habitat 

affected and the low magnitude of potential direct or indirect adverse effects. 

Project is consistent with Objective 221. 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

93

Cooper’s 

mountain snail

(Oreohelix strigosa 

cooperi)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Beetle caused mortality is expected 

to diminish dense conifer stand 

conditions that would protect these 

snails from environmental 

conditions and desiccation. 

Increased potential for standreplacing wildfires, which could 

eliminate localized colonies and 

reduce suitable habitat both shortterm and long-term

Potential for direct effects. 

Retains more dense canopy than No Action. 

Colonies would likely expand where suitable 

habitat is present.

Sanitation of beetle infested trees within 

Frest sites may cause short-term impacts, but 

would retain more suitable habitat in the 

long-term.

Cumulative Effects

Drought can have negative impacts on this species by reducing moist site 

requirements necessary to sustain colony number. The loss of overstory due to MPB

mortality and the high probability of large-scale wildfire could reduce moist site 

conditions depending on size of openings and severity/intensity of fire. High 

intensity fire may destroy colonies and their habitat, isolate colonies, and reduce 

decay material necessary for their life cycle, which may last long-term. The 

proposed action is expected to reduce the potential for MPB and large wildfires 

which is expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire 

suppression. Forest management activities, including livestock grazing, fuel 

treatments, recreation, and prescribed burning, in Vestal and in adjacent areas can 

increase isolation and increase xeric conditions that would limit snail colony 

expansion or extirpate localized colonies. Effects discussed above will 

incrementally increase impacts when added to the impacts of these past and present 

activities. Roads improved or constructed for the proposed action are expected to 

incrementally add to these impacts while the treatments are underway, but these 

additional impacts are expected to cease following project completion as temporary 

roads are closed.

Summary

The alternatives ‘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’.

The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and contribute 

toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the 

Forest.

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Regal fritillary 

butterfly

(Speyeria idalia)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No direct affect to this species or its 

habitat. MPB infestation will 

continue to reduce canopies, 

possibly creating additional habitat 

for the butterfly. High fire hazard 

would remain and be a threat to 

habitat. 

Potential direct effects. 

Treatments to maintain grassland habitat may 

improve nectar/host plant species. Indirect 

effects to butterfly habitat may occur from 

prescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, 

placement of landings, road placement and 

crossings, especially if located along the 

margins of streams. These effects would 

likely result in loss of host and nectar species 

short-term. The ‘proposed action’ has a 

higher potential for the spread of invasive 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

94

species that may affect this butterfly’s habitat 

long-term. However, design criteria is 

included to protect riparian habitats, provide 

down woody material, and restore disturbed 

areas with native species. Therefore, 

treatment effects are expected to be minimal 

to riparian diversity and nectar/host plant 

species. 

Cumulative Effects

Fire suppression and increase in conifer cover in grasslands and riparian areas may 

increase over time, negatively affecting this species. Additionally, risk of largescale wildfire or prescribed burning may negatively affect regal fritillary habitat 

short-term. The ‘proposed action’ is expected to offset some of the effects of past 

fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into meadows and by reducing the 

risk of large-scale wildfires. Livestock grazing in prairies, upland meadows, 

hardwoods, and riparian zones may negatively affect this species. Prescribed 

burning in these areas could further reduce grasses, adding to these effects. 

Chemical use to control noxious weeds would decrease vegetation diversity in 

treated sites. Vegetation treatments may lead to more invasive weed infestations, 

which would lead to additional effects from chemical control. Fragmentation of 

habitat due to roads and trails may increase disturbance. Roads used under the 

proposed action may add to those disturbances temporarily, but the effects are 

expected to cease following project completion. A portion of the meadows and 

grasslands occur on private land. Heavy livestock use, recreation, and development 

on private land could negatively affect butterfly habitat. Under the ‘proposed 

action’, treatments that reduce pine encroachment into meadows may offset some of 

the loss of habitat occurring on private lands. 

Summary

The proposed action ‘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’. The No Action alternative would have “No Impact”.

The proposed action contributes to conservation of butterfly habitat, Forest plan 

Objective 221. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Migratory Birds

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird)

Contiguously forested habitats, which currently make up a large portion of the Vestal

project area, are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be included in a home 

range if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is intermixed. The Vestal project area 

contains limited areas, although present, e.g., Buckhorn Mountain, of rim-rock outcrops

and substantial cliffs or rock faces that provide typical nesting substrates. Eagles could

forage in the forest meadows, or in nearby grasslands and large burned forest areas.

Pine encroachment, commercial and non-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning 

treatments proposed for the Vestal project may have a positive effect on foraging habitat 

because it may open up the project area. Additionally, MPB activity is expected to kill 

large amounts of pine, opening up the area, potentially providing more foraging or 

nesting opportunities.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

95

Fire and Fuels

Affected Environment

The ponderosa pine cover type dominates the landscape and as a result of fire exclusion, 

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 insect activity within the project area, changes in fuels 

profiles are expected. Insect damage will 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. 

The project area is located entirely in Custer County, South Dakota, with the City of 

Custer being the center for the project area. According to the 2010 census, the City of 

Custer has a population of just over 2,000. In recent years, several large fires have 

affected Custer County and private property and developed lands adjacent to national 

forest having burned over 100,000 acres in Custer County since 1997. The Vestal project 

area has not been impacted by large fire, but the area remains continually vulnerable. 

The City of Custer has been identified as an At-Risk Community (ARC) as defined from 

the Federal Register (66FR 43384, 7/15/2001). Fire to the ARC and the Wildland Urban 

Interface are a greater concern for an area such as Custer with a high portion of private 

lands and large portion of that private being forested.

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)

A Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a fire mitigation plan for at-risk 

communities. The plan identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction; 

recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land; 

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.

The Custer County CWPP identified the City of Custer ARC as an urban interface 

environment with a high density of structures and infrastructure. In many areas the 

structures lack defensible fire protection space. No formally identified Municipal 

Watersheds are located in the project area; however the community of Custer obtains its 

water from within the project area. This water source is at high risk of fire impacts. Also 

there is a high potential for economic loss, and likelihood for loss of housing and 

businesses in the event of a wildfire. The Custer County CWPP identifies a three mile 

radius from the city limits of the City of Custer as a Community at Risk boundary.

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; Frequent low-severity, Infrequent high severity, and Mixed 

severity (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Fire regimes characterize the role fire plays in an 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

96

ecosystem. The Fire Regime Condition Class rating can be used to describe the degree of 

departure from the historic fire regime (Hann et al., 2003). 

The coarse scale national data characterizes the Black Hills as primarily fire regime 

Condition Class 3, which denotes a high degree of departure from the historic fire regime. 

There is a high relative risk of significantly altering or losing key components of the 

ponderosa pine forest system. (FEIS) 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 of past large 

fires include the Jasper, Elk Mountain II, Battle Creek, Rico and Alabaugh.

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 project perimeter. The fire history data includes fires occurring from 1950 to 

present. Of the fires identified, 128 are known lightning-caused, 18 equipment-caused, 15 

campfire-caused, 3 smoking-caused, 38 debris burning-caused, 3 railroad-caused, 5 

arson-caused, 14 children-caused and 67 miscellaneous. Both fire history occurrence data 

as well as large fire history, those fires exceeding 20 acres, in and around the project area 

are depicted. In addition, the percent of the project area impacted was analyzed. (Figure 

2, Table 41)

Table 41. Fire history occurrence and the size of the fires from 1950 to present

Fire Size Class Fire Size (acres) Number of Fires

A 0 – 1⁄4 232

B 1⁄4 to 9 50

C 10-99 3

D-G 100+ 0
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

97

Figure 2. Fire history in and around the project area and the point fire history within the project boundary.

The 14,518 acre Cicero Peak fire burned approximately 72 acres within the project area 

(<1% of total fire). 

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 to over 8000 acres in recent years, having burned over

250,000 acres since 1980.

Values at Risk

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 is one AtRisk Community (ARC), the City of Custer, located within the Vestal project and three 

ARC located within six miles of the project boundary. To 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. (Figure 3) Based on the Custer and Pennington 

County data , it was determined there were approximately 3,194 structures within the 

project area, and an additional 1,439 more within a three mile radius of the project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

98

Figure 3. At-Risk Communities adjacent to and structures located within the project area.

Many of these structures are homes; others represent businesses, government buildings or 

other community services. Additional values at risk include commercial timber stands, 

power lines, range improvements, such as 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 plants 

and animals, recreation sites, 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 is expected to increase. Areas 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

99

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. 

Fire 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. 

Table 42 and Figure 4 provide a summary of current fire hazard rating in the project area. 

The entire project area is analyzed as WUI due to the amount of the project area 

encompassed by the three mile WUI radius identified within the Custer County CWPP as 

well as the extensive private property located outside that three mile designation.

Table 42*. Existing Fire Hazard 

Approximate Total Acres* Fire Hazard

Approximate Percentage of 

Project Area

1,777 Low 7

2,309 Moderate 9

11,125 High 43

10,437 Very High 41

*Total includes only vegetated acres. Rocks or water are not included.

A high to very high fire hazard rating currently exists in approximately 84% of the 

project area, based on existing structural stage. It is suspected that much of the non-Forest 

Service land also follows this trend of high to very high fire hazard rating, however to 

what extent is unknown. 

The high to very high fire hazard rating is determined on the availability of fuels to 

sustain a fire. The high fire hazard that exists in the Vestal project area is a result of the 

disruption of the historic fire regime, creating a landscape dominated by large contiguous 

stands of dense ponderosa pine with a high loading of surface and ladder fuels. In 

addition, recent pockets of tree mortality caused by MPB will increase fuel 

concentrations on the ground resulting in an overall increase of fire hazard.

In an area such as Vestal, where high risk coincides with high hazard, the probability of 

fire with undesirable consequences is more likely. Such a fire could be very detrimental 

to many of the values existing in and around this project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

100

Figure 4: Existing Condition Fire Hazard Rating

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. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Existing Conditions

Acres

Existing Fire Hazard Rating 

Low

Moderate

High

Very High
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

101

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-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 re-designated 

from unclassified to attainment status for PM10 effective April 5, 2006.

The Vestal 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 mitigation techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke management 

minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

The no action alternative assumes that no change in management would occur within the 

project area. Management actions currently being practiced, including suppression would 

continue to be practiced. The only other changes that would occur on the landscape 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

102

would be those that occur as a result of natural occurrences, wildfire suppression 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 expected to be heavily impacted by 2018. Changes to fire hazard within the project 

area are expected resulting in substantial areas of dead trees. Trees that die as a result of 

MPB infestation may break or fall within 1 to 3 years. 

No improvement in condition class is expected to occur with this Alternative. The 

project area would continue to possess a high risk of losing key ecosystem components, 

resulting in increased fire size, intensity and severity. The MPB disturbance is not a fire 

disturbance therefore would not improve the existing fuel conditions. The arrangement 

of the fuels would change under post MPB conditions but no treatment of that vegetation

would occur. This trend will continue until a fire disturbance. 

The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly 

alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change 

because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

According to Langowski (2006), research has shown that post-epidemic stands had 

increased rates of surface fire spread, fireline intensity and total heat release. They also 

had increased chances for crown fire initiation but decreased chances for active crown 

fire spread. Chances for crown fire initiation were also greater due to larger amounts of 

dead aerial fuels in the overstory. Observations and theoretical consideration indicate 

that both fire severity and probability of crown fire may increase following outbreaks due 

to increased fuel loading and changed fuel characteristics. 

Crown fire hazard in MPB affected stands can be best described as bi-modal. Crown fire 

hazard is higher than in non-MPB affected stands during the 2-3 years post-epidemic 

while most of the dead needles are retained on the killed trees and again following snag 

fall and stand-re-initiation when surface fire spread and intensity would be higher than in 

non-MPB affected stands due to increased surface fuel loads.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Alternative 1 

Acres

Alternative 1- Fire Hazard Rating 

Low

Moderate

High

Very High
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

103

Figure 5. Alternative 1 Fire Hazard Rating (2018)

Table 43 Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and No Action at Year 2018

Fire Hazard Rating

Existing Conditions Alternative 1

Acres % Acres %

Low 1,777 7 1,632 6

Moderate 2,309 9 1,264 5

High 11,125 43 10,946 43

Very High 10,437 41 11,806 46

Qualitatively, in the absence of treatments or the use of prescribed fire, the fire hazard is 

expected to worsen across the project area. The only action that could improve the fire 

hazard, in this alternative, is a wildfire and the longevity and improvement of that 

wildfire would be directly associated to the fire intensity.

Fire behavior in both the moderate and high severity areas would result in an increase in 

resistance to control and a greater likelihood of wildfire escape leading to an increased 

risk of loss of natural forest resources as well as private property, and decreased 

firefighter and public safety. The high intensity would also cause consumption of the 

remaining duff layer and soil heating as well as other resource damage. Without 

treatment, the fire hazard would continue to move toward very high. The greatest 

potential for wildland fire growth and severity exists with this alternative.

Air Quality

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, 2005)

Very few of the natural fuel breaks and past harvest units within the analysis area are 

large enough to moderate a rapidly spreading high intensity fire. (USDA, Forest Service 

2008) Therefore, it is likely that a large scale stand replacement fire would eventually 

occur within the analysis area. Due to the projected high level of surface fuel loading 

(40-60 tons/acre) these fires could be quite severe resulting in undesirable effects. Under 

the no action alternative, the Vestal Project would not contribute to the need to protect 

local communities and watersheds from large-scale, high intensity wildfire.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 focuses on the management of vegetation to maintain and improve forest 

health and reduce the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would decrease the potential for large scale, high intensity fires, allowing 

for characteristic low to mixed severity fires to occur. This Alternative also would have a 

significant effect on fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack under this 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

104

alternative are much greater than No Action and the risk to residential areas, the general 

public, and firefighters is also greatly reduced. In addition, an improvement of FRCC can 

be expected as conditions move towards a more natural condition.

The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly 

alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change 

because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.

Fire hazard would be greatly reduced in this Alternative (see Figure 6 and Table 44). The

mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would decrease ladder fuels, reduce the 

surface fuel loading, and break up the continuity of the fuels. Prescribed burning would 

also enhance the mosaic of burned and unburned fuels which resulted from past wildfires. 

The result of these treatments would be a decrease in flamelength, intensity, duration, 

spotting, probability of ignition, and crownfire potential. This would create more 

strategic and tactical firefighting opportunities resulting in greater success during initial 

attack due to the fact that fireline construction rates would be enhanced, line placement 

opportunities would increase, and resistance to control would decrease. The reduction in 

fire behavior would create a safer environment for firefighters as well as the public. The 

break up in fuel continuity would also lead to more opportunities for locating safety 

zones. The risk of mountain pine beetle outbreaks and the resulting accumulation to 

surface fuels would also be reduced by thinning. For a comparison by alternative please 

refer to Figure 7, on the next page.

Figure 6. Alternative 2 Fire Hazard Rating

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Alternative 2

Acres

Alternative 2- Fire Hazard Rating 

Low

Moderate

High

Very High
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

105

Figure 7 Fire Hazard Rating by Alternative

Table 45. Fire Hazard Rating by Alternative

Fire Hazard 

Rating

Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres % Acres % Acres %

Low 1,777 7 1,632 6 1,622 6

Moderate 2,309 9 1,264 5 20,737 82

High 11,125 43 10,946 43 160 1

Very High 10,437 41 11,806 46 3,129 12

This alternative would contribute to meeting Forest Plan Goal 10 of 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. A substantial improvement in fire hazard would occur (see 

Figure 7 and Table 45). This change contributes to meeting Forest Plan Objective 10-01

to manage for 50% - 70% Moderate to low fire hazard in the wildland urban interface. In 

addition, Objective 10-04 would be met by treating fuels commensurate with risks, 

hazard, and land and resource values as identified earlier and supported in the Custer 

County CWPP.

Air Quality

During prescribed burn 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 activities.

Smoke generated from prescribed fires 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 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Existing 

Conditions

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres

Fire Hazard Rating Summary

Low

Moderate

High

Very High
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

106

(PM2.5) is the pollutant of greatest concern from prescribed fire 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.

Prescribed fire 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 lower intensity of prescribed fire activities, fuel consumption is expected to be 

lower and overall emissions would be lower than those expected from a high intensity 

wildfire.

Any prescribed 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 a prescribed burn 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.

Pile and broadcast burning would release carbon dioxide and other compounds into the 

atmosphere. Carbon dioxide release may contribute to climate change. However, the 

potential impact at the project level scale would be negligible.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects in the Vestal project were analyzed using those activities 

occurring within the project boundary. Those effects were analyzed from 2007 thru 2018,

which captures those treatments which have improved fire hazard in the past and allows 

for mountain pine beetle (MPB) activity, mechanical and prescribed fire activities to be 

complete. The cumulative effects would occur on all types of ownerships that fall within 

the designated area.

In the Vestal project area, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions as well 

as the spread of the MPB contribute to changes in fuel conditions. Past management 

activities may have created situations that could have increased as well as decreased the 

risk of large scale, high intensity wildfires. For example, wildfire suppression leads to a 

buildup in down woody material, increased stocking, and increased ladder fuels, which 

all increase fire hazard. These activities have also contributed to an increase in wildland 

fire behavior, tree densities, the presence of ladder fuels, and dense crown closures, again 

all contributing to higher fire hazard. In addition, these dense stands have also 

contributed to the growth of MPB. If fires had been allowed to burn instead of pursuing 

an aggressive fire suppression program over the last 75-100 years, a significant increase 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

107

in the amount of acreage in stands would have burned at a more frequent interval and a 

lower intensity. However, today’s conditions favor wildfires of increased fire intensity at 

longer fire return intervals.

Management activities which have reduced fire hazard in the project area include the 

Quincy Bug and Atlantic Bug sales. Reductions in fire hazard occurred on all of the sites 

treated in these activities.

Vegetation treatments identified on non-Forest Service lands within the cumulative 

effects area would enhance the cumulative value of both FRCC and fire hazard. In areas 

not being treated, the potential for sustained crown-fires, as well as fireline intensity 

would increase. With this type of fire behavior, forest suppression objectives would not 

be met. 

Fire occurring several miles outside of the project area may affect Vestal project area 

under the right conditions. On the Black Hills National Forest, fires in adjacent areas 

have previously had the ability to make large runs of up to 12 miles. Although this event 

is rare and requires extreme conditions, a large scale high intensity fire is more probable 

if no treatment is implemented. A fire start in Vestal (under the right conditions) would 

not only threaten or damage/destroy improvements within the City of Custer, but also has 

the potential to burn into or affect surrounding communities such as Keystone, Hill City, 

and Hayward within one burning period (12 hours). A large scale, 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, critical 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 landslides, soil erosion, and the spread of 

exotic species (Graham et al., 2004).

The proposed action alternative is expected to have positive long term cumulative effects. 

The proposed treatment combined with foreseeable future projects, including anticipated 

fuel reductions on non-Forest Service lands, would decrease the potential for largescale, high intensity 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. These 

projects combined with the treatments proposed in Vestal would decrease the hazardous 

fuels much more efficiently for longer periods of time.

Air Quality

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 prescribed fire 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 

prescribed fire) 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.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

108

Approved prescribed burn plans use design criteria approved in NEPA project decisions. 

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. The 

Forest Service believes these design criteria have been shown to be effective and the 

same criteria can be expected to be effective under the selected alternative for this 

project.

Botany, Rangeland, and Noxious Weeds

Affected Environment

Botany

A comprehensive botanical survey was completed in 2006 exclusively for the Vestal

project area to collect information related to plant communities, identify rare plant 

species habitat, and locate rare species. The term “rare” will be used to describe species 

uncommon in the Black Hills, the State of South Dakota, or the Rocky Mountain Region. 

These species include plant species listed on the Regional Forester’s sensitive list (see 

Vestal Botany Biological Assessment and Evaluation), Black Hills National Forest 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC), species having insufficient information to make 

listing determinations, as well as species tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage 

Program. Subsequent surveys were completed in 2010 and 2011 as a result of long-term 

rangeland monitoring for the livestock grazing program and general plant surveys of the 

area. Surveys will be ongoing in the project area.

Rare plant species habitats include; riparian areas, moist spruce forests, hardwood forests, 

granite outcrops, grasslands and meadows, open areas. The project area includes all of 

these types of habitats.

South Dakota State Listed Plant Species and Species of Insufficient Information: 

Forest Service Manual 2670.32 directs us to “Assist states in achieving their goals for 

conservation of endemic species”. These species are tracked by the South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program and have been identified as rare or lack sufficient information in the 

State of South Dakota. The following tracked species are known to occur in the project 

area as a result of plant surveys.

Table 46. Known State Listed and Species of Insufficient Information

Scientific Name Common Name Target Type

Adoxa moschatellina musk-root State-Listed

Botrychium michiganense Michigan moonwort BKF Tracked

Botrychium pallidum pale moonwort State-Listed

Botrychium simplex least grapefern State-Listed

Carex canescens silvery sedge State-Listed

Carex intumescens swollen sedge State-Listed

Hierochloe odorata sweetgrass BKF Tracked

Muhlenbergia glomerata bristly muhly State-Listed

Scirpus cyperinus woolgrass BKF Tracked
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

109

Scientific Name Common Name Target Type

Symphyotrichum boreale northern bog aster BKF Tracked

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

There are no known occurrences of SOLC within the project area; however, suitable 

habitat is present in the project area for 4 species. Suitable habitat for species not known 

to occur within the project area was based upon general habitat characteristics, proximity 

to known populations, and professional judgment. The project area contains a significant 

amount of habitat that was altered during post-settlement times (e.g. mining, hay fields, 

homesteads, etc.). Species of Local Concern plants which may have habitat in the project 

area include:

• leathery grapefern (Botrychium multifidum)

• southwestern showy sedge (Carex bella)

• alpine mountainsorrel (Oxyria digyna)

• arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus var. sagittatus)

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

A pre-field review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence 

records, describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field 

reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included 

botanical surveys, Forest Service records and files, local professional judgment, and 

published research. Viola selkirkii is the only known Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 

that occurs within the project area. Suitable habitat is however present in the area for two

other species. Suitable habitat for species not known to occur within the project area was 

based upon general habitat characteristics, proximity to known populations, and 

professional judgment.

R2 Sensitive Species known to occur in the project area: 

• great-spurred violet (Viola selkirkii ) 

R2 Sensitive Species with habitat in the project area: 

• yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) 

• large round-leaf orchid (Platanthera orbiculata)

Range

There are currently a total of 13 grazing permits, (2 private land permits, and 11 term 

permits) within the analysis area. Cattle are present in the following allotments from 

June 1st – October 10th. There are numerous structural range improvements on federal 

land within the analysis area, including allotment boundary fences, unit division fences 

and water developments. 

Ponderosa pine encroachment in grassland/meadow areas is problematic in the area. As 

well, numerous areas that had been probable open pine savanna sites now have mostly 

closed canopies leading to reduced forage production.

Noxious Weeds
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

110

There are approximately 1,000 acres of identified noxious weed infestation in the project 

area. Nearly half of this acreage includes Canada thistle, although sixteen different 

weeds species have been identified. 

Previous noxious weed treatments in the Vestal project area includes 111 acres adjacent 

landowners program funded by Custer County RAC, approximately 45 acres of treatment 

of known leafy spurge, dalmatian toadflax, spotted knapweed, and yellow toadflax 

locations. Releases of biological controls to target Canada thistle, common mullein and 

leafy spurge have occurred within and adjacent to the project’s boundary. The majority of 

the perimeter of the Vestal project has been treated in the past 5 years in association with 

previous timber sales.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

There would be no direct effects to any known or unknown rare plants, noxious weeds or 

range resource since no activities would occur.

Botany

Hardwood stands provide suitable habitat for; southwestern showy sedge, arrowleaf 

sweet coltsfoot, sweetgrass, least grapefern, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly,

and Michigan moonwort. Hardwood stands are expected to temporarily benefit from the 

projected mountain pine beetle-caused mortality as competition for sunlight and nutrients 

is reduced. However, continued encroachment of the smaller diameter ponderosa pine 

within the hardwood stands would occur. These trees would mature and eventually shade 

out the hardwoods. In addition, increased fire hazard poses a risk for a high intensity fire 

with the potential of being stand-replacing in the hardwood communities, which may 

have a detrimental impact on rare plants and their preferred habitat.

White spruce stands typically contain suitable habitat for: southwestern showy sedge, 

alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale 

moonwort, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, and Michigan moonwort.

The potential for high intensity fire will increase with mountain pine beetle-caused 

mortality in the surrounding ponderosa pine. These high intensity fires have the potential 

of being stand-replacing in the white spruce communities, which may have a detrimental 

impact on plants and their preferred habitat. 

Riparian areas, grasslands and meadows provide habitat for; alpine mountainsorrel, 

arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale moonwort, musk-root, 

pale moonwort, bristly muhly, silvery sedge, swollen sedge, sweetgrass, bristly muhly, 

woolgrass, northern bog aster, and Michigan moonwort. With the projected mountain 

pine beetle caused-mortality, these areas are expected to temporarily benefit with the 

removal of the overstory. However, the loss of shade-providing large trees may alter the 

micro-climate of some areas and result in loss of plant habitat. The increased potential 

for large-scale fire in the area presents a risk to riparian habitats, as well as grasslands 

and meadows. Under such conditions, the moist forested sites and riparian areas that do 

not generally burn could ignite and burn at unusually high temperatures. This could 

result in a loss or degradation of plant habitat. This type of fire oftentimes has effects 

such as deep soil heating and intensities that could also negatively affect suitable habitat.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

111

Another effect of this alternative could be the eventual decrease of graminoid dominated

communities in the area as forested stands become denser and ponderosa pine continues 

to encroach upon meadow areas. Pine encroachment into these habitats would continue 

and may result in a loss of habitat for these species.

The effects to Region 2 Sensitive Species are discussed in detail in the Vestal Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation. In summary, all alternatives have a determination of 

“May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.” for the three species which occur 

or may occur in the Vestal project area.

Range

This alternative would eventually; 1) decrease grassland communities/ forage production, 

2) limit grazing access, and 3) increase livestock management costs. As forested 

ponderosa pine stands become denser and continue to encroach upon grassland and 

meadow areas, the amount of available sunlight that will reach the forest floor will

decrease, thus decreasing grassland communities and the amount of available forage. In 

addition, as these stands become denser and dead mountain pine beetle infested trees fall 

to the forest floor, access through these stands will decrease, which will also decrease the 

amount of available forage. Decreasing the amount of available forage for livestock and 

wildlife, may result in an increased level of use in those areas that remain accessible. In 

addition, an increase in the amount of dead and down trees on fences will result in 

increased fence maintenance costs, increased herding/gathering costs and disrupt the 

planned grazing schedule which could negatively impact the forage resource. With all of 

the above, this will make it more difficult to meet the Forest Plan Guideline 2505 with 

the current grazing permits.

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weed populations would be limited to current infestations unless disturbance 

occurs from natural events, or large-scale fire. 

Noxious weed infestations are known to increase with large fire events. The lack of 

treatment of hazardous fuels would lead to the potential increase of a large-scale high 

intensity wildfire, thus increasing the potential for a large-scale outbreak of noxious 

weeds. Mature stands of timber are common in the project area and comprise large 

contiguous areas of forest that are similar in structure. This provides the potential for 

wildfire and beetle infestation, both of which could play a role in the spread of noxious 

weeds. 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 would lead to 

large areas of bare ground on which weeds could become established and compete with 

more desirable species. As trees mature and canopy cover and needle cast increases, 

existing grass/forb communities may decrease in health and vigor as light needed for 

photosynthesis is reduced. This hampers the ability of these communities to recover from 

intense fires. When the canopy cover is opened up due to wildfire or beetle kill, 

grass/forb communities may not be able to out compete noxious weeds in areas where 

infestations already exist. As a result, these infestations are likely to increase.

Alternative 2
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

112

Botany

Rare plant species with suitable habitat occur in similar habitats throughout the project 

area. These habitats are generally areas that receive additional moisture (riparian areas, 

drip lines around rock outcrops, etc.), aspen and/or paper birch stands, or have suitable 

habitat in cool air spruce drainages. The exception to this would be some Botrychium

species that often have a variety of preferred habitat (open meadows, old roadbeds/trails, 

skid trails, etc.) that typically have had some level of disturbance. All species will be 

analyzed by habitat type in the effects analysis below.

Impacts to the rare plant species may be direct impacts (i.e. trampling, mechanical 

damage, etc.), or the impacts may be more indirect such as a change in the microclimate

from treatments, which may result in a loss of habitat. It is unlikely there would be direct 

effects from mechanical treatments to habitat located in granite outcrops (inaccessible by 

equipment and will unlikely burn), spruce forests (protected by design criteria), or 

riparian areas (protected by design criteria and unlikely to burn intensively).

Hardwood (aspen, paper birch) stands are expected to benefit from the proposed 

treatments in this alternative. There are 557 acres of proposed hardwood treatments 

(Hardwood Conversion, Hardwood Release) and likely many acres of hardwood 

inclusions within ponderosa pine stands. Treatment of hardwood stands would remove 

and/or kill conifer species that have degraded these stands. This would have a long-term 

positive impact on this habitat type. However, short-term negative effects are expected 

from the proposed treatments. Theses impacts include a possible temporary loss of 

habitat from the disturbances associated with the treatments. Negative impacts may 

include increased noxious weed infestations, soil disturbance, trampling of known and/or 

unknown plants, or any other changes in the microclimate.

If hardwood stands are treated with prescribe fire this will likely have positive impacts by 

increasing vegetation diversity, recycling nutrients, and reducing the likelihood of a highintensity wildfire. With prescribed fire treatments, the risk of damage to rare plants is 

typically minimal as hardwood stands, burned under prescription, generally do not burn 

intensively. Most rare plants are normally dormant during times of prescribed fire 

implementation. Rare plant species that have suitable habitat in hardwood stands include, 

but are not limited to: southwestern showy sedge, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, sweetgrass, 

least grapefern, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, and Michigan moonwort.

White spruce would have effects to this habitat type from the proposed activities. This 

alternative proposes to reduce the likelihood and the intensity of a large-scale fire that 

would negatively impact this habitat. Rare plant species that have suitable habitat in 

spruce stands include, but are not limited to: southwestern showy sedge, alpine 

mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale 

moonwort, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, and Michigan moonwort.

Riparian areas, grasslands and meadows would benefit more than in Alternative 1. This 

alternative would remove all conifers from existing meadows and grasslands. With the 

projected mountain pine beetle caused-mortality and the proposed treatments, these areas 

are expected to benefit with the removal of the ponderosa pine that is encroaching into 

this habitat. Conifer encroachment into these areas alters the habitat and long-term 

reduces the quality for rare plant species that are dependent upon this type of habitat. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

113

However, the loss of shade-providing large trees may alter the micro-climate of some

areas and result in loss of plant habitat. Riparian areas would receive protection with 

application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) and R2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be implemented” 

Overall riparian vegetation is expected to benefit from the removal of ponderosa pine on

adjacent sites as more moisture becomes available in treated areas. Most potential for 

direct effects from the implementation of this alternative in riparian areas would come 

from prescribed fire. Rare species that have suitable habitat in riparian, meadow and 

grasslands include, but are not limited to: alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet 

coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale moonwort, musk-root, pale moonwort, 

bristly muhly, silvery sedge, swollen sedge, sweetgrass, bristly muhly, woolgrass, 

northern bog aster, and Michigan moonwort.

Although specific data is lacking on the Black Hills National Forest, the earlier 

successional conditions that occur with opening the overstory canopy could produce 

conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, sporeproducing Botrychium species if the associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite 

conditions are present (Farrar 2004). 

Prescribed burning within the project area would help prevent a high intensity wildfire 

that may occur due to the large amount of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. While 

effects of prescribed burning are not well known for most rare plants (USDA Forest 

Service 2005) it is presumed that a large-scale wildfire would be more detrimental to 

individuals and their habitat than would fire burned under specific prescription. There is 

always a possibility of noxious weed infestation when an area burns, but again, effects 

are considered to be lessened when an area is burned under prescription rather than 

wildfire. There are design criteria in place that would require the involvement of the 

district botanist when developing burn plans so that the habitat requirements of rare

plants in the area would be considered.

Indirect effects from any of the proposed treatments would be the increased potential for 

noxious weed infestations in disturbed areas. This can be detrimental to rare plant 

species, as noxious weeds and invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired 

native and rare plant species. The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be 

detrimental to rare species if the individuals are inadvertently exposed to the herbicides. 

While unknown individuals may exist on these sites and may be damaged during 

operations, the overall effect should be neutral to beneficial.

The effects to Region 2 Sensitive Species are discussed in detail in the Vestal Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation. In summary, all alternatives have a determination of 

“May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.” for the three species which occur 

or may occur in the Vestal project area.

Range

Ponderosa pine encroachment in grassland/meadow areas is problematic in the area. As 

well, numerous areas that had been probable open pine savanna sites now have mostly 

closed canopies leading to reduced forage production. This alternative would increase 

the overall amount of forage available by decreasing ponderosa pine density in the 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

114

grasslands/meadows, uplands, and aspen stands. Decreasing pine density may also open 

areas up that were previously inaccessible to livestock. The treatments may allow for 

more even distribution of livestock throughout the pastures and reduce utilization in more 

critical areas such as meadows and grasslands. Design criteria are in place to protect 

rangeland improvements. However, conflict with permitted uses may occur if water 

system components are damaged, fences are left down or gates are left open.

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weed infestations are expected to increase under this alternative. Commercial 

and non-commercial timber harvest activities and prescribed fire often provide 

mechanisms for the introduction, establishment, and spread of noxious weeds. Anywhere 

there has been some form of soil disturbance, 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 movement of equipment in 

and out of these areas also facilitates weed establishment. Roads and skid trails create a 

network of corridors through which seed dispersal can occur.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the identified project area. Activities 

beyond the project area have a diminished effect on rangeland and botany resources as 

well as the noxious weeds within the project area. Impacts and effects to vegetation 

resources are similar to botany, rangelands, and noxious weeds. Therefore, any 

cumulative effects are alike for all three resources and will be jointly analyzed. The 

timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis is estimated at 20 years, ten years prior to 

present and ten years in to the future, which allows for an adequate length of time to 

record vegetative changes. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Vestal project area include 

timber harvest, timber thinning, limited mining, wildfire, prescribed burning, grazing, 

road construction and maintenance, noxious weed control, wildlife habitat improvement 

projects, and dispersed recreational use on both the public land and private land in the 

area. A list documenting known past and planned future activities for this area is included 

in the project record.

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the 

potential to introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and other exotic 

plants. This can be detrimental to rangeland resources and rare plant species, as invasive 

species have the ability to out-compete desired native plants. The herbicides used in 

noxious weed control can also be detrimental to rare plant species if the individuals are 

inadvertently exposed to the herbicides and have low tolerance levels to the specific 

herbicide.

The grazing in the Vestal project area would continue as identified in the Allotment 

Management Plans for the grazing allotments within the project area. Under the action 

alternative, creation of transitory range would have a positive cumulative effect on those 

allotments by reducing the time livestock spend in riparian areas. Broadcast burning 

proposed under the action alternative would work against the cumulative effect of fire 

suppression by killing small trees and setting back succession, though it is expected to 

have limited effects on overstory canopy. All of the effects to rangeland resources 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

115

presented here would be limited in intensity and duration. Any negative impacts would 

be minimal and are directly related to livestock management in the short term as they are 

impacted by treatment activities.

All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration and therefore when combined 

with the alternatives analyzed, including the no action alternative, do not result in adverse 

cumulative impacts to the rare plant species or their habitat, the range resource or noxious 

weeds.

Minerals and Geologic Resources

Affected Environment

The potential for development of mineral commodities within the project area is 

moderate to high. Specifically, potential exists for development of salable mica and 

feldspar resources from numerous schist units and pegmatites, and for locatable gold in 

placer deposits. Carbonates are not widespread in the project area; consequently, cave or 

karst resources have not been identified. Invertebrate and vertebrate fossils are unlikely 

to be present within project area.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

Existing transportation conditions within the project area are adequate to facilitate 

activities related to exploration and development for either salable or locatable minerals. 

The Vestal project would not cause direct, indirect or cumulative effects to mineral 

resources under any alternative.

Lands and Special Uses

Affected Environment

There are 17,693 acres (41%) of private land within the Vestal project area. The private 

in-holdings are located within the city limits of Custer City, a significant amount of large 

residential subdivisions outside of the city limits, as well as larger parcels of raw, unsubdivided private land. Access to private land is provided through system and/or nonsystem, U-unauthorized forest roads and private “drives”. The road system is more than 

adequate for providing access to private land. In some locations there are an excess of 

roads that pose management concerns as it relates to the implementation of travel 

management policies. The excess of roads are contributing to unauthorized access or 

special uses of National Forest System (NFS) land that are not authorized under permit. 

There are numerous utility corridors within the project area both overhead and buried 

providing customers with electrical, telephone and fiber optic services.

There are 9 special use permits, 47 issued easements, and 16 acquired right-of-ways 

(ROW) within the Vestal project area.

Special Use Permits: The special use authorizations within the project area would need 

to be protected. Broken Arrow Campground operates a seasonally open campground and 

is the holder of a Horse Trail Special Use Permit. The permitted area includes the use of 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

116

system, non-system and developed trails on National Forest System land. Additionally, 

there are buried or overhead utility lines and corridors, buried water or sewage 

transmission lines or permitted signs on NFS land.

Easements: The amount of private in-holdings within the Vestal Project area has 

required the need for access on both system and non-system roads. Many residents who 

use NFS roads to access private land would be impacted by vegetation management 

activities including, but not limited to, an increase in the use of the road by timber 

harvesting equipment, log trucks and other administrative traffic. Roads that are under 

easement or special use authorization would need to be maintained to standard to mitigate 

the increased use and traffic.

Private Parcel Access/Right-Of-Way (ROW) Acquisitions: The acquired ROWs vary 

in length from 0.1 to 0.9 miles. Several rights-of-way needs have been identified for the 

Vestal Project, but are not critical for implementation to occur. Acquiring these right-ofways would be pursued as funding and time allows.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have short-term effects on the lands resource, but there is 

potential for long-term effects. Due to the increase in mountain pine beetle (MPB) 

infested trees on both public and private land, tree mortality within this planning area is 

imminent. Untreated NFS lands have an increased threat of wildfires due to higher 

stocking densities. This could pose a risk of fire spread to private property. The No 

Action Alternative would also eliminate the ability to reduce potential MPB spread onto 

private land and subsequent tree mortality by not thinning dense timber stands on NFS 

lands. Overhead utility lines may have an increased risk of damage due to widespread 

tree mortality. Any land use proposals would continue to be considered through the 

Lands and Special Uses programs. Uses such as Small Tracts Act applications, special 

use permit applications, other utility requests, easement applications and opportunities to 

acquire right-of-ways would continue within the project area.

Alternative 2

This alternative may have long-term effects on the lands resource. The significant 

amount of special uses and right-of-ways within the project area may conflict with access 

to private land, but can be mitigated for the action alternative, provided roads are kept 

open for access to the public. Short-term effects of proposed activities would include 

dust and noise from increased traffic during harvest operations. Increased log hauling 

traffic could impact roads that the public utilizes to access their private property. Smoke 

from prescribed burning and slash pile disposal operations may impact some adjacent 

landowners. Reduction in stand density could reduce fire intensities, should a fire start on 

forest and endanger private property. Social impacts include private landowners’ 

receptivity to more aggressive silvicultural prescriptions, deadfall mechanical fuel 

treatments and their relationship to land values. No critical needs have been identified 

for acquiring right-of-ways for implementation of the action alternative.

Cumulative Effects
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

117

The Vestal project area boundary, land exchanges within the last 15 years and special 

uses within the last 20 years were used to evaluate cumulative effects. Activities 

proposed under the action alternative would have little effect on both the current lands 

and special uses and on any foreseeable future lands and/or special uses proposals.

Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

Prehistoric Context

The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern Plains with 

human occupation of dating to 11,000 B.P. (Frison 1991:7,13). Over this vast period of 

human occupation, the ecology, subsistence patterns, technology, and the cultures of 

Black Hills inhabitants have witnessed notable changes (Frison 1991:24). These changes 

are grouped into phases of occupation, which are held in the archaeological record. The 

Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview identifies cultural sites that 

represent all of these prehistoric phases of occupation in the Black Hills (Rom, et.al. eds 

1996). Identifiable tribal groups living within the Black Hills area during the 

Protohistoric period include the Kiowa, Crow, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Sioux.

Many Native Americans consider the entire Black Hills sacred land. Their belief system 

links specific locations in and around the Black Hills to star constellations (Rom, et.al. 

eds. 1996). These spiritually significant locations include but are not limited to: Devil’s 

Tower, Old Baldy Mountain, Hot Springs, Buffalo Gap, Reynolds Prairie, the Spearfish 

Formation “race track” that surrounds the Black Hills, and Harney Peak (Goodman 

1992). Ceremonies are performed at these sacred locations during specific periods on the 

celestial calendar or weather events (Goodman 1992: 12).

Historic Context

Although influenced by Euro-American culture through the introduction of horses, guns, 

and disease as early as the 17th century, sporadic use of the Black Hills by EuroAmericans largely began in the early 1800’s 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 was 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. 

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 1800’s 

through the 1920’s. Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became 

common in the early 1900’s. However, much of the land was not patented and remains 

public land. During the Depression/New Deal Period (1920-1941), public works projects 

became common across the Black Hills landscape. The Civilian Conservation Corp 

(CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) organized groups of men in camps 

to construct fire lookouts, roads, trails, dams, and wells throughout the area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

118

Field Surveys and Eligible Sites

Sections of the Level III cultural resource inventory were first contracted to Niwot 

Archaeological Consultants in 2008. A Level III Heritage Resource Inventory:Vestal 

Analysis Area, Calamity Unit by Brad Noisat (BKF # R2008020300101) resulted in the 

survey of 6,332 acres. The contract inventory consisted of new survey and the evaluation 

of newly discovered sites. No monitoring or evaluation of existing cultural resources was 

performed under the contract.

The Forest Service conducted an in-house cultural resource survey of the remaining 

5,788 acres distributed across the 26,223 acre Heritage Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

The Heritage APE is considered here as all National Forest System Lands within the 

Vestal Spring analysis area, and expanded to include some portions of Pennington 

County which originally considered for NEPA analysis, and a 100 meter buffer around 

the analysis area to encompass roads bordering or leading up to the project area and 

potential areas of federal undertaking in support of the NEPA action, such as landing 

areas for logging and staging areas for prescribed burns. Newly recorded and previously 

recorded unevaluated sites were evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places. All eligible sites were monitored and evaluated for effects from all 

project alternatives.

There are 19 known cultural resources determined eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the Vestal analysis area. Additionally, 6 sites 

within the Vestal area remain unevaluated for listing, despite further attempts to evaluate 

their significance, and will be protected as potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Most of these sites are considered historic and range in age from 70-140 years before 

present. They include mines, homesteads, dams, and dumps. The historic sites are the 

remnants of the rich logging, mining, and settlement history of the local area. A number 

of historic sites are the remnants of the Civilian Conservation Corps of the Great 

Depression and New Deal time periods. The prehistoric sites that are present within the 

analysis area are typically rock shelters and encampments of varied and often 

undetermined age.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR Part 

800.16(y), for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f). 

However, no action may result in the destruction of cultural resources due to the 

increased fuel loading and tree mortality --both of which increase the potential for fire 

and subsequent ground disturbance and erosion. Many of the eligible sites in the Vestal

project area are eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the presence of intact subsurface 

cultural deposits or standing architectural features. As such, any processes that disturb 

the soil/sediment matrices of an archaeological site (including erosion) or increase the 

intensity and probability of catastrophic wildfire, adversely impact the site’s eligibility.

Both of these potentials exist within the Vestal project area and are perceived as an 

ongoing threat to cultural resources.

Alternative 2
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

119

The Forest Service developed site specific recommendations for all eligible cultural 

resources to avoid adverse effects from this alternative. These recommendations were 

submitted within the Section 106 report for the Vestal project. The South Dakota SHPO 

concurs with these determinations. Furthermore, SHPO concurs with a finding of No 

Adverse Effect, provided that these cultural resources are avoided by all ground 

disturbing activities during project implementation. If during the course of any ground 

disturbance related to this project, any bones, artifacts, foundations, or other indications 

of past human occupation of the area are uncovered, all operations will cease within a 

100-meter radius of the site location and a district archaeologist notified immediately. 

The SHPO and regional Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) will be notified of 

the discovery and provided an opportunity to comment. Any cultural resources located 

during project implementation will be protected based on the recommendations of the 

district archaeologist and the SHPO.

Adherence to the design criteria would result in no direct or indirect effects to cultural 

resources from Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The nature of the cultural resources and the foreseeable actions in the project area dictate 

that the cumulative effects area should match the physical site boundaries. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects area is defined as the known archaeological sites in the identified burn, 

thinning units, and access roads to and from the project area. The timing limit for the 

cumulative effects analysis is 20 years; ten years prior to present and ten years in the 

future.

No adverse effects are expected to occur as a result of any alternative provided that the 

design criteria are followed and the site specific recommendations are implemented. 

Because there will be no direct or indirect effect to cultural resources, there will be no 

cumulative effects associated with the Vestal project.

Scenery

Affected Environment

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. 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.

Apparent human alterations in the form of recreation facilities (such as Bismarck Lake 

Campground & Bob Marshall Camp), open roads that (such as the Peter Norbeck Scenic 

Byway, Mickelson Trail, US, State, & County Highways) provide access for commerce, 

to homes & recreation facilities, have generally been accepted over time as part of the 

positive cultural landscape character attributes. Within the planning area, forested areas 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

120

are predominantly populated by Ponderosa Pine communities, Aspen and other 

hardwoods, and Spruce communities generally limited to streams and wet areas. Water 

features are limited to narrow, quiet, low-flow intermittent streams and Bismarck Lake. 

Mountain Pine Beetle activity has rapidly expanded in the Black Hills National Forest 

and is now at epidemic levels within the Vestal project area. Generally, the MPB killed 

trees were mostly evident from county and Forest roads. Within the past few years this 

activity has become more evident from Federal, State, County highways, recreation areas, 

Mickelson Trail, communities and private lands surrounding them. Large groups of trees 

attacked by the MPB are highly evident in this portion of the planning area.

The northern portion of the planning area has a combination of steep slopes, rocky 

terrain, and dense conifer stands, as well as gently rolling forest areas. The vegetation in 

the area has been managed for wildlife, grazing, and timber, depending upon the location.

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO)

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) are management objectives for forest scenic resources. 

A High SIO means that human activities are not visually evident and that activities 

should repeat attributes of form, line color or texture found in the existing landscape. A 

Moderate SIO is where activities remain visually subordinate to the landscape character. 

The Low SIO applies to landscape which appear moderately altered. Within the Vestal

project area, the following percentages of area apply 24% High SIO, 49% Moderate SIO, 

and 27% Low SIO. 

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality continues to alter views of the landscape within 

the project area. Management activities which have occurred in the project area generally 

meet the assigned SIOs.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

No direct effects to visual quality would occur. Existing conditions and natural processes 

of trees growing and regenerating would continue. The mountain pine beetle outbreak is 

predicted to impact the entire planning area by 2018. The vegetation pattern on the 

landscape would change from densely closed with few openings, to an open landscape 

with possibly a few clumps and scattered trees. 

Within 10 years the dead trees would snap off, or fall, creating openings in the forest. In 

the foreground and middleground, the color and texture of the down trees would

dominate the landscape. In the background, the forms of these open areas would be 

dominant in the landscape. The remaining trees will likely provide the seed source for 

new trees. Seedlings will sprout over time. Long term as the new forest grows up 

through the down trees, and the down trees decay, the new growth will help these areas to 

blend into the landscape. 

A high to very high fire hazard would occur throughout the project area. Wildfires would

likely have the ability to rapidly spread during hot and dry conditions. When fires have a 

long residence time in one area, the concentrated heat can break down the structure of the 

soil. This damaged structure allows the soil to be easily eroded, inhibiting future plant 

growth. Areas of eroded soil and lack of plant life can be evident in the landscape, and 

can be detrimental to the scenic integrity of an area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

121

Alternative 2

Under this alternative, trees of all sizes would be removed. The resulting appearance of 

vegetation treatments would change little for the first 10 years after the treatments are 

completed. Any treatments would result in fewer trees across the landscape – but the risk 

of MPB infestation and fire to the remaining trees would be reduced. 

The visual effects of the MPB activity is quite evident just north of the planning area and 

in isolated pockets throughout the planning area - due to the visibility of the red needles. 

Steep slopes, and other areas that are not able to be treated, would display the full range 

of effects and mortality from the MPB. Eventually these areas would be less evident as 

the needles fall. As the trees decay and fall, openings would be created. These openings 

would change the character from a uniform appearing landscape ‘carpeted’ with pine 

trees to a complex matrix of openings, decaying dead trees, residual pine trees, and 

expanding areas of hardwood trees.

The variety of treatments should produce a natural appearing forest – but one that has 

fewer trees – as if fire had continued to play its natural role all along. Due to the insect 

activity and fuel treatments adjacent to private land, the current view of the forest from 

these locations would likely change from their current condition. Views of these 

treatments will be limited from Sensitivity Level 1 or 2 roads outside the planning area, 

due to the topography surrounding the planning area. 

Alternative 2 would modify the vegetation across the landscape. Management activities 

would be more evident. The variety of treatments would create a variety of vegetation 

patterns, colors, and improve opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Restoration 

treatments to increase hardwoods and meadows may take time to appear natural – but 

long term they would improve the visual diversity in the landscape. Under burning, 

piling & burning, would reduce fuel levels to natural levels – a positive ecological and

scenic characteristic of frequent fires in a pine ecosystem. Treatments would meet a 

Moderate to High Scenic Integrity one year after being completed.

Cumulative Effects

The spatial boundary 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 community of Custer (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 2050 [completion of management 

activities (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 if that 

effort included any or all of this planning area. The construction of the Needles Highway 

(SD 89) in 1919 and the Iron Mountain Road (US 16A) in 1933 focused the public’s 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

122

attention on this portion of the Black Hills, around the community of Custer, further 

establishing the area as a recreation destination, for its man-made and natural scenery. 

Larger wildfires have not occurred within the planning area, but are readily apparent in 

the surrounding area. 

From 2000 to 2011, commercial vegetation treatments have been conducted on a limited 

basis (as noted in the Existing Condition section). Other than the Atlantic Bug project, 

all treatments have met their assigned SIO. The Atlantic Bug project was projected to 

meet a Low or Very Low SIO due to the high level of MPB activity and tree mortality 

already in the units before any treatment activities occurred. Due to the adjacent tree 

seed source around these areas, trees should become established, and visually have an 

impact in approximately 15-25 years. Then a more natural appearance may be evident.

Transportation

Affected Environment

The existing transportation system in the Vestal project area was inventoried in 2007 and 

2008 and reviewed in 2010. During the 2010 review additional road condition surveys 

were conducted to capture any change in road conditions. The majority of the roads are 

being maintained to the appropriate design standard according to maintenance level. 

Global positioning systems, aerial photos, and the forest road data base were used during 

the inventory process to correct any inconsistencies in the existing GIS and tabular data.

To summarize, the transportation system within the Vestal project area is comprised of 

approximately 192 miles of existing roads. The breakdown of the existing transportation 

system is listed below in Table 47.

Table 47: Existing Transportation System in the Vestal Area

Road System Classification

Length in 

Miles

Road Density 

(Miles/Square Mile)

County Roads 28 0.4

National Forest System Roads 125 1.8

Unauthorized Roads* 39* 0.6*

Total 192 2.8

*All unauthorized roads were administratively closed with the May 07, 2010 Record of Decision for the 

Forest Travel Management project.

There are no motorized trails within the Vestal project area. 

Roads within the project area which are open to the public were designated by the May

07, 2010 Record of Decision and later depicted on the December 1, 2010 Motor Vehicle 

Use Map (MVUM). 

The travel management designation of the National Forest System Roads within the 

project area and road density (miles of road per square mile) is depicted in Table 48

below.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

123

Table 48. Travel Management Designation Miles and Density within the Vestal Area

Travel Management Designation

Length in 

Miles

Road Density 

(Miles/Square Mile)

Roads Closed to All, Yearlong 48 0.7

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles 

Only, Seasonal (May 15 to Dec 15)

35 0.5

Roads Open to Highway Legal Vehicles 

Only, Yearlong

42 0.6

Total 125 1.8

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1 there would be no effects from a proposed action. There would be no 

change in the transportation system due to a proposed action. Scheduled annual and grid 

maintenance would continue as it has in the past. Road densities would remain the same 

under this alternative.

Alternative 2

This alternative proposes to utilize the existing transportation system to accomplish 

project activities; no new system roads would be constructed. There would be some 

adjustments to the existing system in that approximately 0.6 miles of non-system road 

would be converted to National Forest System Road (NFSR) and approximately 2 miles 

of open system road would be closed (see Map 8 in Appendix A). The converted 

system road segment was identified as needed for current and future resource 

management access. The proposed road closures (approximately 2 miles total) are in 

three separate segments and would protect wildlife values and prevent resource damage. 

An estimated 34 miles of road would be reconstructed which may include, but is not 

limited to, structural improvements, typically rolling dips or culverts, surface

reconditioning or realignment. An additional 91 miles of road would require 

maintenance to complete proposed activities. 

Existing unauthorized roads that are used as temporary roads with the project would be 

closed after use as part of the timber operations. Remaining unauthorized roads not used 

for the proposed activities are already administratively closed and may be physically 

closed in the future when funds become available. 

Temporary roads may also be used to access portions of proposed treatments units. The 

intent after use for all temporary road construction is that they shall be closed or 

decommissioned during post resource management activities. Temporary roads utilize 

existing unauthorized roads or are constructed in locations approved by the Forest 

Service. 

The average road density for the Black Hills National Forest is 4.4 miles per square mile 

as shown in the Forest Plan (Phase II Amendment). The minor changes to the 

transportation system proposed in Alternative 2 do not result in an overall change to road 

density. A simple comparison of road densities for the Vestal project area is listed below 

in Table 49.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

124

Table 49 Road Mileage and Density by Alternative

Existing Conditions Alternative 2

Miles Miles/Mile2 Miles Miles/Mile2

Open Roads 42 0.6 41 0.6

Seasonal Roads 35 0.5 35 0.5

Closed Roads 48 0.7 50 0.7

Total 125 1.8 126 1.8

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects; therefore no cumulative effects 

would occur.

Alternative 2

This alternative would not increase open road density for the project area. Therefore, no 

negative cumulative effects to open road density would occur.

These activities along with the Vestal project have the potential for the following 

cumulative effects on the transportation system. 

Annual maintenance on Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads would have a positive effect on 

the transportation system. These routes would only require minimal maintenance to 

support timber harvest activities barring no significant or catastrophic weather events 

occur. 

Road maintenance, reconstruction, and construction within the Vestal project, combined 

with annual and grid maintenance activities, would have cumulative effects on ground 

disturbance, vegetation loss, dust/noise increases and sediment movement for short 

durations and in scattered areas within the analysis area.

Recreation

Affected Environment

The Vestal project area provides for substantial developed and dispersed recreational 

opportunities. The city of Custer is located at the center of the project area. Many 

businesses support and benefit from the recreational opportunities that this area provides. 

Some of the non-Forest Service recreation sites located within the project boundary 

include Crazy Horse Memorial and the Mickelson Trail, as well as numerous private 

campgrounds, gift shops, restaurants, hotels and other tourist based businesses.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

Three of the four Management Areas (MA) in the project area, MA 5.1, MA 5.4 and MA 

8.2 have a ROS of ‘roaded-natural’. This accounts for approximately 83% of the total 

project area. The remaining management area, MA 4.1, has a ROS of ‘roaded natural, 

non-motorized’.

Developed Recreation
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

125

Forest Service developed recreation sites in the project boundary include the Forest 

Supervisor’s Office Visitor Center, Bismarck Lake Recreation Area and organizational 

Camp Bob Marshall. Several main highways for visitor access travel through the project 

area, including State Highways 16, 385, Peter Norbeck National Scenic Byway (Byway), 

Highways 16A, 89 and 87. 

Attractions located adjacent to or short drives from the project include Jewel Cave 

National Monument, Wind Cave National Park, Mt. Rushmore National Monument and 

Custer State Park. Numerous annual recreation events affiliated with other agencies and 

the State of South Dakota Mickelson Trail which occur in or near the project area include 

Sturgis Rally, Anna-Leigh Run, Mickelson Trail Trek, Lean Horse Ultra-Marathon, 

Buffalo Round-Up, Custer Gold Discovery Days, Crazy Horse Volksmarch and Crazy 

Horse Marathon/Half-Marathon. Most of these activities occur in the primary summer 

season and early fall.

Dispersed Recreation

There are also ample opportunities for dispersed recreation use of public lands year round 

in the project area to include driving for pleasure, hunting, wildlife viewing, rock 

climbing, bicycle riding, hiking and horseback riding. These activities are part of the 

“lifestyle” for local residents who reside either adjacent to or within a very short distance 

from Forest Service Lands. Year round recreation activity occurs in an interrelated mix of 

public Federal, State, County, City and private lands in the Vestal project area. This is 

important for the local economy as well as the quality of life for residents. 

The most popular areas for dispersed recreation are Calamity Peak, Buckhorn Range, 

Custer Peak, Poverty Gulch and Meeker Ranch, home of an historic ranch farmstead. 

The Paha-Sapa Trail was decommissioned in the late 1980’s but has continued to be used 

by private citizens. The Buckhorn Range, both east and west sides, in the project area is 

a spectacular large granite ridge accessible for dispersed recreation activity from the City 

of Custer limits and/or Highways 87 and 16/385. Custer Peak is located near Stockade 

Lake with several adjacent commercial campgrounds east of the Custer. Patrons of these 

campgrounds frequent Custer Peak mainly for hiking or horseback riding on old FS 

roads. Dispersed recreation use in these areas is highest during the primary recreation 

season from May to September annually. There is moderate use during the fall and low 

use during the winter months. Group use in the project area by hikers, horse riders and 

mountain bikers, particularly on the old Paha-Sapa trail, occurs on an infrequent basis 

during the summer months.

There are no motorized or non-motorized Forest System trails within the project area.

Recreation Special Uses

Three Outfitter & Guide and one Organizational Camp (Camp Bob Marshall) Special Use 

Permits are issued in the project area. Please refer to Map 10 in Appendix A for specific 

locations. There are authorized roads and trails under recreation outfitter & guide special 

use permits issued to Rockin R Rides for conducting horse rides, National Outdoor 

Leadership School for teaching rock climbing/environmental education and to Outlaw 

Ranch for hiking, horse ride and hiking activities in the project area (see Permit Map 10 

in Appendix A).

Motorized Recreation
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

126

The majority of system roads in the project area are open to public licensed vehicles. 

Open public travel roads are reflected on the Black Hills National Forest Motor Vehicle 

Use Map (MVUM) which is available free to the public and also available on the Forest 

website. The project area does not allow for off-road motorized use. The use of Forest 

system roads which are open for public travel in the project area by ATV, UTV and trail 

motorcycles is common year round except in an unusually heavy snowfall winter. 

Unauthorized off highway use of the project area is a concern and a challenge to manage 

since the implementation of the 2010 Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Decision.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

This alternative would have a negative effect on the recreation resource if the on-going 

MPB epidemic in project area continues, as expected. The resulting increased mortality 

of dense stands of timber due to MPB infestation would cause considerable degradation 

of the visual aesthetics over a broad landscape versus a healthy green forest.

Developed Recreation

This change in aesthetics could result in the project area being a less desirable place for 

the public to recreate and could decrease socio-economic benefits of a tourist based 

economy in the surrounding communities. There would also be high fire hazard within 

the project area due to heavy fuel loading from mountain pine beetle caused mortality. 

Large scale, high intensity wildfires reduce recreation use of an area and could also 

threaten/destroy recreation facilities in the project area such as Camp Bob Marshall and 

Bismarck Lake. 

The predicted extent of dead trees killed by MPB would have a negative impact on 

developed and dispersed recreation. The dead trees would become public hazards and 

MPB killed trees generally fall or break within 3-5 years. In addition, there would be

increased maintenance needed within developed sites and impacts to permitted Outfitter 

and Guide authorized trails. The expense of dealing with beetle affected trees in 

recreation sites would increase as the epidemic increases and affects more trees in these 

sites. This may result in a temporary closure of recreation sites to the public if tree 

mortality from MPB attack exceeds recreation resource budgets to remove these hazards 

for public safety.

Dispersed Recreation

Mountain pine beetle killed pine trees are a falling tree hazard to dispersed recreation 

users who frequent the area. Dispersed recreation areas are not monitored and cleared of 

hazardous trees such as is done in developed recreation sites. Dispersed recreation users 

such as horse riders, hikers, bicyclists, rock climbers, hunters, etc, can expect more dead 

and dying trees as more pine trees become infested with MPB.

Recreation Special Uses

Recreation special use permit areas would be maintained by the permit holders to ensure 

that they are cleared of hazardous MPB infested trees and safe for the public. Therefore, 

there would likely be increased maintenance costs for permit holders to continue to use 

these permitted areas and trails.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

127

Alternative 2

The proposed activities in this alternative would reduce MPB risk and therefore, would 

consequently reduce the potential for MPB caused mortality. It is anticipated that the 

proposed thinning and sanitation treatments would result in a healthier forest of green 

trees that would provide a more appealing area in which to recreate versus one with large 

swaths of dead trees. A forest with an under story largely absent of dead and down fuels 

and slash would provide a more open, park-like setting desired by recreationists.

The use of prescribed fire and pile burning would create periods of smoke and haze 

causing temporary negative affects to recreation opportunities over a broad area. These 

prescribed burning periods occur during the non-primary recreation tourism season, 

mostly late fall and early spring to a lesser extent. Therefore the effects to recreation are 

considered short-term and minimal.

Sale activities would create short term periods of noise, dust, increased traffic and 

disturbance to the landscape, negatively impacting recreation social opportunities for 

solitude and rejuvenation in the natural environment. These impacts would be localized 

and relatively short-term. Vegetation management activities would be obvious during 

and following implementation. These effects on the public are largely short term 

provided the follow up fuels reduction phase of the project occurs relatively soon (2-3 

years) after harvest.

No harvest activities would occur in developed recreation sites themselves during the 

primary recreation tourism season.

Recreation special use permits (SUPs) would experience the impacts discussed above. 

Design criteria is included to avoid harvest activity during the primary use season within 

SUP permitted areas, where possible. In addition, coordination would be required 

between permittees and Forest Service to avoid potential conflicts. Any necessary 

adjustments to permitted areas would ideally occur prior to the date that Annual 

Operating Plans are discussed and finalized between the Forest Service and permitted 

Outfitters and Guides.

Authorized outfitter trails/areas will be protected improvements in timber sale contracts 

and prescribed burning plans. Examples of protected improvements include trail tread, 

water bars, stock bypass gates and trail tread gravel.

Travel Management

Use of open public system roads for recreation during this project will be temporarily 

affected during periods of logging traffic and maintenance. Examples include road 

closure for grading and/or hauling of forest products. Road maintenance would occur 

during and after sale activities on affected roads enhancing their condition for post-sale 

recreation travel.

Mickelson Trail

The State of South Dakota Mickelson Trail and Mickelson Connector Trail between 

Custer and Custer State Park would be affected by the use of sections of these trails for 

harvesting timber in the Vestal project. Negative effects to these trails would be 

minimized through the use of specific design criteria (see Appendix B).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

128

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary used was the project area. Time boundary for 

cumulative effects is from present to five years in the future. These boundaries were 

selected because the effects would be most evident to the project area and within five 

years of beginning the project.

The cumulative effect of forest disturbance caused by a no action alternative during an 

on-going mountain pine beetle infestation or the action alternative of harvest and post 

harvest vegetative treatments could cause a shift of recreation activity from an area of 

disturbance to one of no or lesser disturbance. Recreation use would return to all areas 

and probably increase over time as the level of disturbance tapers off in successive years.

The cumulative impact of no action in an on-going mountain pine beetle infestation 

would result in more trees dying in larger groups over more area of the Vestal project. 

Thinning stands of trees in the action alternative results in more trees scattered over more 

area throughout the landscape when compared to the no action alternative. This would 

result in a more open recreation forested setting under the no action alternative and vice 

versa for the action alternative.

Soils and Hydrology

This section discusses the affected environment and environmental consequences of the 

no action and proposed action alternatives for soils and hydrologic resources. It 

summarizes the Vestal Soil and Watershed specialist report, located in the project file.

Field Surveys

The field survey for the Vestal project was completed over several years, beginning in 

2007. The goal of the fieldwork is to classify streams, identify watershed problem areas 

and asses the condition of the soils. Stream classification consists of identifying whether

a stream is perennial, intermittent or ephemeral. Watershed problems need to be 

identified so the appropriate correction measures are prescribed. The soil information is 

needed to assess the condition of the soils from past activities and is needed for the 

cumulative effects analysis. Most of the blue line streams, as display on seven and half 

minute USGS (United States Geologic Survey) Quads, were visited in the field. Areas 

visited for the soils assessment were distributed throughout the project area and across 

different soil map units. The results of the field work identified stream type, watershed 

problem areas and soils condition.

Affected Environment - Soils

There are 22 different soil map units within the Vestal project area. Eight (8) of the soil 

map units comprise less than 1% of the project area combined; BrB, HgB, HgD, HoD, 

MhA, Pt, VpC and W. These 8 are not discussed further. Five (5) soil map units, BtE, 

BuE, BvC, RkG and RlG, comprise 85% of the project area and the other 9 soil map units 

occupy approximately 15%. Soil map units within the project area and their

characteristics are listed in Table 50.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

129

Table 50. Soils in the Vestal Project Area

Map Unit 

Symbol Map Unit Name Percent of 

Project

BsB Bullflat-Cordeston silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 1%

BtE Buska-Mocmont-Rock Outcrop, 10-40 percent slope 19%

BuE Buska-Rock Outcrop, 10-40 percent slope 31%

BvC Buska-Virkula, 2-15 percent slope 21%

CvB Cordeston, 2-10 percent slope 1%

CwB Cordeston-Marshbrook, 0-6 percent slope 2%

HeE Heely, 9-30 percent slope 1%

HfC Heely-Cordeston, 6-15 percent slope 1%

MsC Mocmont, 2-12 percent slope 1%

MtE Mocmont-Rock Outcrop, 10-40 percent slope 3%

PaE Pactola-Virkula-Rock Outcrop, 10-40 percent slope 3%

RgG Rock Outcrop-Buska, 40-80 percent slope 2%

RkG Rock Outcrop-Mocmont, 40-80 percent slope 9%

RlG Rock Outcrop-Pactola, 40-80 percent slope 5%

Soil Health Assessment

Current conditions of the soils were observed when five (5) soil map units were visited in 

the field. They were units with symbols BtE, BuE, BvC, CwB and HfC. These units 

represent 74% of the VPA. The goal was to find previously disturbed areas to see if there 

are any residual effects from past activities. Eleven (11) sites were observed. At nine (9) 

sites the old Soil Health Monitoring/Assessment Protocol was used and the findings were 

that all sites that were visited had Properly Functioning Soil Health Ratings. The other 

two (2) sites used the new Soil Monitoring Protocol and there was not any detrimentally 

disturbed soil found anywhere along the transect. All areas had excellent ground cover, 

infiltration was excellent and no erosion was occurring.

Soil Erosion

Erosion hazard is an indication of the risk of soil loss associated with disturbance. Soil

map units with the symbols RgG, RkG and RlG have a severe EHR (Erosion Hazard 

Rating). These units occur on steep slopes of 40-80 percent and occupy approximately 

16% of the project area. The EHR is severe because of the steep slopes. The majority 

(57%) of soils have a moderate EHR. Approximately 27% of soils have a slight EHR.

Soil Compaction

All soils are subject to compaction when conditions are right, but some can be more 

prone to compaction than others. Activities with heavy equipment on soils can change 

the characteristics of the soils, resulting in compaction and causing more runoff or 

resulting in poor plant growth.

Organic Matter and Nutrients
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

130

Forest Plan standard 1102 sets requirements for soils with topsoil less than 1 inch, 

organic matter less that 2 percent, or rooting depth less than 15 inches. In the Vestal 

project area, none of the soil map units contain topsoil organic matter of less than 2 

percent or have rooting depths of less than 15 inches. 

There are eight (8) soil map units have a large portion of the unit with topsoil thinner than 

one (1) inch. They are BtE, BuE, BvC, MsC, MtE, RgG, RkG and RlG and comprise 

91% of the Vestal project area.

Environmental Consequences - Soils

Soil Erosion – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Severe erosion can impair long-term soil productivity if soils are heavily disturbed on 

shallow or highly erodible soils. Evidence of severe erosion is rills or pedestals,” (USDA 

Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil erosion with 

this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Alternative 2

Commercial vegetative treatments have the potential to impact soil productivity by 

causing soil erosion. Noncommercial vegetation treatments, dead fall treatment and fuel 

break construction are not expected to have any impacts to soil productivity from soil 

erosion because the organic layer would still be present on the soil surface, protecting the 

soil from erosion. Prescribed fire is not expected to have any impacts to soil productivity 

from soil erosion because the organic layer is not expected to be burned off, thereby 

leaving some organics on the soil surface protecting the soil from erosion. Vegetation

treatments on soils with a VSEHR and steep slopes have the most potential to cause soil 

erosion. 

Approximately 2,164 acres or 9% of the treated acres are located on soils with a severe 

erosion hazard rating with slopes greater than 20% and less than 40%. One thousand one 

hundred ninety-six (1,196) additional acres or 5% of the treated acres are proposed for 

treatment on slopes greater than 40%. Minimal soil erosion may occur from the 

commercial activities but implementing the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, 

including WCPs and BMPs, and the design criteria “On soils with severe erosion hazard 

rating and slopes between 20 and 40%, machinery operations must be restricted to dry or 

frozen soil conditions” and “On soils with severe erosion hazard rating and slopes steeper 

than 40%, ground skidding must be avoided” there would be very little soil erosion 

occurring, and only for short distances. The potential for erosion related to roads would 

be minimized with proper erosion control structures at proper spacing for the grade of the 

road. These would be built in the road and be maintained throughout the operation and 

also upon putting the roads to bed.

Direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil erosion are not expected because 

very little erosion is expected to occur from this alternative with the implementation of 

the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including WCPs and BMPs, and the design 

criteria.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

131

Soil Compaction – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Soil compaction is caused by excess weight of vehicles and animals. It impairs 

infiltration, root growth, and soil biota,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil compaction 

with this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Alternative 2

All soils are subject to compaction under the right conditions. Activities with heavy 

equipment on soils can change the characteristics of the soils, resulting in compaction and 

causing more runoff or resulting in poor plant growth. This alternative can have shortterm impacts but the impacts are not expected to persist. Minimal soil compaction can

occur from the commercial activities. BMP monitoring of timber units since 2005 

(USDA Forest Service, 2008, 2009 & 2010) have shown some impacts occur but all units 

met Forest Plan Standards. If compaction does occur it would be reduced over time 

meaning no long-term effects. Forest Plan Monitoring on one site has shown “there is 

evidence that conditions were such that within one geographic area, on at least one soil 

type, 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” (USDA Forest Service, 2009).

No indirect effect on soil productivity from soil compaction with this alternative is 

expected. Short-term direct effects can occur but are not expected to persist.

Nutrient Removal – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Soil fertility depends on organic matter and nutrients. Soil productivity can be degraded 

if humus and topsoil, or even excess leaves and limbs, are taken off site,” (USDA Forest 

Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from nutrient removal 

with this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Alternative 2

This alternative includes commercial and non-commercial vegetation management, dead 

fall treatment, fuel break construction and prescribed fire. Non-commercial vegetation 

management, dead fall treatment, fuel break construction and prescribe fire do not affect 

soil productivity from nutrient removal because organic material is not physically 

removed from the site. Lopping, chipping, crushing, or mastication leaves all material on 

site. Burning will change the form or composition of the nutrients but most will be still 

available on site.

Commercial vegetation management generally removes whole trees from the site in order 

to reduce the fuels in the stand. This could pose a concern on some soils, however with 

the mountain pine beetle activity in the Vestal project area, there would be sufficient

material left on site to meet Standard 1102, including Guideline 1102a, and soil

productivity would not be affected
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

132

No direct or indirect effects on soil productivity related to soil nutrients are expected to 

occur with this alternative.

No indirect effect on soil productivity from soil compaction with this alternative is 

expected. Short-term direct effects can occur but are not expected to persist.

Soil Heating – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Soil heating is caused by severe fires that occur when humus and large fuels are dry and 

large fuels are consumed near the ground. Soil heating sterilizes the soil, alters soil 

physics, consumes organic matter, and removes much of the site’s nutrients,” (USDA 

Forest Service, 1996). Impacts to soil productivity from soil heating usually occurs as a 

result of a wildfire but can occur in small areas with prescribe fire.

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effect to soil productivity from soil heating with this 

alternative because no new activities are proposed within the project area.

Alternative 2

Effects from soil heating can occur from burning of slash piles and prescribed fire.

Burning slash piles would cause detrimentally impacted soils from soil heating in small 

isolated locations throughout the project area. Any runoff from these small areas of 

detrimental impact would be absorbed by adjacent area. Concerns regarding soil heating 

come from large contiguous areas, which would not occur as the result of this project.

Prescribed burning is proposed on approximately 1,761 acres. There is potential for soil 

heating to occur as a result. However, design criteria to “conduct prescribed fires to 

minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives, this is usually 

done when the soil and duff are moist” would minimize the potential effects to the soil 

from soil heating. No direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil heating are 

expected with this alternative.

Regeneration Hazard – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from regeneration hazard 

with this alternative because no new activities are planned.

Alternative 2

Ponderosa Pine tends to reproduce well in the Black Hills (Orr, 1975). Natural 

regeneration of Ponderosa Pine can be quite successful (Shepperd and Battaglia, 2002). 

This alternative would not have a direct or indirect effect on regeneration hazard because 

of the high reproduction rate even though some soils may be more conducive to seedling 

mortality and be problematic with rocks.

Cumulative Effects - Soils

The spatial boundaries of the cumulative effects analysis are the HUC 12 watershed 

boundaries that have at least 15% of their area within the project area. Watersheds with

lesser amounts of the project area within them would have negligible cumulative effects 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

133

from this project. Four (4) HUC 7 watersheds are used in this analysis. They are 

identified in Table 51.

The time frame for the cumulative effects discussion is from year 2002 through 2021, ten 

years before and ten years after. These dates include impacts from recent timber 

harvesting in the past and extend forward to include the estimated completion of 

activities proposed in this project. 

Table 51. Watersheds Analyzed for Cumulative Effects

HUC 12 

Number Watershed Name

Watershed 

Acres

% of Watershed in 

the Project Area

101201090601 Ruby Creek-French Creek 29,291 64%

101201090602 Stockade Lakes-French Creek 19,926 74%

101201090603 Glen Erin Creek-French Creek 17,419 28%

101201090903 Newton Fork-Spring Creek 24,423 15%

The cumulative effects area for the soils resource is the proposed activity units in the 

project area. The effects of the alternatives on the soils resource would be contained 

within the units. The timeframes used to consider effects of past, present, and future 

activities are from 2000 to 2026. The past, present, and future activities considered in 

this analysis are presented in Appendix F.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as site specific design criteria would be 

implemented in the proposed action. When implemented as described, no adverse 

cumulative effects to soils are expected to occur. Past monitoring shows that when 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines are implemented on similar projects, this standard is 

met (USDA Forest Service, 2008). It is further expected that the compacted, eroded, or 

displaced condition would be less than 15%, as described in Standard 1103. The 

following discussion considers the cumulative effects of potential disturbances to longterm soil productivity in accordance with Forest Plan Standard 1101.

Organic Matter and Nutrients

There would be no adverse cumulative impacts to soil organic matter and nutrients from 

any alternative within the project area because sufficient residual material and trees 

would be left on site for nutrient recycling after project implementation. Forest Plan 

Standard 1102 would be met.

Soil Heating

Events that could cause negative effects of soil heating are wildfires and, to a lesser 

degree, prescribed burning. Prescribed burning within the project area would be 

implemented in a manner designed to reduce the potential for adverse soil heating 

impacts. Prescribed burning would have beneficial effects by reducing long-term fire 

hazard and the potential for large-scale, high intensity wildfire that could have soil 

heating effects. Therefore, no adverse cumulative effects would be expected under any 

alternative.

Soil Erosion

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix F were 

considered along with proposed activities for cumulative effects to soil erosion and 

displacement. Any soil erosion that may occur related to implementation of the Vestal 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

134

project is expected to be localized, minor in both severity and extent, and thus well below 

levels that would be considered detrimental. This expectation also applies to other forest 

management activities and uses. Design criteria and appropriate WCP/BMP measures 

apply to all forest management activities and uses. These measures are designed to 

control runoff and erosion for a 10 year storm event (USDA Forest Service, 2006b). 

Therefore the risk of cumulative detrimental soil erosion is mitigated for typical storm 

events observed in the Black Hills for all forest management activities.

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to cause extensive soil 

erosion. Dispersed recreation activities generally do not cause excessive soil erosion 

issues due to the lack of concentrated use. Concentrated recreation sites are purposely 

located in flatter terrain which minimizes the potential for soil erosion and employs 

management strategies to guide concentrated uses where measures are in place (i.e. 

WCPs/BMPs) to minimize soil erosion.

Any soil erosion as a result of the Vestal project would be expected to be minimal and 

would be within the limits of Forest Plan Standard 1103 for Alternative 2. There would 

be no cumulative effects to soil erosion resulting from the no action alternative.

Soil Compaction

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Vestal project area 

were considered along with proposed activities for cumulative effects to soil compaction. 

Any soil compaction that may occur related to implementation of the Vestal project is 

expected to be localized and well below levels that would be considered detrimental. 

This expectation also applies to other forest management activities and uses. Design 

criteria and appropriate WCP/BMP measures apply to all forest management activities 

and uses. Therefore the risk of cumulative detrimental soil compaction is minimized. 

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to cause detrimental 

levels of soil compaction due to where livestock naturally tend to roam and the presence 

of rock fragments in most of the soils within the project area. Dispersed recreation 

activities also do not tend to cause detrimental soil compaction due to the lack of 

concentrated use for this type of recreation. 

Any soil compaction would be expected to be minimal and would be within the limits of 

Forest Plan Standard 1103 for Alternative 2. There would be no cumulative effects to 

soil compaction resulting from the no action alternative.

Affected Environment – Hydrology

Watersheds

Watershed boundaries and HUC codes were obtained from the National Hydrography 

Dataset developed and maintained by the USDA Service Center and USGS (USGS, 

2008). The Vestal project boundary overlaps portions of seven HUC 12 (6th level) 

watersheds (see Table 52). Since the project area does not coincide exactly with 

watershed boundaries, the water resources analysis area differs from the project area 

boundary.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

135

Table 52: HUC 12 Watershed within the Vestal Project Area

HUC 12 

Number Watershed Name

Watershed 

Acres

% of Watershed 

in the VPA

101201090201 Upper Beaver Creek 22,753 1%

101201090601 Ruby Creek-French Creek 29,291 64%

101201090602 Stockade Lakes-French Creek 19,926 74%

101201090603 Glen Erin Creek-French Creek 17,419 28%

101201090804 Upper Grace Coolidge Creek 19,639 2%

101201090901 Headwaters Spring Creek 23,108 4%

101201090903 Newton Fork-Spring Creek 24,423 15%

In 2011Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) (USDA Forest Service, 2011) was 

implemented by the Forest Service. It is a comprehensive approach for classifying 

watershed condition, proactively implementing integrated restoration in priority 

watersheds on national forests and grasslands, and tracking and monitoring outcomebased program accomplishments for performance accountability. 

Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological characteristics and 

processes within a watershed that affect the soil and hydrologic functions supporting 

aquatic ecosystems. There are four (4) watersheds that have a substantial portion of their 

area within the Vestal project area, Ruby Creek-French Creek, Stockade Lakes-French 

Creek, Glen Erin Creek-French Creek and Newton Fork-Spring Creek. All are rated 

Class 2 watersheds, “Functioning at Risk”.

Floodplains

A floodplain is the flat area on either side of a stream or river that is susceptible to 

inundation by floodwaters. Floodplains slow flood velocities and decrease erosion 

because they are by nature wide and flat, thus allowing for shallower and slower water. 

Thus, floodplains provide for flood moderation, water quality protection, ground water 

recharge, and wildlife habitat, among other benefits. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped 100-year floodplains across the nation 

(FEMA, 1998).

There are approximately 267 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains within the Vestal 

project area on National Forest. Mapped 100-year floodplains are located along the 

following streams and drainage ways: French Creek, Glen Erin Creek, Laughing Water 

Creek, Loues Creek, North Fork French Creek, Ruby Creek, Tenderfoot Creek and 

Willow Creek.

Wetlands and Riparian

Wetlands were mapped during a national effort and recorded in the National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI). There are approximately 67 acres of wetlands within the Vestal project 

area. 

One of the mapped wetlands is Bismarck Lake, classified as Lacustrine Systems. The 

term Lacustrine is related to the word ‘lakes’ and thus a lacustrine wetland is, by 

definition lake-associated. The Lacustrine system includes wetlands and deepwater 

habitats that are greater than 20 acres and have less than 30 percent cover of persistent 

vegetation (Water Word Glossary, 2004). 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

136

The rest of the mapped wetlands are classified as Palustrine Systems. "Palustrine" comes 

from the Latin word "palus" or marsh. Wetlands within this category include inland 

marshes and swamps as well as bogs, fens, tundra and floodplains. Palustrine systems 

include any inland wetland, which lacks flowing water and contains ocean derived salts 

in concentrations of less than 0.05%.

Lakes

There is one lake within the Vestal project area, Bismarck Lake. It is 25 acres in size and 

is form by a dam constructed by the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) on an unnamed 

tributary to French Creek. The outflow from the Bismarck Lake flows for approximately 

600 feet and then empties into Stockade Lake in Custer State Park.

Streams

There are an estimated 135 miles of streams within the Vestal project area. Sixty-seven 

percent (67%) or 91 miles are on private, leaving 44 miles on National Forest. Of the 44 

miles of streams on National Forest, 33 % are perennial, 12% are intermittent and 55% 

are ephemeral (See Map 9 in Appendix A).

Streams on National Forest within the Vestal project area are identified on Map 9,

Appendix A. Identification of whether each stream on National Forest is Ephemeral, 

Intermittent or Perennial was based on field survey and review of USGS Quad maps. 

Perennial and intermittent streams have a 100 foot WIZ along them and will be identified 

as a protected stream course. The WIZ distance is from the high water mark and is on 

each side of the stream for a total of at least 200 feet. Table 53 displays the streams by 

name.

Table 53. Stream Mileages Within the Vestal Project Area

Name Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Private Total

Bugtown Gulch ----- ----- 0.17 ----- 0.17

Crow Creek ----- ----- 0.75 1.27 2.02

East Fork Ruby Creek ----- ----- ----- 2.45 2.45

French Creek 3.29 ----- ----- 10.39 13.68

Glen Erin Creek 1.32 0.55 0.75 1.82 4.44

Graveyard Gulch ----- ----- 0.58 0.28 0.86

Laughing Water Creek 0.43 ----- 0.13 6.15 6.71

Loues Creek 0.04 ----- ----- 0.81 0.85

North Fork French Creek ----- 0.16 ----- 1.24 1.40

Ruby Creek 0.41 1.24 0.41 4.65 6.71

Sidney Creek ----- ----- ----- 2.68 2.68

Tenderfoot Creek ----- 0.45 0.05 3.58 4.08

Tenderfoot Gulch 0.02 ----- 0.03 1.63 1.68

Toe (Joe) Gulch 0.87 ----- 0.33 0.08 1.28

Willow Creek 1.33 ----- 0.22 4.84 6.39

Unnamed 6.75 2.63 20.87 48.91 79.16

Total Miles 14.46 5.03 24.29 90.78 134.56

Beneficial Uses

The SD (South Dakota) DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) 

assigns water quality standards based on the beneficial uses of each water body. All 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

137

streams and lakes in SD are assigned the beneficial uses of fish and wildlife propagation, 

recreation and stock watering. Streams are also assigned the beneficial use of irrigation. 

Within the Vestal project area the streams in Table have additional designated beneficial 

uses, as noted.

Table 54. Vestal Stream with Additional Beneficial Uses

Beneficial Uses

Water Body

SD Beneficial Uses

Coldwater 

Marginal 

Fish Life 

Propagation

Limited 

Contact 

Recreation

Immersion 

Recreation

Bismark Lake Creek X X

French Creek X X

Glen Erin Dam Creek X X

Laughing Water Creek X X

Loues Creek X X

Ruby Creek X X

Willow Creek X X

Bismarck Lake X X X

(South Dakota Legislature, 2011)

Streamflow Regime

Streamflows throughout the Black Hills have been reduced over the last century. This 

has been a result of fire suppression. There has been an increase of woody biomass. 

Higher leaf areas from increased woody biomass will increase evapotranspiration and 

interception, resulting in lower streamflows and the drying of springs (USDA Forest 

Service, 2003b).

Peak flows data has been collected for a limited time on several streams in an around the 

Vestal project area. The streams include; French Creek, three (3) sites, two (2), six (6) 

and 19 years; Laughing Water Creek, six (6) years; and Ruby Creek, six (6) years. Peak 

flows on these creeks occurred from March to October with the most occurring in June 

(USDI USGS 2011a).

Stream Health

Perennial and intermittent streams within the project area were reviewed to determine 

Stream Health Rating (SHR). Many streams have the majority of their length on private 

lands. Those perennial and intermittent streams with very minor amounts on National 

Forest lands were not assigned a SHR. The remaining streams were assigned SHR as 

discussed below:

French Creek – Is a major tributary to the Cheyenne River. The entire length is 

86.2 miles. Sixteen percent (16%), or 13.7 miles, of this stream is in the Vestal 

project area. Of that portion, 76% is on private land and 24% is on National

Forest. There are two distinct reaches, above Stockade Lake and below Stockade 

Lake. The reach above Stockade has many impacts with a significant amount of 

stream crossings, significant grazing on private land, and channelization in the 

City of Custer, to highlight some impacts. The reach below Stockade Lake had 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

138

significantly less impacts with a few road/stream crossings that could be 

improved. Most crossings are on county roads. The SHR for French Creek above 

Stockade Lake would be diminished and French Creek below Stockade Lake 

would be At-Risk.

Glen Erin Creek – Approximately 98% (4.5 miles), is within the Vestal project 

area. Only 0.1 miles is outside the project area. Forty percent (40%) is on private 

land. There are two distinct reaches on National Forest. One reach has had CCC 

activity on it, building dams and building restoration structures in the stream. 

Two of the dams are no longer functioning and one is holding water and creating 

a nice pond. The restoration work has created wonderful wetlands along the 

stretch that was restored. The SHR for this reach would be At-Risk. The other 

reach, or lower reach, has been acquired recently and the stream has not been 

grazed for a number of years. This reach has a SHR of Robust.

Ruby Creek – The entire length of this stream, 6.7 miles, is within the Vestal 

project area, however 69% of this stream is located on private land. Two (2) 

miles are on National Forest. Some of Ruby Creek that is on National Forest is 

on the French Creek Allotment. The stream health on this section of Ruby Creek 

was identified as At-Risk in the Hell Canyon 2010 Range Project and it would be 

the same today.

Toe (Joe) Gulch – Seventy-one percent (71%), 1.3 miles, of 1.8 miles total length 

of this stream is within the Vestal project area. Very little of this stream, six 

percent (6%) is on private land. This stream is within the French Creek 

Allotment. In the past the valley along the stream has been grazed and continues 

to be grazed today but under new management plans. The SHR for this stream is 

At-Risk.

Connected Disturbed Area (CDA)

CDAs are areas that are identified that contribute sediment to streams or wetlands 

causing degradation of physical function, degraded water quality and increased peak 

flows that may alter physical channel processes. When a disturbed area flows into a 

waterbody without sufficient delay from vegetated filter strips or sediment detention 

structures, it is connected to the waterbody. CDAs may include bare soil patterns, 

compacted soils, roads, severely burned areas or mine spoils.

Disturbed areas near ephemeral drainages are generally not CDAs. This is because there 

is vegetation in the drainages that will filter out any erosion generated. This erosion does 

not contribute to the degradation of the physical function of the stream or degrade water 

quality.

During field inventory, 10 CDAs were identified, all of which are road crossings. Four 

(4) were on Forest Service roads and six (6) were on County roads. The CDAs were 

distributed across three (3) HUC 12 watersheds.

Water Quality

The State of South Dakota maintains a list of waterbodies that do not meet water quality 

standards for their assigned beneficial uses. There is one (1) stream, within the Vestal 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

139

project area, French Creek, that is currently on the SD 303(d) Waterbody List (SD DE 

NR 2010). 

French Creek is on the list for not meeting the beneficial use of Coldwater Marginal Fish 

Life and Limited Contact Recreation. The parameter of concern is dissolved oxygen. 

The listed cause is natural sources and drought related impacts. The South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources conducted a monitoring program 

from March through October of 2010 at several sites along this reach. No violations 

related to dissolved oxygen were observed or recorded during this sampling period. 

(Robert Smith, personal communication, March 1, 2011)

All other streams and waterbodies within the Vestal project area are meeting their 

assigned beneficial uses.

Environmental Consequences - Hydrology

The water resources analysis area encompasses the headwater portions of Redbird and 

Gillette Canyons, an area totaling approximately 50,820 acres (Appendix A, Map 6). The 

water resources analysis area includes land managed by both the Mystic and Hell Canyon 

Ranger Districts of the Black Hills National Forest, as well as private lands. 

Potential impacts to water resources include impacts to aquatic ecosystems, special areas, 

and soil productivity (discussed earlier). Aquatic ecosystems include physical conditions 

(sediment, bed/bank stability and flow regimes), chemical conditions 

(temperature/oxygen and water purity) and biological conditions (aquatic life). The 

Alternatives may impact these conditions in the project area, as discussed below. 

Past, currently ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix F were 

considered along with proposed activities for cumulative effects to water resources.

Aquatic Ecosystems

Sediment – Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have any new activities occur within the project so sediment 

levels would remain unchanged. There would be no direct or indirect effects to the 

aquatic resource due to sediment.

Alternative 2

Mechanical vegetation treatments are proposed on approximately 251 acres within the 

100 foot WIZ (Water Influence Zone). Approximately half of these acres are within 50 

feet of the water source. There would be no direct effects of sedimentation from 

commercial vegetation treatments. 

Prescribed burning is proposed on approximately 121 acres within the WIZ. As with 

mechanical treatments, approximately half of these acres are within 50 feet of the water 

source. The potential to generate sediment from prescribed fire is low because soils 

within the WIZ and next to the streams are generally wetter. There would be no direct 

effects of sedimentation from prescribed fire. 

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 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

140

material on the road can be easily mobilized during precipitation events. There are 

approximately 7 miles of existing roads within the WIZ in the Vestal project area. 

Slightly less than half are within 50 feet of the water source. No new roads would be 

constructed in the WIZ. 

There are also approximately 40 existing stream crossings. It is expected that some 

sediment would be produced at these crossings. It is extremely difficult to quantify how 

much sediment would be produced, so the amount of activity within the WIZ is used as a 

comparison. 

None of the crossings on reconstructed routes will be disturbed. There would potential 

be two (2) constructed crossing on perennial streams on a reconstructed road and a 

temporary road. The reconstructed crossing is on French Creek, NFSR 342.1E, and will 

be a temporary bridge. The temporary road crossing will be on Ruby Creek and will 

require a structure to span the stream such as a temporary bridge, cattle guard, temporary 

arch or similar structure. Both structure will be removed and rehabilitated upon 

completion of the project. A third culvert on a level 1 road, NFSR 297.1I, will be 

removed upon completion of its use. 

Some sediment is expected to be introduced to the streams at these locations, but not in 

quantities that would affect the aquatic resource. 

Alternative 2 may generate sediment from mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, the 

use of existing roads or stream crossings. However, with the implementation of Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines, WCPs, BMPs and design criteria, the potential to 

generate sediment from mechanical treatments or prescribed fire, is low. Some sediment 

is expected to be generated from use of existing roads and stream crossings, however the 

amount would be minimal, and in quantities that would not affect the aquatic resource. 

As a benefit of the activities, three (3) CDAs on Forest roads would be corrected.

There would be a slight increase in potential for sedimentation from the action alternative 

in the short term (<5 years) due to activities related to road crossings usually at the 

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.

Bed and Bank Stability – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Bed and bank stability can be damaged from trampling by animals or humans, vehicle 

impact, degraded bank vegetation, or excessive flow augmentations. Streams can be 

made wider and shallower, pools and overhanging banks can be destroyed, and much 

sediment can be added to streams,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

No direct or indirect effects to bed and bank stability would occur.

Alternative 2

This alternative would not have an impact on bed and bank stability within the VPA. 

Skid and forwarding trails have the potential to cross perennial and intermittent streams. 

When this occurs, design criteria for forwarding and skid trails will be implemented to 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

141

protecting bank stability. By implementing the design criteria and this alternative would 

have no direct or indirect impacts.

Stream Flow Regime – Direct and Indirect Effects

“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, 1996).

Alternative 1

There would be no direct effects to flow regime. Indirect effects include an increase in 

the amount of water available for streamflow and ground water recharge due to Mountain 

Pine Beetle caused tree mortality.

Alternative 2

Commercial and non-commercial timber activities which remove live biomass would 

positively affect flow regime. Prescribed burning could also result in a positive impact to 

flow regime due to resulting tree mortality. This would be minimal since mortality limits 

are included.

This alternative would have a positive effect on flow regime by the removal of live 

vegetation from the landscape and would result in improved flow regimes over 

Alternative 1 by reducing the live biomass across the landscape. 

Temperature and Oxygen – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Summer water temperature is increased, and winter water temperature is decreased, by 

removing shade, reducing low flows, or damaging banks so streams are wider and 

shallower. Dissolved oxygen is usually reduced when summer water temperature is 

increased. Such impacts impair or destroy the suitability of water bodies for aquatic 

biota,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

No direct effects would occur. An indirect effect would occur if the live biomass 

decreases over time due to tree mortality from Mountain Pine Beetle. This could affect 

stream temperature/oxygen, by making more water available for streamflow because of 

reduced evapotranspiration. More water in the stream could mean stable water 

temperature and oxygen levels.

Alternative 2

This alternative would have a positive but minimal impact on stream temperature and 

oxygen because live biomass would be reduced, resulting in more water being available 

for streamflow. Increases in water amounts would help maintain stream temperatures.

This alternative is similar to the no action alternative with the expected indirect effect due 

to the Mountain Pine Beetle. Water temperature and oxygen levels are expected to be 

maintained because more water would be available for streamflow.

Water Purity – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Water purity can be degraded by placing concentrated pollutant sources near water 

bodies, applying harmful chemicals in or near water bodies, or intercepting hazardous 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

142

rock strata by roads. Degrading water purity can impair or destroy use of the water by 

aquatic biota and humans,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on water purity.

Alternative 2

None of the proposed activities involves placing concentrated pollutant sources near 

water bodies or applying harmful chemicals near water bodies. There would be no direct 

or indirect effect to water purity.

Aquatic Life – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Aquatic life can be degraded by migration barriers, changed flow regimes, riparian 

damage, or big sediment loads or chemical loads,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996). Flow 

regimes, sediment, and purity are discussed previously. The items that will be discussed 

in this section will be migration barriers and riparian damage.

Alternative 1

No direct or indirect effects would occur to aquatic life from Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

This alternative would not increase or decrease any migration barriers because temporary 

bridges or other structures which allow unimpeded streamflow would be used at stream 

crossings. Riparian damage would be minimal. Implementing the Forest plan standards 

and guidelines, including WCPs and BMPs would minimize any impacts to the riparian 

vegetation. No direct or indirect effects would occur to aquatic life from migration 

barriers or riparian damage.

Riparian Ecosystems – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Riparian ecosystems provide shade, bank stability, fish cover, and woody debris to 

aquatic ecosystems. They also provide key wildlife habitat, migration corridors, 

sediment storage and release, and surface-ground water interactions. Composition and 

structure of riparian vegetation can be changed by actions that remove certain species age 

classes,” (USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there would 

be no direct or indirect effect on riparian ecosystems.

Alternative 2

There would not be any commercial activities or new system roads within any riparian 

areas. There is a proposed temporary road crossing of Ruby Creek. This crossing would 

require the road to temporarily span the stream. No other riparian impacts are expected. 

Therefore, minimal negative impacts may occur as a result of the proposed project. If 

prescribed fire were to occur in riparian areas, it would be a light burn because conditions 

in these areas are usually moist, resulting in no impacts. There would be minimal shortterm negative direct effect on the riparian ecosystems.

Wetlands – Direct and Indirect Effects
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

143

“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,” (USDA 

Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there would 

be no direct or indirect effects on wetlands.

Alternative 2

No mechanical treatments or roads are proposed within wetlands. Prescribed fire in 

wetlands would be a light burn because conditions in these areas are inherently moist, 

resulting in no impacts. There would be no direct or indirect effects on wetlands.

Floodplains – Direct and Indirect Effects

“Floodplains are natural escape areas for floods that temper flood stages and velocities,” 

(USDA Forest Service, 1996).

Alternative 1

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there would 

be no direct or indirect effects on floodplains.

Alternative 2

Roads are the main concern within floodplains because road fills are usually placed in 

floodplains to facilitate road crossings of streams. This interrupts flood flows and can 

change the elevation of flood waters. Timber harvest activities do not affect floodplains 

because floodplains are not altered during the activity. Dead fall treatment, fuel break 

construction and prescribe fire does not alter floodplains. Since no new roads are 

proposed as part of this project, there would be no impacts to floodplains. There would

be no direct or indirect effect on the floodplains.

Cumulative Effects - Hydrology

The spatial boundaries of the cumulative effects analysis for water resources are the HUC 

12 watershed boundaries that have at least 15% of their area within the project area. 

Watersheds with lesser amounts of the project area within them would have negligible 

cumulative effects from this project. Four (4) HUC 7 watersheds are used in this 

analysis. They are identified in Table 55.

The time frame for the cumulative effects discussion is from year 2002 through 2021, ten 

years before and ten years after. These dates include impacts from recent timber 

harvesting in the past and extend forward to include the estimated completion of 

activities proposed in this project.

Table 55. Watersheds Analyzed for Cumulative Effects

HUC 12 

Number Watershed Name

Watershed 

Acres

% of Watershed in 

the Project Area

101201090601 Ruby Creek-French Creek 29,291 64%

101201090602 Stockade Lakes-French Creek 19,926 74%

101201090603 Glen Erin Creek-French Creek 17,419 28%
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

144

HUC 12 

Number Watershed Name

Watershed 

Acres

% of Watershed in 

the Project Area

101201090903 Newton Fork-Spring Creek 24,423 15%

Past, present and future land uses and events within these watersheds have been occurring 

since settlement of the Black Hills. Commercial treatments, precommercial thin, 

fuelbreaks, pine encroachment, wildfire, prescribe fire, grazing, weed spraying, mining, 

abandoned mines, mine reclamation, developed recreation, dispersed recreation, dam 

building (Bismarck and Stockade Lake), City of Custer, private land ownership, private 

land development and roads are some of the land uses and events that have occurred. All 

of these activities or events individually have an impact on the watersheds. 

There would be no cumulative effects to bed and bank stability, water purity aquatic life, 

wetlands and floodplains. These watershed features would not have direct or indirect 

effects, as discussed above.

The Watershed Condition Class for each watershed would remain unchanged from Class 

2 as a result of this project. None of the alternatives proposes enough activities to change 

the ratings.

Sediment

There would be a slight increase in potential for sedimentation from the action alternative 

in the short term (<5 years) due to activities related to road crossings usually at the 

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 3 known 

CDAs. As a benefit of the activities, three (3) CDAs on Forest roads would be corrected.

Any sediment as a result of the Vestal project would be expected to be minimal for 

Alternative 2. There would be no cumulative effect to aquatic ecosystem from sediment 

from the no action alternative.

Flow Regimes

Changes to flow regimes, increased water, would occur with either alternative due to 

predicted MPB mortality and in Alternative 2, proposed treatments. This would add to 

other increases in flow, such as MPB caused mortality adjacent to the analysis area and 

be a positive cumulative effect for both alternatives.

Riparian Ecosystems

Impacts to the riparian ecosystem as a result of the Vestal Project would occur. This 

would add to what has already occurred (roads, private land development, grazing) in the 

watershed creating a cumulative impact. Impacts to riparian ecosystems are expected to 

be minimal and temporary for Alternative 2. There would be no cumulative effects to 

riparian ecosystems resulting from the no action alternative.

Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness

BMPs by definition are “Common-sense actions required, by law, to keep soil and other 

pollutants out of streams and lakes. BMPs are designed to protect water quality and to 

prevent new pollution” (IFPC 2003). BMPs are implemented to control or limit nonpoint source pollution. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

145

“BMPs are developed by the State of SD...to ensure compliance with federal and state 

water-quality standards,” (USDA Forest Service 2006a). They provide good guidance 

but are fairly general. WCPs are practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian systems. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 2, developed them. They are more specific with design 

criteria. “If used properly, they meet or exceed State BMPs,” (USDA Forest Service, 

2006b). BMPs and WCPs are incorporated into the Forest Plan standards and guidelines

and provide more specific direction. 

The question has been brought up, how do we know the BMPs are effective or work? 

The Black Hills National Forest completed a Forest Plan BMP Evaluation (USDA Forest 

Service, 2003a). Two studies done on the Black Hills National Forest by the Black Hills 

Forest Resource Association, 2001 and Wyoming Timber Industry Association, 2001, 

reviewed BMP effectiveness. The conclusion is “These results highlight the consistent 

application and effectiveness of BMPs in the Black Hills and other National Forests” 

(USDA Forest Service, 2003a). The evaluation goes on to review other studies or reports 

and comes to the conclusion that “These studies highlight the effectiveness of BMPs in 

forests throughout the United States” (USDA Forest Service, 2003a). This evaluation 

shows that BMPs are effective. Since this evaluation has been completed field audits 

were completed in 2004 and 2009 in SD (Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 2004, 

2009). Results showed application of BMPs were 92% in 2004, 95% in 2009, compared 

to 82% in 2001 and effectiveness of the BMPs was 95% in 2004, 95% in 2009, compared 

to 84% in 2001. This additional information shows the continued application and 

effectiveness of BMPs in SD. “The audit results from 2001, 2004 and 2009 have 

established a positive trend of on the ground BMP improvement” (Black Hills Forest 

Resource Association, 2009).

Additional BMP/WCP monitoring was completed on the Hell Canyon Ranger District, 

for 2002 through 2010. A summary report and subsequent yearly reports show that the 

BMP/WCP are being implemented and are effective and states, “Logging practices on the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District have not had any negative impact on the watershed and 

streams and that they do comply with the requirements of the CWA” (USDA Forest 

Service, 2008, 2009 & 2010).

The Vestal project would have WCPs and BMPs prescribed and implemented. This 

would protect the water quality of the streams and creeks in the project area and the 

activities that are planned would meet the requirements of the CWA.

Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA, Section 101). 

Please refer to the Silviculture and Soils sections in Chapter 3 for discussions related to 

short-term uses and long-term productivity. The proposed actions in this project include 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

146

design criteria (see Appendix B) to protect soil productivity. These short-term actions 

would generally not damage or diminish long-term resource productivity. 

As provided for by the Forest Plan, minimum management requirements guide 

implementation of the action alternative. 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 the action alternative. For further discussion of the effects on the 

resources listed below, see Chapter 3 under the respective resource topics. 

Forest Insect and Disease – will continue in the project area, at epidemic levels in some 

areas, and endemic levels in others. 

Wildlife Habitat – for certain species may be adversely affected to varying levels with 

implementation of the action alternatives. The Wildlife section of this EIS discloses 

those effects. 

Air Quality – may be adversely affected on a temporary/seasonal basis as a result of 

planned prescribed burning and dust from roads and activities.

Scenic Quality – may be affected adversely for some observers by the various levels of 

vegetation treatment and other actions planned. 

Fire/Fuels Hazard – may be increased during the short-term in some areas as 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 1 versus Alternative 2. 

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. 

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 a temporary loss of timber productivity in 

forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or a road. For 

further discussion of the effects on resources, see the respective resource topics. 

There are no irreversible commitments of resources with any of the alternatives 

analyzed. 

There are no irretrievable commitments of resources under any alternative. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3

147

Environmental Justice

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

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

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

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. 

In Phase II FEIS, Tables 3-59 and 3-60 highlight the demographic statistics for 

identifying potential communities of concern (USDA Forest Service 2005). None of the 

counties in the study area contain low-income or minority populations as defined by 

Executive Order 12898. No additional outreach or analysis has been performed, as there 

would be no disproportionate negative effects on such communities under any of the 

alternatives. 

Additional evaluation of minority and low-income population data (USDA Forest Service 

2009c) show no evidence to suggest that the proposed action would have a 

disproportionate adverse effect on low-income populations. Evaluations also show that 

minority populations for the county in the study area are unlikely to meet the 

Environmental Justice criterion for a minority population and would be unlikely to 

experience disproportionate adverse effects from implementation of any alternative. 

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with...other 

environmental review laws and executive orders.”

The project does not involve impounding or diverting water, or adverse impacts to 

threatened or endangered species, therefore, formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not required. 

No ground disturbing actions would occur in known elgible historical places. Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act has been conducted as required and the 

State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with a finding of no impact to eligible 

historic or prehistoric sites. 

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations. The agency recognizes that climate change is an important emerging issue. 

To help guide agency actions in addressing this challenge, the Forest Service has 

developed the Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change (USDA Forest 

Service 2008c). One of the stated goals in this framework is to Promote the management 

of forests and grasslands to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gasses, while sustaining 

the multiple benefits and services of these ecosystems. This project contributes toward 

meeting the agency’s goal of mitigating the buildup of greenhouse gasses by managing 

the forest landscape within the project area so that it is more resilient to deforestation or 

catastrophic loss. Thereby maintaining or increasing its ability to sequester carbon. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

148

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this 

environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members:

Lynn Kolund District Ranger – Bachelor of Science, Forest Biology, 

Colorado State University, 1978. Thirty-one years of Forest 

Service experience in timber, silviculture, recreation, 

wilderness, fire and lands. Worked on seven districts and two 

Supervisor’s offices on six National Forests in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Alaska and South Dakota.

Kelly Honors District NEPA Coordinator – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, 

State University of New York, College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry, 1985. Twenty six years of Forest 

Service experience at the district level in timber and planning; 

twenty-three of those years on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Twenty-two years experience in writing NEPA documents.

Kurt Allen Entomologist – USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection 

– Bachelor of Science, Biology, University of Northern Iowa, 

1988. Master of Science, Forestry and Entomology, Iowa 

State University, 1992. Service Center leader and 

entomologist since 1995. Entomologist, Forest Health 

Protection for the Northeastern Area, Durham, NH, from 1992-

1995. Currently conduct applied research and use developing 

technologies to find answer to forest management/forest insect 

issues. Supervise Forest Health Management staff. 

Don Boone Silviculturist – Bachelor of Science, Forest Science, University 

of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979. Twenty-eight years of Forest 

Service experience as a Forestry Technician, Pre-Sale Forester, 

and Silviculturist on the Routt and Black Hills National 

Forests. Six years experience with the South Dakota Division 

of Forestry and two years experience with Custer State Park, 

South Dakota. 

Gwen Lipp Fire/Fuels Planner – Bachelor of Science, Environmental 

Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 

2004. Ten years of Forest Service experience at the district 

and national level in fire operations, fuels, timber, prescribed 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

149

fire and planning. Current qualifications include: Incident 

Commander Type 4, Dozer Boss, Engine Boss, Prescribed Fire 

Effects Monitor, Prescribed Fire Ignition Specialist, Resource 

Unit Leader, Situation Unit Leader, Task Force Leader trainee, 

Burn Boss Type 2 trainee and Planning Section Chief trainee.

Jamie Wheeler Wildlife Biologist – Bachelor of Science, Biology, St. Norbert 

College, DePere, WI, 1999. Master of Science, Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, 

SD, 2007. Worked from 2005-2007 at Wind Cave National 

Park as a wildlife SCEP (Student Career Experience Program) 

student. Three years of Forest Service experience at the 

district level as a wildlife biologist. 

Steve Hirtzel Fisheries Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Wildlife & 

Fisheries Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, 

SD. Twenty-one years of experience in research, regulatory 

and management programs with various federal agencies, the 

past seven years on the Black Hills National Forest. 

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. Red-carded 

firefighter, FFT2. BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) 

Team Leader and RAT (Rapid Assessment Team) team 

experience. 

Lucas Bindel Rangeland Management Specialist – Bachelor of Science –

Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management; MinorReclamation and Restoration Ecology. University of 

Wyoming, 2009. Two years experience as Rangeland 

Management Specialist for Forest Service. 

Matthew Scott Botanist – Bachelor of Science – Rangeland Ecology and 

Watershed Management; Minor, Reclamation and Restoration 

Ecology; Extensive coursework in soils and botanical sciences, 

2006. Three years experience fuels, wildland and prescribed 

fire management. Four years experience as a Natural Resource 

Specialist for Laramie Rivers Conservation District focused in 

rangeland management, vegetation monitoring, and wildlife 

habitat management. Qualified for OPM 430 Series (Botanist) 

in 2010. Six months experience as Botanist on the Black Hills 

National Forest.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

150

Michael Engelhart Archaeologist – Archaeologist- Bachelor of Arts in 

Anthropology from North Dakota State University, 2007. 

Diploma with Honors, Korean, Defense Language Institute, 

2000. Graduate credits in Anthropology from the University of 

Wyoming, 2007-Present. Three years' experience as an 

Archaeological Technician for the Black Hills National Forest, 

2007-2009. Two years experience as an Archaeologist at the 

district level for the Black Hills National Forest, 2009-Present. 

Donald Weiand Civil Engineering Technician – Bachelor of Science in 

Industrial Technology from Black Hills State University, 1996. 

Associate of Science in Drafting from Black Hills State 

University, 1994. Fourteen years of Forest Service experience 

at the district and Forest level in transportation planning, road 

design, contract preparation & administration, and 

environmental analysis. Certified in roads, administration of 

timber sales, and public works under the Forest Service 

National Construction Certification Program. Eighteen years 

as an Army Engineer with experience in route reconnaissance 

and roads planning and road construction operations. 

Corbin Herman Civil Engineering Technician - Two years of Forest Service 

experience at the District and Forest level in transportation 

planning, road design, contract preparation and administration, 

and environmental analysis. Certified in Roads & Aggregate 

Base and Surfacing, Inspector of Timber Sales and Public 

Works under the Forest Service National Construction 

Certification Program. Fire Fighting - Qualified as a 

Firefighter Type 2 and Helicopter Crewmember Trainee. 

Construction Foreman/Supervisor - Two years as Custer 

County Highway Superintendent, two years as Custer City 

Director of Streets, Parks, & Public Buildings, six years as 

heavy Equipment Operator for Custer County Highway 

Department.

Gail Mayer Civil Engineering Technician – Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor 

Recreation from Chadron State College, Chadron, NE, 1992. 

Eight years of experience with the National Forest Service in 

surveying, GPS, road design, and package layout. Two years 

experience with Federal Highway Administration in road 

construction inspection and materials testing. One year 

experience with the Wyoming Department of Transportation in 

surveying and materials testing.

Dave Pickford Recreation – Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor Recreation from 

Eastern Washington University, 1984. Eighteen years of 

Forest Service experience as the District level in timber, 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

151

firefighting, trails, recreation and wilderness on the Ottawa and 

Black Hills National Forests. USFS, NPS and USFWS field 

experience in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, UP 

Michigan as well as NH State Parks. Former USAF Survival 

Specialist and USAF (civilian) Outdoor Adventure Program 

Staff.

Meagan Buehler Lands Specialists – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, minor in 

Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of MassachusettsAmherst, 1997. Eleven years experience with the Forest 

Service at the district level for the Black Hills National Forest 

currently as District Lands Specialist. One season experience 

with the BLM in Oregon as a forester-stand exams and timber 

sale preparation.

Gary Haag Geologist/Minerals Specialist: Bachelor of Arts, Geology, 

Rutgers University, 1979 & Master of Science, Geology, 

Rutgers University, 1982. New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 1884-1989, ground water discharge 

permit program. South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources 1989-2010, ground water discharge 

permit program. February 2010 to present on BHNF-Hell 

Canyon Ranger District as a geologist working on locatable 

and mineral material projects and mineral potential reports for 

mineral withdrawals and timber sales.

Patrick Morton Geologist/Minerals SCEP – Bachelor of Science, Geology, 

Towson University, 2003 & Master of Science, Geology, 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 2011. June 

2010 to Present on BHNF as a SCEP geologist/geologist 

working on locatable and mineral material projects and mineral 

potential reports for mineral withdrawals and timber sales.

Stephen Keegan Forest Landscape Architect - Bachelor of Science, Landscape 

Architecture & 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. Twenty-eight years of Forest 

Service experience at the Forest and Zone level on the Helena, 

Clearwater, Malheur & Black Hills National Forests. Of which 

twenty-one years have been as a Landscape Architect 

conducting Scenic Resource Assessments for: vegetation and 

fuels management, watershed analysis, utility & facility 

construction, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways, and burned 

area emergency rehabilitation.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

152

Margaret Farrell GIS/Database Management Specialist – Bachelor of Science, 

Geology, University of Wyoming, 1985. Eighteen years of 

Forest Service experience in database management, including 

fourteen years experience in ESRI GIS products.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:

City of Custer

Mayor Gary Lipp

Custer Rotary

Custer Chamber of Commerce

Dave Ressler

Hill City Chamber of Commerce

Keystone Chamber of Commerce

Custer County Commissioners

Custer County Conservation District

Custer County Emergency Management

Mike Carter

Custer State Park

Gary Brundige

South Dakota Division of Forestry

Dave Hettick

Jim Strain

South Dakota Division of Wildland Fire Suppression

Andy Tate

South Dakota State Department of Game, Fish, and Parks

Shelly Deisch

Shannon Percy

South Dakota Department of Transportation

Craig McIntyre

The Honorable John Thune, United States Senate

The Honorable Tim Johnson, United States Senate

The Honorable Kristi Noem, House of Representatives

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard, South Dakota Governor’s Office

Mount Rushmore National Monument

Bruce Weisman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Svoboda
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

153

Tribes:

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

Eastern Shoshone Tribe

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor for 

Preservation

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation

Northern Arapaho Tribe

Northern Cheyenne Tribe

Oglala Sioux Tribe

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Santee Sioux Nation

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

Yankton Sioux Tribe

Organizations, Groups, and Businesses:

Azela Holding Co.

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

John Persell

Black Hills Electric Cooperative

Black Hills Forest Resource Association

Tom Troxel

Carson Engleskirger

Black Hills Power and Light

Bland Road Association

Georgia Holmes

Broken Arrow Campground

Brown/Conn/Lane Subdivision 

Homeowners Association

Buttercup Holding Co.

Carnation Holding Co.

Custer’s Camp Properties

Raymond & Elaine Zobel

Custer Volunteer Fire Department

Chief Joel Behlings

Crazy Horse Memorial

Ruth Ziolkowski

Emerald and Ruby Road District

Verl Scheibe

Friends of the Norbeck

Brian Brademeyer

Golden West Communications

Lilac Holding Co.

Lutherans Outdoors

Molly Sasser-Goehner

Marigold Holding Co.

Mineral Tech Corporation

Native Ecosystems Council

Sara Jane Johnson

National Outdoor Leadership School

Andy Blair

Outlaw Ranch

Pacer Corporation

Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Nancy Hilding

Rosemary Holding Co.

Rushmore Forest Products

Dan Buehler

Save Our Black Hills Coalition

Darcie Henegar

Sierra Club – Black Hills Group

Jim Margadant

Spearfish Forest Products

Paul Pierson

Western 4H Camp Association

Leo Orme

Wildflower Holding Co.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4

154

Others:

Baker, Virgil

Ballard, Russ & Ellen

Blumenthal, Kinta

Bowman, Virgil & Kathryn

Brunner, James

Busskohl, Bill

Cambier, Larry & Nancy

Conn, Herb & Jan

Crayden, Terry

Dean, James

Dean, Jeremy

Dillon, Patrick

Doughty, Kent & Rita

Eich, Roger & Marletta

Ellerton, Terry & Vera

Fagnan, Brian

Fagnan, Mary & Robert

Filley, Archie

Fiveash, Monica

Gerstner, Karen

Gilg, Tim

Goodwin, Andy

Gordon, Richard

c/o Cherly Warren

Gladys Raver Family Partnership

c/o Lawana Gramm

Griffin, Steve & Nancy

Grimes, Jim & Ingrid

Gutzmer, Wallace

Hamm, Melissa & Mike

Hansen, Gary

Howard, Jim

Killman, Melvin

Knuckles, Dennis & Penny

Larson, Robert

Laverick, Jim & Carol

Lewison, Matthew & Ellen

Loomis, Tom

Manlove, Steven

Maude, Martin & Jinx

Mortenson, Jeffery

Mumm, Clifford

Noonan, Matthew

O’Brien, Dan

Paulsen, Gladwin & Juanice

Paulsen, Mitchell

Reindl, Kevin & Denise

Roinstad, Lori

Sander, Timothy

Stumpf, Richard

Uhlmann, Van

Van Asperen, Curtis

Van Loenen, Gordon & Sandra

Vanderploeg, Marty

Velder, Daniel, Gary & Linda

Wahle, Catherine

Wearne, Brent

White, Brent & Karen

Wong, Vernon & Jody

Wood, Leonard & Oonagh

Young, Priscilla

Ziolkowski, Casimir & Deiadra

Ziolkowski, John
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

155

CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED and GLOSSARY

Literature Cited

Allen, Kurt K. 2011. Memo to Black Hills National Forest Supervisor Regarding 

Consequences of the No Action in the Vestal Area. July 1, 2011.

Allen Kurt K. 2011a. Personal Communication, 07/28/2011.

Allen Kurt K. 2011b. Report to Black Hills National Forest Supervisor Regarding 

Mountain Pine Beetle Conditions in the Vestal Area. March 25, 2011. 

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012057.pdf.

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment of woodpeckers in the Black Hills

National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 176 pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012579.pdf.

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring the Birds 

of the Black Hills: 2005 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH05-01. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 113 pp.

Beauvais, G. P. 2001. Preble’s Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Wyoming:

Status report, July 2001. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural

Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming.

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf.

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf.

Benzon, T. A., and L. A. Rice. 1987. Rocky mountain goat population status in the Black Hills, 

South Dakota, 1983-1987. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Completion report. 

Study # 7527. 100 p.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

156

Bildstein, K.L., and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). No. 482, 

In: The Birds of North America. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Bolen, E. G., and W. L. Robinson. 2003. Wildlife ecology and management. 5th edition.

woodpeckers in forests with mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Black Hills, 

South Dakota. The Condor 110: 450-457.

Bonnot, T.W., M.A. Rumble, and J.J. Millspaugh. 2008. Nest Success of black-backed

woodpeckers in forests with mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the Black Hills, 

South Dakota. The Condor 110: 450-457.

Bosakowski, T., and D. G. Smith. 2002. Raptors of the Pacific Northwest. Frank Amato 

Publications, Inc. Portland, Oregon.

Buskirk, S.W. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the American Marten in the Black

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

51 pp.

Cannings, R. J. 1993. Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). In: The Birds of North 

America, No. 42. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc.,

Philadelphia.

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of Natural 

History. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 314 pp.

Cotton, C. L., and K. L. Parker. 2000. Winter habitat and nest trees used by northern flying 

squirrels in subboreal forests. Journal of Mammalogy. 81(4):1071-1086.

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica. 3:43-52.

Cryan, P.M., M.A. Bogan, R.O. Rye, G.P. Landis, and C.L. Kester. 2004. Stable 

hydrogen isotope analysis of bat hair as evidence for seasonal molt and longdistance migration. Journal of Mammalogy 85:995-1001.

Cryan, P., and L. E. Ellison. 2005. Distributional survey of the meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius) in the Northern Great Plains: trapping report, summer 2005. 

Progress Report, compiled for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, 

Denver, Colorado. September, 2005.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and 

rangeland birds of the United States, Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA 

Forest Service-Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp.

DePerno, C. S., J. A. Jenks, S. L. Griffin, and L. A. Rice and K. F. Higgens. 2002.

White-tailed deer habitats in the central Black Hills. Journal of Range

Management 55:242-252.

Drilling, Nancy E. 2010. 2009 Black Hills owl surveys. Technical Report M-SDBBA2-

03. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 13 pp.

Duckwitz, J.J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Masters 

Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings. 95 p.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

157

Evermann, B.W. and U.O. Cox. 1896. A report upon the fishes of the Missouri River 

basin. Report to the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries 20(1894):325-429.

Farrar, Don. 2004. Personal communication with Deanna Reyher. Professor of Botany, 

Iowa State University, expert in Botrychium systematics. January 20, 2004.

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003. 2003 survey results for small forest owls, the 

northern goshawk and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. 

Report prepared for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota.

Fecske, D.M., J.A. Jenks, and V.J. Smith. 2002. Field evaluation of a habitat- relation

model for the American marten. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:775-782.

Fecske, D.M., and J.A. Jenks. 2002. The American Marten: Historic Black Hills 

Creature Brought Back to Life. South Dakota Conservation Digest May/June:18-

19.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1998. National Flood Insurance 

Program, Q3 Flood Data. GIS data on CD-ROM for South Dakota. Online: 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dfm_ptd.shtm.

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.

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. USDA Forest 

Service. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 127 pp.

Frison, George C. 1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New 

York.

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation assessment of the pygmy nuthatch in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/pygmy_nuthatch

.pdf .

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, 81 pp.

Goodman, Ronald. 1992. Lakota Star Knowledge: Studies in Lakota stellar theology. 

Second ed. Siŋte Gleska University, Mission, South Dakota.

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, Theresa B. Jain. 2004 Science basis for changing 

forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. [Online]

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr120.pdf .

Gruver, J.C., and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

158

Mountain Region. [Online] Accessed December 12, 2009.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

Hann, Wendel, D. Havlina, A. Shlisky, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature 

Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest Service, US 

Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for 

Environmental Management. [Online]

http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=309&&PageID=1397&

mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true .

Hejl, S. J., K. R. Newton, M. E. McFadzen, J. S. Young, and C. K. Ghalambor. 2002. Brown 

creeper (Certhia americana). In: The Birds of North America, No. 669. A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Higgins, K.F., E.D. Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of 

South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South 

Dakota. 278 pp.

Hough, M. J. 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. Thesis, masters of Science, 

Biological sciences, South Dakota State University. 128p.

Huxoll, C. 2010. 2009 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota 

Game Report No, 2010-01. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, 

South Dakota. 83 pp.

Huxoll, C. 2011. Big game harvest projections. 2010 Annual Report. South Dakota

game report, no. 2011-05. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South 

Dakota. 81 p. [Online]

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/harvest/reports/2010BGsummary.pdf.

Isaak, D. J., W. A. Hubert, and 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. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 64 pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012156.pdf.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America. Smithsonian

Institute Press, Washington D. C. 403 pp.

Johnson, A.S., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern sawwhet owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 27pp. Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_saw_w

het_owl.pdf . 

Joy, S. M. 1990. Feeding ecology of sharp-shinned hawks and nest-site characteristics of

accipiters in Colorado. Masters Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A Technical Conservation

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, 

Colorado. 63 pp.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

159

Kennedy. P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus ): a technical

conservation assessment. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

[Online] Accessed January 2, 2003. www.fs.fed.us/Region 

2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf

Kingery, H. E., and C. K. Ghalambor. 2001. Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). In: the birds of 

North America, No. 567. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Kota, Andrew and Dale Bartos. 2005. Protecting aspen regeneration from ungulate 

utilization in the Black Hills. Masters Thesis. Logan, Utah: Utah State 

University. 

Langowski, Paul. 2006. Mountain pine beetle and fuels profiles interaction. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, SPF-Fire and Aviation Management 

Breifing Paper.

Luce, G., B. Oakleaf, A. Cerovski, L. Hunter, and J. Priday. 1997. Atlas of Birds,

Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game & Fish

Department, Lander, Wyoming. 192 pp.

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, Wyoming.

Marrone, G.M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 478 pp.

McCallum, D.A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owl. Pages 14-46 

in Hayward G.D. and J. Verner technical editors. Flammulated, boreal, and great 

gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-253. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 214 pp. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[webapplication]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. [Online] 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . (Accessed August 11, 2010).

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [Online] 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: August 24, 2011).

Nekola, J. C. 2003. Large-scale terrestrial gastropod community composition patterns in

the Great Lakes region of North America. Diversity and Distributions 9: 55-71.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2001. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 1. Final Report. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, Colorado. 96 pp.

Panjabi, Arvind. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 2. Final Report. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Fort Collins, Colorado. 125 pp.

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 4. Annual Report 

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, Colorado. 67 pp.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

160

Parrish, J.B.; Herman, D.J.; Reyher, D. J. 1996. A century of change in Black Hills forest 

and riparian ecosystems. B 722. Brookings, SD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Agriculture Experiment Station, South Dakota State University. 

20 p.

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center web home 

page. Jamestown, North Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/sdatlas/sdatlas.htm.

Platt, J.B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. Condor. 78:102-

103.

Powder River Eagle Studies. 2000. Northern Black Hills broad-winged hawk occurrence 

and distribution study. Phase Two Conclusion: Nest Search & Summary of Nest 

Site Characteristics. Submitted to: Wharf Resources Partnership, HC 37, Box 

811, Lead, South Dakota.

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.

Reiser, J. M., and S. M. Spomer. 2005. Survey for additional colonies of the endemic

Black Hills Atlantis fritillary butterfly, Speyeria atlantis pahasapa. Report to the

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Wildlife Diversity Small Grants Program,

Pierre, South Dakota. 15pp.

Reynolds, E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiter in

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46:124-138.

Reynolds, R. T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter 

hawks. General Technical Report RM-102. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Richardson, A. H. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Bulletin Number 2. 24 pp.

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest 

Cultural Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office.

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary 

(Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Rep. to the U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp.

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic management 

direction on the Black Hills National Forest. Science Application International 

Corporation. SAIC project number 01-0209-04-4456-106.

Schmid, J.M, S.A. Mata, and W.C. Schaupp Jr. 2009. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees 

as snags in the Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Unpublished Research Note. 

Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

161

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_myotis.

pdf . 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_footed_ba

t.pdf .

Schmidt, C.A. 2003c. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_ear_bat.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

Online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_legged_bat.

pdf .

Sedgwick, J.A. 2006. Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius americanus): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. [Online]

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf [January 24, 

2007]

SD DENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2010. 

The 2010 South Dakota integrated report for surface water quality assessment. 

272 p. Online: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx . 

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2009. Stream Fisheries Database. May 

11, 2009

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2011a. Eagle Awareness; Where to See 

Eagles in South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Home Page.

[Online] http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awarenessdays/range.aspx.

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2011b. Eagle Awareness; Midwinter 

Survey Results. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Home Page. [Online]

http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awareness-days/midwinter.aspx.

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2011c. South Dakota Snakes: Redbelly 

Snake. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Home Page. [Online] 

http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/critters/amphibians-reptiles/snakes/bLack-hills-redbellysnake.aspx.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

162

SDNHP (South Dakota Natural Heritage Program). 2007. Rare, threatened or 

endangered animals tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. [Online] 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm#BIRDS.

Shearer, J. 2006. 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, Forest Fisheries Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, SD regarding the spawning period for mountain suckers in the Black 

Hills.

Sheppard, Wayne D. and Michael A. Battaglia. 2002. Ecology, silviculture, and 

management of Black Hills ponderosa pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 112p.

Shump Jr., K.A. and A.U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus cinereus. Mammalian Species 185:1-5.

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a technical

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

[Online]. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf.

Stefanich, M.R. 1995. Movements and habitat use of whitetail deer in the northwestern 

Black Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota. Masters thesis, University of 

Wyoming, Laramie. 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black 

Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. 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. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012178.pdf.

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the broad- winged hawk 

in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012127.pdf.

Stewart, R.K. and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and Lake Inventory and Classification in

the Black Hills of South Dakota, 1964. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks. 101 pp.

Sundstrom, Linea. 1989. Culture history of the Black Hills with reference to adjacent 

areas of the Northern Great Plains. J & L Reprint Company, Lincoln, NE.

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. Third 

Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 441 pp.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

163

Tigner, J. and E. Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills: A description of status and 

conservation needs. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks Wildlife 

Division Report 2003-05. 94 pp.

Tronstad, L.M. and M.D. Andersen. 2011. Monitoring rare land snails in the Black Hills 

National Forest. Report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database,

Laramie, Wyoming for the Black Hills National Forest Service, Custer, South 

Dakota. February 2011.

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.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land 

and resources management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. US 

Departmnet of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota. December 1996. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Black Hills National Forest, Forest Plan Best 

Management Practices Evaluation. Custer, SD.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Black Hills National Forest 2002 monitoring and five-year 

evaluation report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final environmental impact statement for the phase II 

amendment to the 1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. October 2005. [Online]

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011678.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. FY2004 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

[Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337945.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. FY2005 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. 

 of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

[Online] http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011879.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service handbook, Region 2 supplement, 2509.25 –

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Ft. 

Collins, Colorado. 58 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. US Dept. pf 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

May 2007. [Online]

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012248.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2008. FY2007 monitoring and evaluation report. USDA Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 148pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5112254.pdf
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

164

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Guide. [Online] 

http://www.nwcg.gov/branches/ppm/fpc/archives/fire_policy/rx/rxfireguide.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to 

Climate Change. Version 1.0.2008. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climatechange-1-0.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009. FY2008 monitoring and evaluation report. USDA Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 130pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5112255.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Supplementary Specialist Report – Social and Economics 

Effects: Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. FY2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. US 

Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

SD. September 2010. [Online] 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5262950.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual, Black Hills National Forest. FSM 

2600 – wildife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 20 – habitat 

planning and evaluation. Supplement number: r2_bh_2600-2011-1. [Online] 

http://fsweb.blackhills.r2.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsm2000.shtml

USFWS (U.S. 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, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011a. Federal Endangered and Threatened 

Species List by County for South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South 

Dakota Ecological Services Field Office Home Page. [Online]

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/SpeciesByCounty.pdf.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011b. Species Account - Black-footed Ferret. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office 

Home Page. [Online] http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/b-fferret.htm.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011c. Species Account - Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field 

Office Home Page. [Online] http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/btpd.htm.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011d. Species Account – Bald Eagle. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office Home 

Page. [Online] http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/EAGLE.HTM.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011e. Species Account – Sprague’s Pipit. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office 

Home Page. [Online] http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/spraguespipit/
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

165

Valdez, E.W. and P.M. Cryan. 2009. Food habits of the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

during spring migration through New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 54:195-

200.

Vonhof, M.J., and R.M. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western 

long-eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):674-684.

Wells-Gosling, N., and L.R. Heaney. 1984. Glaucomys sabrinus. Mammalian species 

no. 229, The American Society of Mammalogists.

Whitaker, J.O. Jr. 1972. Zapus hudsonius. Mammalian species no. 11. The American 

Society of Mammalogists.

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Brown Creeper (Certhia Americana): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf.

WYNDD (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database). 2002. Species abstracts, element 

occurrence records and township/range list. Species of Special Concern, Black 

Hills National Forest. June 2002.

Glossary

Activity Fuels 

Fuels resulting from or altered by mechanical treatments, such as tiimber harvest 

or thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels. 

Age Class 

Groups of trees approximately the same age. 

Allotment 

A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified 

number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment management 

plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range resource 

on National Forest lands. 

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. 

Arterial Road 

Provides service to large land areas and usually connects with public highways or 

other Forest arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary travel routes. 

The location and standard are often determined by a demand for maximum 

mobility and travel efficiency rather than specific resource management service. 

It is usually developed and operated for long-term land and resource management 

purposes and constant service. 

At-Risk-Community (ARC)
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

166

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 event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property 

exists as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.” 

Available Fuel 

The total mass of ground, surface and canopy fuel per unit area consumed by a 

fire, including fuels consumed in postfrontal combustion of duff, organic soils, 

and large woody fuels.

Basal Area 

The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured at 4 feet 6 inches from the 

ground. The area is expressed in square feet per acre.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Are methods, measures, or practices selected by an agency to meet its nonpoint 

source control needs. BMPs include but are not limited to structural and 

nonstructural controls, and operation and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be 

applied before, during and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or 

eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CRF 130.2(m)). 

An agreement between the USFS and the State of South Dakota stipulates that 

USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be used above 

and beyond South Dakota BMPs to comply with state and federal water quality 

regulations related to the Clean Water Act. 

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 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. 

BMPs 

(See "Best Management Practices.")

Board Foot 

Timber measurement equaling the amount of wood contained in a board one-inch 

thick, 12-inches long, and 12-inches wide.

Broadcast Burning 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

167

A management ignited fire, allowed to burn under specific conditions 

(prescriptions) and within established boundaries to achieve some landmanagement objective.

Browse 

Twigs, leaves and young shoots of trees and shrubs on which animals feed. 

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 Fuels

The live and dead foliage, live and dead branches, and lichen of trees and tall 

shrubs that lie above the surface fuels. (See also Available Canopy Fuel)

Clearcut 

The harvesting (removal) in one cut of all trees in an area. The area harvested 

may be a patch (zero-to-ten acres), stand (not more than 40 acrea), or strip.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD)

Woody material greater than 3 inches in diameter, that is derived from tree limbs, 

boles, and roots (excluding stumps) in various stages of decay. 

Collector Road

Serves smaller land areas than a Forest arterial road and is usually connected to a 

Forest arterial or public highway. Collects traffic from Forest local roads and/or 

terminal facilities. The location and standard are influenced by both long-term 

multi-resource service needs, as well as travel efficiency. May be operated for 

either constant or intermittent service depending on land use and resource 

management objectives for the area served by the facility.

CMAI 

(See "Culmination Mean Annual Increment.”)

Compaction 

The packing together of soil particles by forces exerted at the soil surface, 

resulting in increased soil density. 

Conifer 

A group of cone-bearing trees, mostly evergreen, such as the pine and spruce. 

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. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

168

Crown 

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 Fire 

Any fire that burns in canopy fuels.

Crown Fire Hazard 

A physical situation (fuels, weather, and topography) with potential for causing 

harm or damage as a result of crown fire.

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 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.

DBH 

(See "Diameter at Breast Height.”)

Dead Fuels

Fuels with no living tissue within which moisture content is governed almost 

entirely by solar radiation.

Decision Documents 

Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the formulation and 

evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative.

Design Criteria 

Management measures included in the design of a project to avoid or minimize 

potential resource impacts. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) 

The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches from ground level.

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 over time.

Eligible (Heritage Resources)

Indicates a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

169

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.

Ephemeral Streams 

A stream or portion of a stream that has flowing water only in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed or catchment basin), and only 

flows during and for a short duration after the precipitation event. Runoff from 

rainfall or snowmelt is the primary source of water for stream flow. Groundwater 

is not a source of water for the stream and thus the stream bed is at all times above 

the water table. 

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 from off-road and off-trail disturbance activities that 

remove most or all of the protective ground cover and expose the soil surface. 

Erosion hazard ratings are developed by the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS) based on forest soil properties. 

Fire Hazard

A fuel complex, defined by volume, type, condition, arrangement and location, 

that determines the ease of ignition and the resistance to control. 

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 Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

A tool developed to evaluate current against natural landscape characteristics with 

respect to vegetation-fuel composition and structure, fire frequency, fire severity, 

and other disturbances. Fire Regime Condition Class characterizes the degree of 

departure from natural fire, vegetation, and fuel regimes.

• Fire Regime Condition Class I - Fire regimes are within natural range, and 

risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes 

(species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within historical 

range.

• Fire Regime Condition Class II - Fire regimes have been moderately altered 

from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or 

more return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered.

• Fire Regime Condition Class III - Fire regimes have been significantly 

altered from their natural range. The risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies 

by several return intervals. Vegetation attributes have been significantly 

altered.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

170

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. 

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.

Floodplain

The lowland and relatively flat areas adjacent to streams and standing bodies of 

water and coastal waters, including debris cones and flood-prone areas of offshore 

islands. 100-year floodplains include, at a minimum, the area subject to a 1% 

chance of flooding in any given year. 

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 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.

Fuel Breaks 

Generally wide strips of land 100-300 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 Complex
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

171

The combination of ground, surface, and canopy fuel strata.

Fuel Loading 

The volume of the available or burnable fuels in a specified area, usually 

expressed in tons per acre.

Fuel Model

A set of surface fuel bed characteristics (load and surface-area-to-volume-ratio by 

size class, heat content, and depth) organized for input to a fire model. Standard 

fuel models (Anderson 1982) have been stylized to represent specific fuel 

conditions. 

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.

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)

Guideline 

Preferred or advisable courses of action; deviations from guidelines are 

permissible, but the responsible official must document the reasons for the 

deviation.

Hardwood 

Pertains to broadleaf trees.

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.

Ignition (Fire Management) 

The initiation of combustion.

Infrastructure 

The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and 

administrative needs.

Insect Epidemic 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

172

High population levels of insect pests that cause substantial injury to plant or 

animal hosts. Used synonymously with “Outbreak”. 

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.

Intermittent Stream

A stream or portion of a stream that flows, in its natural condition, only during 

certain times of the year when ground water provides water for streamflow. 

During dry periods intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from 

rainfall or snowmelt is a supplemental source of flow. 

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.

Late Succession 

Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural features (Mehl,

1992). 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 latesuccessional 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, closedcanopy late-successional ponderosa pine occurs where periodic, low intensity 

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.

Lopping and Scattering 

Lopping logging debris and spreading it more or less evenly on the ground.

Management Indicators Species (MIS)

Plant or animal species 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.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

173

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. 

Mechanical (treatment, activity)

Vegetation management activities which are implemented with the use of 

mechanized equipment (i.e. chainsaws, etc.).

Monitoring 

The sample collection and analysis of information regarding Forest Plan and 

project level management practices to determine how well objectives have been 

met as well as the effects of those management activities on the land and 

environment.

Multi-storied Stands (Vegetation) 

Plant communities having two or more recognizable canopy layers or height 

levels.

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 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 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.

Non-motorized Activities 

Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other non-living 

power source. Non-motorized activities exclude such machines as aircraft, 

hovercraft, motorboats, automobiles, motor bikes, snowmobiles, bulldozers, 

chainsaws, rock drills, and generators.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

174

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.

Outbreak

See insect epidemic. 

Overstory 

The portion of vegetation in a forest forming the uppermost foliage layer.

Perennial Stream

A stream or portion of a stream that has flowing water year-round, during a 

typical year. Groundwater is the primary source sustaining base stream flow, with 

rainfall or snowmelt providing supplemental stream flow. The water table is 

located above the stream bed for most of the year. 

Piling and Burning 

Piling slash resulting from logging and subsequently burning individual piles.

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.

Products Other than Logs (POL)

Products such as posts, poles, and fiber from trees or parts of trees less than 

sawlog size. POL usually includes trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast 

height (DBH) (4.5 feet from ground level) and less than 7.9 inches diameter 

breast (DBH), with tops of trees greater than 4 inches to less than 6 inches in 

diameter.

Prescribed Burning/Fire

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).

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.

Ranger District 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

175

Administrative subdivisions of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger who

reports to the Forest Supervisor.

Raptor Nests 

Any nest of eagles, hawks, falcons, or owls.

Regeneration (Silviculture)

The renewal of vegetation whether by natural or artificial means. Also, the new 

growth itself.

Responsible Official 

The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a specific 

decision.

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.

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.

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 (as 

in site preparation) or to break up compacted soil layers (as during road 

decommissioning or landing rehabilitation). 

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, 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

176

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 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 ,

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.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

177

Sediment 

Displaced soil material suspended in water or that has been deposited in streams 

and lakes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Skid Trail 

Any way, more or less prepared, over which logs are dragged. Any road or trail 

leading from stump to landing.

Skidding 

Moving logs from the stump to a collecting point.

Slash 

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 

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.

Soil Productivity 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

178

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 volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or 

other measures of biomass accumulation.

Standard 

Mandatory courses of action; any deviation from standards requires amendment 

of the LRMP.

Stand 

A community, particulary 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.

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.

Stream Level

A classification of the relative position of streams in a channel network. Firstlevel streams drain into the ocean. Second-level streams are tributaries to the 

first-level streams. For example, the Mississippi is a first-level stream; the 

Missouri is a second-level 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. This stage is dominated 

by grasses and forbs lasting until tree seedlings become established. 

• Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by 

tree seedlings (less than one inch dbh) and shrub species. This stage consists 

of shrubs and seedlings. This stage remains until seedlings reach 1 inch 

diameter at breast height (DBH).

• Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young 

trees 1 to 9 inches dbh, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

179

This stage is subdivided into three canopy closure classes: SS3A Sapling/Pole 

stage with less than 40% canopy cover

o SS3B Sapling/Pole stage with 40-70% canopy cover

o SS3C Sapling/Pole stage greater than 70% canopy cover

• Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than 

structural stage 3. This stage contains trees which are at least 9” DBH. 

o SS4A Mature stage with less than 40% canopy cover

o SS4B Mature stage with 40-70% canopy cover

o SS4C Mature stage greater than 70% canopy cover

• Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This stage is characterized by very 

large trees (16+ inches DBH). Trees are at least 160 years in age. Late 

succession ponderosa pine may occur in dense stands but may also grow in 

the open or in “park-like” stands. 

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) 

The relatively transitory communities that replace one another during 

development toward a potential natural community.

Temporary Roads

A road developed and operated for a limited period of time that will cease to exist 

as a transportation facility after the purpose for which it was constructed is 

completed and the occupied land is reclaimed and managed for natural resource 

purposes.

Thinning 

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.

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.

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 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

180

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.

Understory 

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.

Values, Values at Risk (Fire Management) 

Any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be

jeopardized if a fire occurs. 

Water Influence Zone (WIZ) 

The land next to water bodies where vegetation plays a major role in sustaining 

long-term integrity of aquatic systems. It includes the geomorphic floodplain 

(valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal 

width (from top of each bank) is 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant 

late-seral vegetation, whichever is most. 

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 a drainage basin or catchment.

Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs)

Are stewardship actions based upon scientific principles and legal requirements to 

protect soil, aquatic and riparian resources. Each watershed conservation practice 

consists of a management measure, a set of design criteria used to achieve the 

management measure, and guidance for monitoring and restoration. 

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 firstlevel watershed contains all the drainage area of a first-level stream (See “Stream 

Level.”)

Waters of the United States 

“include essentially all surface waters such as navigable waters and their 

tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these 

waters, and all impoundments of these waters”. “Waters of the United States 

include perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, wetlands, and their tributaries.” 

Refer to 40 CFR 230.3 for the full definition. 

Wetlands 

As defined jointly by the Corps of Engineers (33 CFR 328.3) and Environmental 

Protection Agency (40 CFR 230.3), wetlands are those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 5

181

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands are a 

subset of the “Waters of the United States” subject to regulation under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. 

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. 

Appendix A:

MAPS
Map 1 – Vicinity Map

Map 2 – Vestal Management Areas

Map 3 – Existing Pine Habitat Structural Stages and Other Cover Types

**There is no Map 4

Map 5 – Alt. 2 Pine Habitat Structural Stages and Other Cover Types

Map 6 – Alt. 2 Vegetation Treatments – Tile Key

Tile 1

Tile 2

Tile 3

Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Map 7 – Alt. 2 Fuels Treatments – Tile Key

Tile 1

Tile 2

Tile 3

Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Map 8 – Roads

Map 9 – Streams

Map 10A – Permits

Map 10B – Permits 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-1
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-2
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-3
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-4
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-5
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-6
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-7
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-8
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-9
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-10
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-11
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-12
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-13
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-14
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-15
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-16
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-17
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-18
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-19
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-20
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-21
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-22
Appendix B:

DESIGN CRITERIA

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-1

Introduction

The following design criteria are listed by resource area and do not suggest any particular 

order of priority. All activities proposed in this project would require implementation of 

these design criteria.

Heritage

 All eligible and unevaluated sites would be avoided during project activities. 

There are 22 known cultural resources either determined eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places or unevaluated.

 If during the course of any ground disturbance related to this project, any bones, 

artifacts, foundations, or other indications of past human occupation of the area 

are uncovered, all operations will cease within a 100-meter radius of the site 

location and a District Archaeologist notified immediately. The SHPO and 

regional THPOs will be notified of the discovery and provided an opportunity to 

comment. Any cultural resources located during project implementation will be 

protected based on the recommendations of the District Archaeologist and the 

SHPO.

 Vegetation Treatments: the following design criteria must be implemented to 

protect the known sites in the project area from adverse effects of mechanical 

treatments.

o All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted for avoidance.

o No burn piles will be placed within the boundaries of eligible or 

unevaluated sites.

o All vehicles, timber harvesting equipment, or other machinery must not be 

stored or parked within the boundaries of the above eligible or 

unevaluated sites. Vehicles would be confined to existing and marked 

Forest Service roads if and when traversing through cultural resources, 

unless travel through site boundaries is specifically not allowed as stated 

in the site specific recommendations. 

o No road maintenance, blading or modification of roads through eligible 

and unevaluated sites will be conducted without the specified clearance 

and on-site presence of a district archaeologist.

 Prescribed Fire Treatments: the following design criteria, developed through 

scientific studies of fire effects on cultural resources must be implemented to 

protect the known sites in the project area from the adverse effects of prescribed 

fire (USDA, 2003).

o All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted. In some cases, burning 

through sites may be allowed, but specified features must be avoided by 

ground disturbing effects (e.g. road cuts, dozer lines, handlines, staging 

areas, and mop-up).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-2

o Wetline through cultural resources instead of using ground disturbing 

handlines.

o Fire retardant possesses a risk of damaging archaeological sites and is not 

allowed within site boundaries.

o Fire is allowed within the site boundaries of cultural resources provided 

that the following on-site fire behavior criteria are met: There are 7 

known sites that will burn under 400°C < 1 hour without any preparation 

and may be burned through. There are 17 cultural resource sites that 

contain material which is easily destroyed by fire or would burn greater 

than 400° > 1 hour, and where preparation is not feasible due to the 

amount of fuel loading. These 15 sites cannot be burned through and 

must be avoided during implementation of all prescribed burning. Consult 

with heritage resource specialist prior to any burning.

Fire/Fuels

 All prescribed burn treatments would meet with the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. District personnel would monitor burn conditions, and the SASEM (Smoke 

Model) or equivalent program would be used to assure provisions are met. The 

impacts of burning on metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at 

the time of burning.

Smoke impacts would be minimized utilizing the following design criteria and are 

incorporated into the burn plan as appropriate:

o Limit treatment area size.

o Specify wind directions and speed.

o Specify minimum mixing heights to ensure dispersal of emissions.

o Stagger ignitions.

 Re-vegetation of prescribed burned areas would be promoted by:

o Following broadcast burning, seed to initiate re-vegetation if ground cover 

is 60 percent or less and slopes are 30 percent or more.

o If piled and burned fuel creates ash piles deeper than three inches, scatter 

the ash, scarify and mix it with mineral soil, or bury it. Guideline 4106

 Prescribed burn plans would identify acceptable levels of tree mortality for 

seedlings/saplings, poles and sawtimber; burning prescriptions will be estimated 

to meet these levels. Guideline 4108

 Prescribed burning shall be delayed until the MPB epidemic has passed through 

the proposed burn areas. 

 Activity fuels would be treated along forest collector roads and forest 

development trails to meet the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO). Along 

arterial roads, remove 70-90 percent of activity fuels up to 300 feet from roads 

edge. Debris piles would be burned as soon as practical after remaining on-site 

for at least 2 years. Where mechanical treatment and prescribed burning is 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-3

proposed within the same site, mechanical treatments would be completed prior to 

burning.

 Prescribed burning would be conducted in the fall in sites 30503-4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 21 

and 23 which are those used by Rockin-R-Rides for their one hour ride. 

 Prescribed burning within site 030309-13, allow only 5% mortality in 

regeneration to provide for big game screening cover.

 Where Variable Density Thinning (VDT) or Free Selection (FS) is proposed 

adjacent to private lands, the target basal area within 300 feet of the private land 

boundary will be 50ft2 / acre.

 Prescribed burning would be done following mechanical treatments in forested 

stands. 

 Reduce or otherwise treat all fuels adjacent to non-forest lands so the potential 

fireline intensity does not exceed 200 BTUs/second/foot on 90 percent of the days 

when fires occur, or break up continuous fuel concentrations exceeding the above 

intensity into units 30-40 acres maximum size, surrounded by fuel breaks.

Slash Treatments

 Slash piles that are scheduled for burning should be located outside of meadows 

that contribute to Waters of the United States. Use a buffer distance designed to 

keep sediment, ash and debris out of channels. Guideline 4111

 Whole Tree yarding is required: 

o Where Rx burning is planned in timber stands (not meadows)

o Adjacent to private lands

 Whole Tree yarding is prohibited: 

o Meadows proposed for Rx burning.

o Within Variable Density Thinning areas not adjacent to private land

 Lop and scatter slash in sites or portions of sites identified in the Wildlife section 

of this Appendix, see Table B-1.

Botany/Rangeland/Weeds

 Follow all Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines relating to rangeland 

resources, flora species, weed control, and re-vegetation. 

 Monitoring and surveying for SOLC and state listed plant species would be 

ongoing. Management of any new occurrences of SOLC would be considered if 

either alternative is chosen.

 Where ground-disturbing activities occur in areas infested with weeds, weeds 

would be treated prior to project implementation, where feasible, to reduce future 

spread and establishment of noxious weeds.

 Contracts and permits issued as part of this project would include measures to 

limit spread of noxious weeds. Where proposed activities would occur in areas 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-4

infested with noxious weeds and considered to be at high risk for spread, off-road 

equipment associated with the activity will be cleaned before leaving the area to 

prevent spread of weeds to adjacent NFS and private lands. Known areas meeting 

these criteria will be identified by District staff before commencement of any 

timber sale contract associated with this project. Known weed infestations will be 

displayed on the timber sale map.

 Review of the area for noxious weed infestations would continue during 

management activities. If new noxious weed infestations that could be spread by 

management activities are found during implementation, actions to minimize 

spread would be taken.

 Disturbed soil would be re-vegetated in a manner that optimizes plant 

establishment for that specific site. Re-vegetation may include topsoil 

replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and placement of weed-free 

mulch as necessary. Re-vegetation would be initiated as soon as possible, 

generally not to exceed 6 months, after termination of ground-disturbing 

activities. All disturbed soils would be re-vegetated with native species when 

available, using seed mixtures free of noxious weeds. On areas needing the 

immediate establishment of vegetation, non-native, non-aggressive annual, nonaggressive perennials, or sterile perennials, may be used until native perennials 

become established. These species can be used to prevent the spread of noxious 

weeds and prevent erosion. Only weed-free mulch would be used.

 Known noxious weed infestations would be treated with herbicides and/or 

biological controls after treatments to reduce infestations and allow native 

vegetation to compete with non-natives. Areas would be retreated as necessary.

 When possible, avoid disturbances to grassland and meadows with activities such 

as large slash piling, skidding, and temporary road construction. If unavoidable, 

utilize portions of the site that are dominated by non-native plant species. Consult 

with the district botanist or rangeland specialist for proper placement of slash 

piles and roads. 

 Restore or rebuild all fences damaged during project activities.

 When temporary roads and skid trails are to be constructed, locate beside existing 

fences, if possible. Such clearing will help with the maintenance of those 

improvements.

 All livestock gates would remain shut from June 1st – October 10th.

 Consult with the district botanist during prescribed burn planning in any sensitive 

species habitat.

 Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure re-growth of forage species. Guideline 4107

 Deck piles and landings should be no closer than 200’ from any spring with 

exclosure fences. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-5

 There is a potential for conflict during timber harvest and treatment activities 

when livestock are present. Please ensure all fences are up and gates remain 

closed while livestock are in the area.

 Current noxious weed infestations within the project area should be monitored for 

impacts from proposed activities as well as effectiveness of control measures. 

Inventory of the project area for additional infestations should be done during and 

following implementation of proposed activities.

Recreation

 Logging slash would be mechanically chipped/shredded or removed from Camp 

Bob Marshall and Bismarck Lake recreation site, prior to May 15th annually to 

provide a recreation site ready for opening to the public. Chips may remain on 

site provided they are not in the campsite improvements, such as parking areas, 

campfire rings, picnic tables, tent pads, buildings, etc. Chips would be raked –

spread no more than a few inches deep (no large piles).

 Timber harvest, post sale, and prescribed fire operations should not occur within 

Camp Bob Marshall and Bismarck Lake Recreation Area during the primary use 

season from May 15th to September 15th annually. Enough time would be allowed 

to close out all work and accept logging units in developed recreation sites so they 

may be safely opened to the public by May 15th annually.

 Logging activity would occur in recreation sites during periods of dry or frozen 

ground to limit rutting. 

 Timber harvest, post sale, and prescribed fire operations would be avoided, where 

possible, in the following sites which are under recreation special use permits, for 

the stated dates of use. These special use permits have annual operation plans, 

which include specific dates which are known by March 15th annually. 

Coordination between the special use permit holders and district recreation 

specialist and the sale administrator would be required before the beginning of 

harvest activities to avoid conflicts (See permit maps in Appendix A). 

o National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) – operates from AprilSeptember, 3-4 sessions, approximately 10 days each session. Involves 

protecting one campsite/parking areas and one rock climbing rock site. 

o Rockin-R-Rides – trail rides operate annually from May 15-October 7. 

Involves protecting approximately seven miles of horseback riding trails. 

o Lutherans Outdoors/Atlantic Mountain Ranch – primary operating season 

is May-September, with sporadic operation from October-December. 

Involves protecting approximately three miles of horseback riding/hiking 

trails.

 Designated and permitted horseback riding trails, as part of the Broken Arrow 

Horse Trail Special Use Permit, will be protected (See permit maps in Appendix 

A). There would be no restrictions to harvesting, skidding and hauling 

operations, but roads would be kept open and any lop and scattered slash would 

need to be removed from designated trails. If trees designated for removal have 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-6

trail markers on them, the permit administrator and permittee should be notified to 

replace these. If trail closures are necessary within the permitted area to facilitate 

harvesting activities, the permit administrator and permittees must be notified.

 Do not place slash piles or logging decks on trails used under recreation special 

use permits for Rockin-R-Rides, NOLS, Lutherans Outdoors/Atlantic Mountain 

Ranch and Broken Arrow permitted trails. Trails would be protected as 

improvements and repaired as needed prior to the start of annual permitted use 

period. Examples of repairs include replacing log and gravel trail water bars and 

rock steps that were designed and constructed specifically for protecting 

resources. Protection measures include: 

o Logging, post sale and prescribed fire operations would not use narrow 

horse trails that have constructed improvements, such as log/gravel/rock 

water bars as temporary roads, improved fire control lines, skid trails or 

landing zones. 

o Skidders would cross specialized horse trails at 90 degrees at areas with 

minimal cross slope. Forwarder skidders are preferred for crossing these 

trails to limit damage and the need for repairs to the trail tread.

o Slash would be removed from horse trail tread prior to use of these trails 

by permitted outfitters. 

o Broken tops, hung up trees, over outfitter trails will be removed prior to 

use by the public.

 Signs should be used along roads where harvesting activity is occurring to warn 

the public of possible hazards.

 Coordinate with the State of SD on use of the Mickelson Trail and the paved 

Mickelson Trail Connector from Custer to Custer State Park for harvest activities. 

o Safety requirements would include signage to warn trail users of project 

activity and a flagger would be at both ends of the working area on the 

trail if there is potential of trees falling on the trail.

o Only wheeled vehicles will be used on the trail.

o Any logs that need to be moved across or along the trail would be lifted 

and carried. 

o The trail would be returned to its existing condition after implementation. 

All materials used to fix the trail would be approved by the State Trails 

Manager.

o The project coordinator would notify the State Trails Office at the 

beginning and the end of the project to allow the Trails Office to post 

notifications to the public of project work along the trail.

o There would be an onsite meeting with the State Trails Manager before 

conclusion of the project to address any problems related to the trail.

 Lands
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-7

 Work with the district Lands Specialist when overhead utility lines are in areas of 

MBP infested trees to coordinate with utility companies to assess and remove the 

infested or at risk trees.

 Identify to the public, by the placement of signs or other formats, when log trucks 

and increased traffic is within or directly affecting a residential community.

Scenery

 All treatments should transition (‘feather’) the vegetation edge from the dense 

canopy (in the adjacent non-treated areas, including private land) into the unit. 

Avoid creating geometric shapes when implementing proposed activities, when 

possible.

 When thinning dense stands, avoid creating a residual forested stand with evenly 

spaced trees if possible.

 Fuel treatments along private land boundaries would transition into the 

surrounding forest. These areas are essential shaded fuel breaks. Avoid creating 

‘corridors’ of cleared understory areas by laying out the outer (forest side) of the 

unit in a curvilinear layout.

 All temporary roads, skid trails, burn piles and log deck areas should be returned 

to a natural appearance by eliminating the cut/fill slope to match the adjacent 

contours. Re-seed and place natural levels of down debris across these routes. 

This is particularly important within the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway corridor, 

around developed recreation areas, non-motorized recreation areas and trails.

 Slash needs to be treated in accordance with Forest Plan Guideline 5606. 

 Design criteria specific to the following public access routes: Peter Norbeck 

Scenic Byway (US Hwy 16, 16A, 16/385, SD Hwy 89, access to Bismarck Lake 

Campground and other recreation facilities).

o Where possible along the roads, remaining vegetation should be in a 

variety of sizes and spacing to maintain a more natural appearance. This 

technique has been very effective in maintaining a natural appearance.

o Clean up log decks within 300 feet of travel corridors by returning to 

original contours, scarify to eliminate compaction (as necessary), and 

plant with native grass seed.

o Locate log landings outside the immediate foreground (200’) of the 

highways when possible. Limit equipment use within this distance zone as 

possible.

o Remove un-merchantable material piles (‘cull decks’ & piles of 

tops/limbs) in the immediate foreground (300’) of the highways.

o Slash should be cleaned up to natural levels within 300 feet of these 

highways, in accordance with Forest Plan Guideline 4112b (ie - This can 

be accomplished by piling & burning, or chipping and removing chips.), 

and Forest Plan Guideline 5606.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-8

o Highlight large diameter ponderosa pine when possible, by removing 

small trees around them that block the view of them, could act as ladder 

fuels in a fire, and out compete with them for nutrients.

Transportation

 After project implementation any temporary roads would be closed and 

rehabilitated. Public signage such as a carsonite post with sticker could be placed 

at the temporary road entrance to designate the road appropriately for public 

travel management purposes. 

 Physical closures, such as slash, stumps, rocks and re-vegetation could be used to 

eliminate use. Earthen barriers may be used when there is not adequate material 

available for slash, stumps or rock closures. This may be done after harvest 

activities, to allow use of a road by the purchaser, or as funds become available. 

Closure gates may be utilized where administrative access might be needed.

 Existing gates and related signs would be protected during sale activities.

Wildlife

Sensitive Species

 A R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after contract or permit 

issuance will be appropriately managed by active coordination between permittee, 

contractor or purchaser, Forest Service line officer, project administrator, and 

biologist and/or botanist. Solutions need to be based on the circumstances of each 

new discovery and must consider the species need, contractual obligations and 

costs, and mitigation measures available at the time of discovery. Standard 3115

Northern Leopard Frog/Black Hills Red-bellied Snake 

 Riparian areas or wetlands where populations of sensitive species are located are 

to be avoided during ground disturbing activities. Use one or more of the 

following (or other mitigation measures) tied to the site-specific conditions for 

disturbances adjacent to known occurrences:

a. Avoid removing riparian or wetland vegetation; filling or dredging the 

riparian area or wetland; diverting stream flow from the current channel.

b. Prevent storm runoff from washing silt into the stream or wetland.

c. Reseed and/or replant cut and fill slopes with native seed and/or native plants 

promptly to control erosion and for prevention of noxious-weed infestations. 

Use appropriate measures to control erosion on disturbed areas that are steep, 

are highly erosive, and/or adjacent to the riparian area.

d. Timing, placement, and installation of temporary stream diversions shall 

allow passage of aquatic life and protect sensitive and species of local 

concern. 

Standard 3106
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-9

 Avoid creating barriers (e.g., new open roads) between red-bellied snake 

hibernacula and wetlands. Standard 3116

 Retain a more dense canopy (>60 BA) and lop and scatter slash within or adjacent 

to the following sites (Table B-1). The denser canopy would allow for more 

moisture on the ground in the site as well as provide some hiding cover for big 

game. These sites may be used as upland habitat for sensitive northern leopard 

frogs.

Table B-1. The following sites should have slash lopped and scattered within 

200’ of the site edge in the direction of the nearby pond/spring; if proposed for 

prescribed burning, do not burn down woody material, juniper and regeneration 

within 200’ of the site edge:

Location-Site(s) Description

030508-43, 48 

and 

030507-5

Church Camp (site 43)- Lop and scatter 200’ from pond on 

west side of 030508-48 and east side of 030507-5 to protect 

upland habitat for sensitive frogs.

030905-10 Crow Creek Pond—Lop and scatter 200’ from the pond 

(southeast corner).

030906-12, 24

Ruby Spring (site 24)—lop and scatter 200’ in the northeast 

corner of site 12, which is adjacent to site 24. Additionally, 

keep 1⁄4 acre in northeast corner more dense (>60 BA).

030906-13 

French Creek Fen (Site 13)—Lop and scatter 200’ on west 

side of site 13, just east of fen. Additionally, retain more 

dense canopy (>60BA) to provide shade and cover for 

wildlife.

031207-12, 13

12, 13 (“Spar” Spring/CCC development) – site 12 is 

proposed for pine encroachment and is to the east of the 

spring and site 13 is proposed for free selection. It is 

recommended that sites are lop and scattered up to 200’ 

around the spring area. It is also recommended that no trees 

are cut within 200’ of the site. 

031306-14, 22 Lake of the Pines – lop and scatter within the southeastern 

portion of site 14 (adjacent to pond) and in site 22. 

 Deck piles and landings should be no closer than 200’ from any spring with 

exclosure fences. Heavy equipment would not be allowed to operate within wet 

areas to prevent noxious weed growth near existing springs. 

 Consult with a District Biologist prior to any work in a riparian area containing 

northern leopard frogs. If during any activities in the project area red-bellied 

snakes are observed or potential hibernacula are found, contact a District 

Biologist. If a hibernacula/breeding site is found a buffer may be established 

around the riparian area and the hibernacula.

Northern Goshawk

 From April 1 through August 15, minimize additional human caused noise and 

disruption beyond that occurring at the time of nest initiation (e.g. road traffic, 

timber harvest, construction activities) within one-half mile of all active goshawk 

nests up until the nest has failed or fledglings have dispersed. Standard 3111
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-10

 When removing trees in suitable goshawk nesting habitat, except when done for 

the express purpose of enhancing goshawk habitat; Identify 180 acre nest areas 

around historically active nests. Vegetation management activities within nest 

areas shall be limited to those that maintain or enhance the stand’s value for 

goshawk. Standard 3108

Snails

 Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern snail colonies to:

a. Retain overstory sufficient to maintain moisture regimes, ground level 

temperatures and humidity.

b. Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter.

c. Avoid burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy 

equipment and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation 

composition and ground cover.

d. If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, usually 

below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to minimize effects to 

snails.

e. Control invasive weeds, but use herbicides when snails are not on the surface, 

and treat individual plants rather than broadcast application. Standard 3103

 There is one SOLC snail site located along Upper French Creek Road (030906-9). 

Work should be done when the ground is frozen to prevent soil compaction and 

disturbance. Slash needs to be moved off this site for future disposal (i.e., burning 

or chipping). Standard 3103

Butterflies

 Consider habitat needs (survey as appropriate) of regal fritillary and Atlantis 

fritillary butterflies prior to prescribed burning on prairies or meadows. This is 

especially important for prescribed burns scheduled from September through 

April. Design the project to conserve important habitat components of known 

sightings. Guideline 3105

 Defer prescribed burn units from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species, butterfly host and 

nectar species, and soil stabilization. Guideline 4107

Marten

 In areas identified as important connectivity corridors for marten, maintain 

canopy closure of at least 50 percent. Standard 3215

Bats/Caves 

 Avoid ground disturbance within 100 feet of an opening of a natural cave 

(Standard 1401a).
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-11

 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. (Standard 3207). Slash shall not be piled at the entrance of caves or 

mines.

 Hibernating bats occur in site 030502-53 and would require/include a 500 ft 

buffer. In this site, no treatment within 100’ of adit opening (Standard 1401a). 

However, in the 100-500’ boundary, sanitation ONLY may occur. Contact the 

district wildlife biologist for details on buffer location and size. 

 Protect caves or mines identified as bat nurseries or hibernacula, and their 

microclimates when designing management activities (e.g. timber harvest, road 

construction, recreation facilities, trail construction). Protect known bat day and 

night roosts (Standard 3102). 

 Any caves or mines discovered during sale layout, sale operations, or post sale 

activities will be reported to the District Wildlife Biologist, District Geologist and 

District Archaeologist for evaluation. If determined that the site may be suitable 

bat maternity or hibernation habitat, buffers would be maintained to protect the 

microclimate of the site. Standard 3207

Turkey

 Provide at least 2 to 6 turkey-roost sites per section, consisting of mature trees 

with an average diameter at breast height (dbh) of 10 to 14 inches, widely spaced 

horizontal branches, and basal areas at least 90 square feet per acre. Sites should 

be at least one-fourth acre in size and not isolated from adjacent forested stands. 

Emphasis should be on the upper third of east-facing slopes if available. 

Guideline 3205

Raptors

 Protect known raptor nests. Consider potential effects of disturbance, nesting 

phenology, human activities existing at onset of nest initiation, species, 

topography, other R2 sensitive species and plant species of local concern, forest 

cover, nest protection standards and recommendations used by state or federal 

agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing protection. Standard 

3204

In sites with active raptor nests, vegetation treatments (including sanitation and 

fuels thinning) may occur only from Aug. 15-March 31, unless otherwise 

approved by a wildlife biologist. Minimize disturbance within 1⁄2 mile of active 

nests.

Small Mammal Habitat 

 In vegetation treatment units, leave 1 pile of woody material per 2 acres to create 

near-ground structure for small mammal species, except within 300 feet of 

buildings. Standard 3117
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-12

Big Game – Screening Cover 

 Provide big game screening along at least 20 percent of the edges of arterial and 

collector roads. Consider vegetation, slopes, landform, etc. in evaluating available 

screening. Guideline 3203 

 Keep 200’ buffer of regen along FSR 344 (Willow Creek) and in location 

030309-13 (along FSR 345.1) to maintain at least 20% screening cover after 

vegetation treatments.

Snags/Down Woody Material 

 Retain all snags greater than 20-inch dbh unless 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” dbh) are not available, retain snags in the 

largest size class available. Standard 2301a

 Retain at least six hardwood snags per acre in hardwood stands. Retain all snags 

in hardwood stands with snag density of less than six per acre. Standard 2301b

 Cutting of standing dead trees for fuelwood is prohibited, except in designated 

areas. Standard 2304

 All soft snags should be retained unless they are a safety hazard. Standard 2305

 Activity debris would remain on site in all stands except those specified as 

“Whole Tree Yarding Required” under the alternative descriptions. Guideline 

2307

 During vegetation management activities on ponderosa pine forested sites, retain 

an average of at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a 

minimum diameter of 10 inches. On white spruce forested sites retain an average 

of at least 100 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a minimum 

diameter of 10 inches. Standard 2308

Hardwoods

 Conserve live aspen with cavities. Standard 3124

 Conserve live aspen with signs of cavity nesting, where this will not conflict with 

clone regeneration. Guideline 2204

 Do not locate landings or slash piles in hardwood stands or inclusions unless no 

alternative sites are available.

 During prescribed burning, fire should not be intentionally lit through an aspen 

stand or aspen clone during lighting operations. Lighting would be stopped 

approximately one aspen tree length (minimum 35”) from the aspen stand or 

clone, although fire may creep through the aspen on its own. Monitoring of 

aspen should occur during implementation and if the observed fire behavior is 

more intense than expected, lighting operations would be adjusted and/or wetline 

around aspen stands would occur to ensure protection of aspen stands.

 Hinge all non-commercial conifers around and within hardwood release 

treatments, including inclusions, and directionally fall non-commercial conifers 

into the inclusion or around the perimeter to create a barrier. If non-commercial 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-13

sized conifers are not available to create a barrier, mature aspen may be hinged 

around the perimeter in the same manner. Leave all slash as is to hinder 

browsing.

Riparian Habitats

 Avoid disturbance (e.g. road building, trail building, skid trails), non-commercial 

and commercial harvest adjacent to and within riparian communities (Standards 

1304 and 1306, and Guideline 3212). Buffer distance from riparian habitats will 

vary on a site-specific basis, and would be determined based on topography, 

vegetation community, etc. 

Treatments along riparian areas or within wet meadows would be limited to 

frozen ground conditions. This applies within sites 30308-33 and 030406-28. The 

spring or wet area should be avoided, and activity should be restricted to frozen 

ground.

 Prohibit motorized vehicles from entering streams except at specified points. 

Guidelines 9107 and 9108

 Use biological control methods whenever practical, and whenever protecting 

other resources is desired, such as water quality. Guideline 4302

 Maintain slash and large woody debris within riparian communities (Guideline 

3212). Boundaries of riparian habitats would vary on a site-specific basis, and 

would be determined based on topography, vegetation community, etc. Large 

woody debris and slash should not block stream flow or spring flows in these 

areas.

 Protect riparian exclosure fence around Tenderfoot Creek along FSR 297.1I 

during operations.

Wildlife Guzzlers

 Leave all trees within guzzler fence exclosures (including trees used as fence 

posts) to keep shade and cover for wildlife. Locations and sites are the following:

030406-22 030405-19 030308-16

030907-2 030506-20 030505-35

030914-7 030906-24

Squirrel Caches

 Retain all trees within squirrel caches unless otherwise directed by a Wildlife 

Biologist. 

Slash Piles

 Locate slash piles that are scheduled for burning out of grasslands, meadows, and 

riparian areas to protect from invasion of non-native species and loss of habitat 

for butterfly species. In addition, do not place slash piles on top of squirrel 

caches. 

 If mammal tracks (i.e., mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, fox, or marten) are seen 

around landing piles or slash piles indicating potential use as cover or dens, these 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-14

piles will not be burned. A wildlife biologist must be contacted and will assess if 

and when these piles may be burned or dismantled.

Wildlife Closures/ Gates

 Retain all commercial and non-commercial trees for 1 chain length (66 ft) around 

all gates (seasonal and year-long) to aid in preventing unauthorized public access 

by their placement with surrounding vegetation. These gates and adjacent trees 

should both be protected features and retained as part of the road closure feature. 

The following table (Table B-2) lists the seasonal gates only and their locations.

Table B-2. Seasonal gates and locations.

Gate 

Number Designation Location Site Road

A7 Seasonal 030903 1 413

A8 Seasonal 030508 8 284.1D

A12 Seasonal 030505 36 297.1E

A13 Seasonal 030506 7 297.1G

A17 Seasonal 030909 27 504 (east end)

A28 Seasonal 030909 15 654

A29 Seasonal 030903 45 240

A33 Seasonal 030909 12 504 (west end)

A34 Seasonal 030913 6 781.1A

B17 Seasonal 030301 3 345.1A

B35 Seasonal 030301 8 349.1A

Silviculture

 Activity fuel should be removed, lopped, scattered or piled for later burning. 

Slash piles, other than those left for wildlife habitat (Standard 3117), should be 

burned within one year, if possible. This will reduce the risk of Ips beetle caused 

mortality.

 Sites 030305-07, 50, 70, 71, and 72 are meadow sites with pine encroachment. 

Pine encroachment treatment would remove all pine trees, but spruce would be 

left within these sites. 

 In site 30508-11, retain trees in the largest diameter class. 

 In Overstory Removal treatments retain an average of one large tree per acre. 

 The most current Black Hills NF “Visual Marking Guides” would be followed for 

tree marking within distance of arterial and collector roads and private land with 

dwellings.

 The practices outlined in “Best Management Practices for the control of NonPoint Pollution from Silvicultural and Related Road Activities” would be 

followed.

 Sanitation, or removal of conifer trees identified as insect infested, is included for 

all National Forest land within the project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-15

 Whole tree harvest commercial-sized conifers from aspen stands in such a manner 

to insure limited damage to remaining aspen. Whole tree harvest would eliminate 

shading of the ground by logging slash. If conifer slash is to be piled and burned, 

place piles at least one (aspen) tree height away from the edge of the aspen to 

avoid damage to the roots from the intense heat (Sheppard, 10-2004). Conifers 

less than 9-inches dbh shall be removed post harvest or hinged to provide 

protection to aspen suckers. 

 Where aspen (individual trees or clones) occurs within conifer stands with 

proposed treatments, remove all pine within 33 feet surrounding the perimeter. 

This will encourage expansion of these hardwoods.

Soils and Hydrology

 Include all USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, South Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

and industry standard methods for protecting geologic, soil and water resources. 

Protected Stream Courses: 

 Protected stream courses within the project area include all or portions of the 

following streams.

Table B-3. Vestal protected stream courses on National Forest

Stream Name Stream Class Miles

French Creek Perennial 3.29

Glen Erin Creek Perennial 1.87

Laughing Water Creek Perennial 0.43

Loues Creek Perennial 0.04

North Fork French Creek Intermittent 0.16

Ruby Creek Perennial 1.65

Tenderfoot Creek Intermittent 0.45

Tenderfoot Gulch Perennial 0.02

Toe (Joe) Gulch Perennial 0.87

Willow Creek Perennial 1.33

 Protected stream courses will have a buffer and are generally called a WIZ (200 

ft. total width, 100 feet each side of the stream). Activities can occur in the WIZ 

but care will need to be taken to minimize impacts in the WIZ. Design criteria 

include; limit the amount of skid trails in the WIZ and skid trails would be 

designated in the WIZ.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-16

Table B-4. Vestal WIZ Sites – Alternative 2

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030301 3 57.3 1.0 GSH 2

030301 8 116.0 2.2 SWSC 2

030301 10 27.8 12.0 HR 43

030301 16 21.5 1.1 VDT 5

030301 24 22.1 7.0 PE 32

030301 30 0.8 0.2 HR 22

030301 31 3.2 2.4 HR 75

030302 36 1.9 0.6 VDT 33

030303 9 12.9 0.9 GSH 7

030303 25 5.8 2.9 HR 49

030303 32 12.5 2.2 HR 17

030303 43 76.2 12.5 SANI 16

030304 22 28.7 1.0 CT50 3

030304 23 68.0 1.8 GSH 3

030305 4 69.2 1.1 CT50 2

030305 31 10.8 0.7 CT 7

030305 33 6.4 2.7 CT 41

030305 34 1.9 0.8 CT 45

030305 35 3.5 0.7 CT 20

030305 54 3.0 0.9 HR 31

030305 55 5.4 3.0 SANI 56

030305 66 15.9 1.0 GSH 6

030305 76 19.7 6.9 SANI 35

030306 46 33.6 6.3 GSH 19

030306 59 16.4 11.8 PE 72

030306 61 7.5 0.6 GSH 7

030307 25 18.4 1.8 VDT 10

030307 61 2.4 0.5 SANI 20

030307 62 1.7 0.3 DEFER 17

030307 69 30.7 15.9 PE 52
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-17

Table B-4. Vestal WIZ Sites – Alternative 2

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030308 6 38.8 22.7 PE 59

030308 10 21.6 3.7 VDT 17

030308 28 103.9 3.8 CT 4

030308 32 7.8 2.7 HR 34

030308 35 20.7 12.4 HR 60

030308 36 8.0 3.2 HR 40

030309 2 52.8 2.0 SANI 4

030309 3 17.3 1.1 CT 6

030309 8 14.3 2.7 SANI 19

030309 17 163.0 2.9 GSH 2

030309 20 2.5 0.3 SANI 10

030309 22 14.4 7.3 SANI 51

030309 47 9.1 6.3 HR 69

030309 49 5.5 4.5 HR 82

030403 5 13.6 2.0 CT 14

030403 9 20.3 5.8 PE 29

030403 13 12.9 2.0 GSH 16

030403 20 6.8 0.6 CT 8

030403 22 2.5 0.4 SANI 15

030404 40 26.4 2.0 GSH 8

030404 41 7.8 3.6 GSH 47

030405 14 37.7 4.0 CT 10

030406 8 97.0 5.1 GSH 5

030406 14 20.6 3.2 OR 16

030406 22 17.5 3.4 HR 20

030406 59 45.8 2.2 GSH 5

030407 3 79.2 2.3 VDT 3

030407 16 142.2 2.5 GSH 2

030407 20 14.5 0.5 CT 3

030407 26 37.8 4.0 CT 11
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-18

Table B-4. Vestal WIZ Sites – Alternative 2

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030407 29 22.0 4.8 GSH 22

030407 43 6.6 2.0 HR 30

030501 19 25.5 4.0 CT50 16

030502 13 18.0 4.0 PE 22

030502 19 14.1 2.3 SANI 16

030503 2 22.1 2.5 CT50 11

030506 63 56.3 1.1 VDT 2

030507 12 5.6 2.3 CT50 42

030508 48 97.0 2.3 CT50 2

030906 9 102.4 5.3 SANI 5

030906 12 68.6 2.1 GSH 3

030907 9 5.3 4.2 CT50 79

030909 2 93.1 1.6 GSH 2

030909 9 36.1 1.5 CT 4

030909 10 318.8 4.2 GSH 1

030909 15 14.1 4.4 GSH 31

030909 29 8.7 4.3 CT 49

030909 39 4.0 1.9 SANI 47

030913 9 66.2 4.8 FS 7

031201 3 9.3 4.0 GSH 43

031206 5 46.3 2.4 GSH 5

031207 3 68.5 2.3 FS 3

031301 53 23.1 0.5 GSH 2

031303 6 56.2 4.7 GSH 8

031303 16 8.2 3.4 SANI 42

031303 17 44.7 2.3 FS 5

031303 54 57.1 3.5 GSH 6

031303 56 19.0 1.7 GSH 9

031306 14 63.5 3.0 POL 5

031307 20 112.5 1.4 VDT 1
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-19

Table B-4. Vestal WIZ Sites – Alternative 2

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030301 3 57.3 1.0 GSH 2

030301 8 116.0 2.2 SWSC 2

030301 10 27.8 12.0 HR 43

030301 16 21.5 1.1 VDT 5

030301 24 22.1 7.0 PE 32

030301 30 0.8 0.2 HR 22

030301 31 3.2 2.4 HR 75

030302 36 1.9 0.6 VDT 33

030303 9 12.9 0.9 GSH 7

030303 25 5.8 2.9 HR 49

Landings within the WIZ

 0-50 feet – No landings are permitted this close to the stream.

 50 -100 feet – Landing within this distance are discouraged. Only place a landing 

within this distance when there are no other options available. Erosion control 

measures such as compost socks, straw wattles, etc. may be needed if landing are 

in this zone. Consult with Hydrologist.

Forwarding and Skid Trails within the WIZ

 Operate within the WIZ when conditions are dry or frozen. If conditions are wet, 

trees will need to be end lined out of the WIZ.

 0 to 50 feet – No equipment within 50 feet of the stream except at designated 

crossings.

 Limit the amount of forwarding and skid trails in the WIZ.

 Forwarding and skid trails will be designated in the WIZ.

 Avoid crossing perennial and intermittent streams to the extent practical and 

avoid creating low water crossings or 'fords' of streams.

 Forwarding and skidding through water will be avoided. Perennial and 

Intermittent stream crossings will have a temporary structure installed to keep 

equipment and logs out of water and protect the stream bank.

 Rehabilitate forwarding and skid trail crossings of perennial and intermittent 

streams to original contour, seed and install erosion control matting for a distance 

of at least 25 feet from the stream on any disturbed areas.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-20

 All forwarding and skid trails will have drainage control structures installed on 

them when they are rehabilitated upon completion of work, discharging into a 

vegetative filter. Spacing will use the following as guidelines:

 Table B-5. Spacing for water bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45

Roads within the WIZ

 If FSR 342.1E is needed for this project, the crossing of French Creek would be 

done with a temporary bridge.

 Temporary roads crossing perennial or intermittent stream. Any temporary roads 

crossing perennial or intermittent streams will require a structure to span the 

stream such as a temporary bridge, cattle guard, temporary arch or similar 

structure to avoid damage of the stream and stream bank.

 Roads crossing streams with new construction or reconstruction, at the stream 

crossing, will use erosion control devices to minimize to amount of sediment from 

entering the stream. Such device could include compost socks, sediment stop, 

wattles, etc.

 Road clearing limits and widths in the WIZ will be limited to the minimum width.

 Road drainage features on roads would be spaced as outlined in Table B-6.

 Table B-6. Spacing for water bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45

 Seed all roads in the WIZ, temporary and system, upon their closure.

 Upon rehabilitation of stream crossings, seed and erosion control fabric will be 

installed for a distance of at least 25 feet from the stream on any disturbed areas.

Soils: 

 Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally 

compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit. 

(Forest Plan Standard 1103.)
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-21

 All forwarding and skid trails would have drainage control structures installed on 

them when they are rehabilitated upon completion of work. Drainage control 

structures could include slash. Spacing would use the following as guidelines:

 Table B-7. Spacing for water bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45

 On soils with very severe EHR and slopes steeper than 40%, ground skidding 

must be avoided. 

 On soils with very severe EHR and slopes between 20 and 40%, machinery 

operations must be restricted to dry or frozen soil conditions. 

 On soils with topsoil thinner than one (1) inch, consider need for retention of 

coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to balance soil quality 

requirements and fuel loading concerns. Exceptions may occur when high fire 

hazard overrides the need to leave slash onsite.

 Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting 

the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist.

 All off-road, ground-based equipment operations should be minimized as 

possible, and should take place during dry or frozen conditions to limit soil 

compaction, rutting and soil erosion. The ‘Dry or Frozen Design Criteria’ is to 

protect soils with a VSEHR on slopes 20 to 40%. Machinery operations are only 

permitted when there are dry or frozen conditions. These are areas with slopes 

20% to 40% with VSEHR. Machinery operations must be restricted to dry or 

frozen soil conditions.

Table B-8. Dry or Frozen Design Criteria – Alternative 2

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 1 55.0 33.1 60

030303 3 109.0 27.1 25

030303 4 133.0 40.8 31

030303 13 26.1 5.3 20

030303 17 20.7 10.3 50

030303 20 14.4 3.0 21

030303 24 61.5 13.8 22

030303 25 5.8 4.4 75

030303 31 33.8 3.6 11

030303 33 58.4 9.5 16

030303 34 9.9 6.3 63

030303 37 12.3 3.1 25

030303 38 16.7 7.0 42

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 39 47.5 21.3 45

030304 48 15.6 7.0 45

030305 13 15.7 6.3 40

030305 17 9.4 1.1 12

030305 24 8.7 1.2 13

030305 29 14.2 4.4 31

030305 32 4.8 2.1 45

030305 33 6.4 1.3 20

030305 36 14.8 1.9 13

030305 37 9.0 2.3 25

030305 38 7.3 1.2 17

030305 53 13.8 13.8 100

030306 40 9.1 1.3 15
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-24

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030306 56 54.3 5.6 10

030306 57 14.3 2.0 14

030306 61 7.5 3.5 47

030306 66 22.9 11.4 50

030306 67 3.7 2.7 73

030306 68 20.6 3.3 16

030308 11 41.3 8.1 20

030308 14 16.4 10.7 65

030309 4 16.6 2.5 15

030309 11 40.2 15.5 38

030309 14 72.9 8.9 12

030309 15 11.7 11.7 100

030309 16 9.0 5.8 65

030309 17 163.0 27.9 17

030309 22 14.4 8.7 60

030309 49 5.5 2.2 39

030309 61 1.5 0.7 49

030309 62 32.5 27.8 86

030401 1 28.4 4.3 15

030401 3 41.5 12.9 31

030401 5 24.5 6.8 28

030401 7 15.4 5.1 33

030401 9 41.5 18.0 43

030401 10 38.5 34.0 88

030401 12 6.0 6.0 100

030401 14 41.3 4.2 10

030401 15 3.4 2.0 58

030401 22 7.8 1.5 19

030401 23 5.5 5.5 100

030401 31 27.8 6.2 22

030401 37 4.0 1.6 41

030401 45 8.8 8.8 100

030402 10 21.1 14.8 70

030402 12 9.5 4.1 43

030402 15 6.6 6.2 94

030402 16 1.7 1.7 100

030404 1 7.9 3.0 38

030404 6 8.1 1.8 21

030404 7 3.1 2.5 80

030404 11 31.5 7.8 25

030404 17 18.7 5.6 30

030404 19 12.5 2.8 22

030404 21 19.0 13.6 71

030404 24 1.7 0.3 17

030404 28 3.4 0.7 19

030404 31 2.4 1.5 60

030404 38 10.0 4.0 40

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030404 44 1.8 1.4 79

030404 52 27.4 11.7 43

030405 2 16.0 2.7 17

030405 3 70.7 15.6 22

030405 5 156.3 40.7 26

030405 14 37.7 28.1 75

030405 17 26.0 21.6 83

030405 18 15.3 3.8 25

030405 19 20.7 6.5 32

030405 29 2.7 2.7 100

030405 41 43.7 6.4 15

030406 10 10.1 2.2 22

030406 11 22.4 8.3 37

030406 13 49.9 8.3 17

030406 19 15.9 1.6 10

030406 20 36.6 26.7 73

030406 31 7.0 3.9 56

030406 48 2.9 2.9 100

030406 57 9.6 2.5 26

030406 59 45.8 18.7 41

030406 63 144.7 14.0 10

030407 1 56.1 6.3 11

030407 2 33.3 7.6 23

030407 5 43.7 10.6 24

030407 6 31.7 4.5 14

030407 9 129.3 20.4 16

030407 10 19.6 6.4 33

030407 16 142.2 18.4 13

030407 21 18.5 7.9 43

030407 24 39.9 38.5 97

030407 27 47.2 4.6 10

030407 28 19.0 19.0 100

030407 32 26.1 6.2 24

030407 33 36.3 36.3 100

030407 46 26.6 4.3 16

030407 49 17.2 10.5 61

030407 53 4.4 1.5 35

030407 54 15.9 4.3 27

030407 55 12.3 2.7 22

030501 3 120.6 31.7 26

030501 5 7.6 4.7 61

030501 6 14.7 7.4 50

030501 8 20.6 8.0 39

030501 9 23.0 4.4 19
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-23

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030501 12 18.2 15.8 87

030501 18 57.1 7.4 13

030501 19 25.5 2.9 11

030501 20 17.3 3.9 22

030501 22 77.7 35.7 46

030501 23 9.7 3.4 35

030501 24 41.5 18.9 45

030501 25 21.4 4.4 20

030501 26 32.3 15.6 48

030501 51 3.9 1.4 37

030501 52 37.9 19.3 51

030502 1 70.8 24.9 35

030502 2 17.1 7.1 42

030502 60 79.0 8.5 11

030502 62 33.4 3.3 10

030505 19 34.2 12.4 36

030505 30 24.1 20.4 85

030505 35 33.5 3.9 12

030502 1 70.8 24.9 35

030506 4 21.8 2.2 10

030506 12 45.0 5.9 13

030506 13 9.6 1.5 16

030506 14 23.1 23.1 100

030506 15 38.3 18.4 48

030506 18 19.6 3.4 17

030506 20 18.6 8.6 46

030506 39 7.0 1.6 22

030506 59 70.5 7.5 11

030506 60 24.2 8.3 34

030506 67 27.4 16.1 59

030507 9 22.0 6.2 28

030507 22 8.8 2.3 26

030904 29 10.9 1.9 17

030904 30 4.5 0.8 17

030914 2 11.8 9.9 85

030914 10 10.6 3.1 29

030914 28 15.2 3.4 22

031301 5 158.2 29.9 19

031301 14 20.7 2.2 11

031301 16 66.8 19.8 30

031301 37 5.8 4.1 71

031301 43 13.4 4.7 35

031302 3 5.2 5.2 100

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

031302 4 10.5 10.5 100

031302 7 10.5 1.3 13

031302 10 26.1 2.7 10

031302 12 22.2 9.2 42

031302 13 28.7 9.8 34

031302 15 56.5 15.5 27

031302 19 18.6 4.8 26

031302 21 5.6 5.6 100

031302 22 21.3 21.3 100

031303 3 51.7 21.7 42

031303 5 42.5 28.1 66

031303 6 56.2 8.3 15

031303 7 51.4 36.6 71

031303 16 8.2 8.2 100

031303 30 12.3 1.5 12

031303 54 57.1 39.8 70

031303 57 61.6 25.2 41

031304 1 35.9 15.2 42

031304 2 48.4 7.2 15

031304 5 40.2 9.2 23

031304 1 35.9 15.2 42

031304 2 48.4 7.2 15

031304 5 40.2 9.2 23

031304 6 45.0 4.6 10

031304 10 49.9 32.4 65

031304 13 23.4 7.9 34

031304 17 21.6 21.6 100

031304 19 14.3 2.3 16

031304 22 12.6 12.6 100

031304 25 2.4 1.3 54

031304 28 13.3 4.6 35

031305 3 80.8 32.4 40

031305 7 94.7 22.8 24

031305 13 34.5 6.7 20

031306 3 42.7 8.3 19

031307 36 124.6 42.3 34
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-24

 Avoid ground-based harvest and skidding equipment operations on sustained 

slopes steeper than 40%. The ‘No Activity Design Criteria’ is to protect soils with 

a VSEHR on slopes greater than 40%. No machinery operations activities will be 

allowed on slopes greater than 40%. These are areas with slopes greater than 

40% with VSEHR. Machinery operations are not permitted on these areas.

Table B-9. No Activity Design Criteria – Alternative 2

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 1 55.0 20.4 37

030303 3 109.0 15.6 14

030303 4 133.0 18.2 14

030303 17 20.7 2.2 11

030303 31 33.8 3.6 11

030303 37 12.3 4.5 36

030303 38 16.7 7.1 43

030303 39 47.5 13.1 28

030305 13 15.7 6.3 40

030305 17 9.4 1.5 16

030305 29 14.2 9.3 65

030305 35 3.5 0.6 18

030305 36 14.8 8.8 59

030305 37 9.0 1.6 17

030305 53 13.8 1.3 10

030306 56 54.3 6.2 11

030306 57 14.3 5.3 37

030306 67 3.7 0.9 24

030308 16 18.4 4.3 23

030309 8 14.3 1.9 13

030309 61 1.5 0.5 30

030401 3 41.5 5.3 13

030401 9 41.5 10.7 26

030401 10 38.5 6.1 16

030401 14 41.3 13.4 33

030401 15 3.4 3.4 100

030401 16 45.7 19.0 42

030401 22 7.8 5.2 67

030401 23 5.5 1.1 19

030401 36 11.4 6.8 60

030401 37 4.0 3.9 98

030401 45 8.8 1.7 20

030402 10 21.1 12.4 59

030402 12 9.5 2.9 30

030404 3 39.8 11.3 28

030404 4 18.6 3.3 18

030404 6 8.1 0.9 11

030404 7 29.7 5.5 18

030404 10 6.2 0.9 14

030404 11 31.5 11.0 35

030404 14 8.5 0.8 10

030404 17 18.7 3.8 20

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030404 18 5.4 1.3 25

030404 21 19.0 5.5 29

030404 38 10.0 8.9 89

030405 5 156.3 45.7 29

030405 17 26.0 5.7 22

030405 29 2.7 2.7 100

030405 41 43.7 5.5 13

030406 10 10.1 3.8 38

030406 11 22.4 7.8 35

030406 19 15.9 2.0 13

030406 20 36.6 27.0 74

030406 31 7.0 0.9 13

030406 63 144.7 33.3 23

030407 2 33.3 29.5 89

030407 6 31.7 7.3 23

030407 9 129.3 125.3 97

030407 10 19.6 8.8 45

030407 16 142.2 20.8 15

030407 19 5.5 1.3 24

030407 24 39.9 19.3 48

030407 27 47.2 13.2 28

030407 28 19.0 14.7 77

030407 32 26.1 6.5 25

030407 33 36.3 9.8 27

030407 49 17.2 7.4 43

030407 55 12.3 2.0 16

030501 5 7.6 1.7 22

030501 8 20.6 2.8 14

030501 9 23.0 5.3 23

030501 12 18.2 9.1 50

030501 19 25.5 3.2 13

030501 23 9.7 1.5 16

030501 24 41.5 9.0 22

030501 26 32.3 14.1 44

030501 52 37.9 15.5 41

030502 1 70.8 9.0 13

030502 2 17.1 1.9 11

030506 13 9.6 2.6 28

030506 14 23.1 3.3 14

030506 15 38.3 4.9 13

030506 59 70.5 9.8 14

030506 67 27.4 5.5 20
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-25

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030904 29 10.9 1.4 13

030904 30 4.5 1.4 32

030914 2 11.8 3.3 28

031301 3 44.6 7.1 16

031301 44 7.5 3.2 42

031302 3 5.2 5.2 100

031302 7 10.5 2.7 25

031302 11 24.6 7.8 32

031302 12 22.2 10.5 47

031302 15 56.5 21.0 37

031302 19 18.6 6.2 33

031302 21 5.6 1.3 24

031302 22 21.3 2.8 13

031303 6 56.2 15.0 27

031303 7 51.4 22.0 43

031303 54 57.1 21.4 38

031303 57 61.6 7.4 12

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

031304 1 35.9 35.9 100

031304 2 48.4 6.1 13

031304 5 40.2 20.0 50

031304 6 45.0 12.6 28

031304 10 49.9 31.2 63

031304 17 21.6 9.3 43

031304 19 14.3 5.2 36

031304 26 13.9 13.9 100

031304 28 13.3 1.5 12

031305 6 41.6 4.0 10

031307 8 23.8 8.9 37

Fisheries

 Avoid the reconstruction of FSR 342.1E and the inwater activity associated with 

the road-stream crossing on French Creek downstream of Stockade Lake. If FSR 

342.1E must be reconstructed, then use a temporary bridge to avoid placing 

additional fill in French Creek. Inwater activity on French Creek downstream of 

Stockade Lake should be avoided during June through mid-July and October 1st

through April 15th to keep heavy equipment out of lower French Creek during the 

mountain sucker and brook/brown trout spawning, incubation and emergence 

period, respectively, to be consistent with WCPH Management Measure 3; design 

criteria c.

 Leave the perched culvert on FSR 344 as-is on East Meeker Creek (Meeker 

Ranch) as an instream barrier to keep non-native brook stickleback (Culaea 

inconstans) from migrating further upstream.

Appendix C:

MONITORING PLAN

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C

C-1

Monitoring Plan for the Vestal Project

Introduction

The Forest Plan identifies specific items to be monitored, and the Monitoring 

Implementation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2005) describes monitoring protocols that 

have been established for numerous resources, as directed by the Forest Plan. The 

Monitoring Implementation Guide identifies frequency and methods of data collection, 

unit of measure, sampling design, expected precision and reliability, reporting frequency, 

data storage location, and costs for each monitoring item identified by the Forest Plan. 

This guide is subject to periodic adjustments. For additional information, refer to the 

Forest Plan (Chapter 4), and the Monitoring Implementation Guide.

The ID Team for the Vestal project compiled additional monitoring objectives/items, 

which are summarized below. These items provide emphasis regarding particular 

resource monitoring needs in the project area. Monitoring would be prioritized by the 

responsible line officer if funding is unavailable to implement all items listed or 

referenced in this Monitoring Plan.

Soils and Hydrology

To ensure that soil and water resources are not impaired due to project activities, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) are applied. BMP monitoring occurs during and after 

management activities. BMP implementation monitoring would occur during 

management activities, primarily through contract administration or oversight of Forest 

Service crew work. 

Project specific design criteria for soil and water protection will be incorporated into any 

contracts or internal work orders used to implement the proposed activities. The 

effectiveness and implementation of these design criteria would be monitored as stated 

above for BMPs and during the annual Implementation and Effectiveness field review. 

Additional monitoring may occur based on needs as identified by the project hydrology 

and soils specialist. 

Fuels

All fuels treatments would be recorded in the FACTS database. Prescribed fire surveys 

would be conducted following prescribed burning to ensure resource objectives are being 

met. 

Monitoring of smoke conditions during burning operations would be done to comply with 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. District personnel will utilize the SASEM (Smoke 

Model), or an equivalent program to assure provisions are being met. The impacts on 

metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at the time of burning. 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C

C-2

Noxious Weeds

Areas of weed infestation would be monitored and the effectiveness of the weed 

treatments measured. Areas should be re-treated as necessary. 

Wildlife

The Hell Canyon District biologist would monitor known goshawk nests every summer 

for activity and breeding success. The biologist would coordinate with implementation 

crews to ensure the timing restrictions are followed in active territories. Occurrences and 

sighting of wildlife species would be documented during field visits and monitoring trips. 

Heritage

Post project site monitoring is a useful method for determining the effectiveness of 

avoidance measures. Twenty percent (20% rounded up to the nearest whole number) of 

eligible and unevaluated cultural resources in the vicinity of treatment areas will be 

revisited and monitored for effects from the Vestal Project following implementation. 

The selection of sites to be monitored is at the discretion of the District Archaeologist, 

and results will be sent to SHPO in the form of a site monitoring report. 

Botany

Monitoring and plant surveys for R2 Sensitive Species will be ongoing. Management of 

any new occurrences as well as the existing known occurrence will need to be considered 

as treatment plans are developed for the area. 
Appendix D:

TREATMENTS

BY SITE

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-1

Alternative 2 Treatments by Site

Cover Type Abbreviations:

GRA Grasslands

NFL Non-Vegetated Sites (rock, gravel pits, etc.)

TAA Aspen

TPP Ponderosa Pine

TWS Spruce

WAT Water

Alternative 2 Prescription Abbreviations:

CT Commercial Thinning OR Overstory Removal

CT50 Commercial Thinning to a BA of 50 ft2

/acre PCT Precommercial Thinning

DEFER Deferred from treatment PE Pine Encroachment

FS Free Selection POL Products Other than Logs 

Thinning

GSH Group Shelterwood SANI Sanitation

HC Hardwood Conversion SWSC Shelterwood Seedcut

HR Hardwood Release VDT Variable Density Thinning

Alternative 2 Fire & Fuels Abbreviations:

DF Dead Fall

FB Fuelbreak

RX Prescribed Burning

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30301 1 4 5.4 TPP 3C CT50 RX

30301 2 14 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30301 3 57 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30301 4 19 5.4 TPP 4A OR RX

30301 5 23 5.4 TPP 4B CT RX

30301 6 50 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30301 7 15 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

30301 8 116 5.4 TPP 4A SWSC RX

30301 9 26 8.2 TPP 4A GSH

30301 10 28 8.2 TAA 3A HR RX

30301 11 11 8.2 TPP 4A CT RX

30301 12 10 8.2 TAA 2 HR

30301 13 34 8.2 TPP 4A VDT RX
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-2

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30301 14 7 8.2 TPP 4B OR

30301 15 18 8.2 TPP 4B GSH

30301 16 21 8.2 TPP 4B VDT

30301 17 33 5.4 TPP 2 OR

30301 18 5 8.2 TPP 3B CT DF

30301 19 15 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30301 20 6 5.4 TPP 3A POL RX

30301 21 4 5.4 TAA 3A HR RX

30301 22 2 5.4 TAA 3B HR RX

30301 23 3 5.4 TPP 3A GSH RX

30301 24 22 5.4 GRA PE RX

30301 25 33 8.2 TPP 4B SANI

30301 26 2 5.4 TAA 4A HR RX

30301 27 19 5.4 GRA PE RX

30301 28 2 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30301 29 4 8.2 TPP 4A VDT RX

30301 30 1 8.2 TAA 1 HR

30301 31 3 8.2 TAA 2 HR

30301 32 4 8.2 NFL DEFER

30301 33 2 8.2 TPP 4A SANI

30301 34 10 8.2 TPP 4A VDT

30301 35 16 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30301 36 1 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30301 37 6 5.4 TPP 3B POL

30302 1 47 5.4 TPP 2 OR

30302 2 63 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30302 3 29 8.2 WAT DEFER

30302 4 9 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30302 5 5 8.2 TPP 4A VDT

30302 7 23 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30302 8 13 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30302 9 46 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30302 10 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30302 11 16 8.2 TPP 4A GSH

30302 12 12 8.2 TPP 5 SANI

30302 13 13 8.2 TPP 5 SANI

30302 14 3 5.4 GRA DEFER

30302 16 9 5.4 TAA 4B HR

30302 17 7 5.4 TPP 3C CT50

30302 18 3 5.4 TPP 3B SANI
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-3

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30302 19 3 5.4 TPP 3A SANI

30302 20 1 8.2 TAA 3A HR

30302 21 5 5.4 TAA 3B HR

30302 22 8 5.4 TPP 2 GSH

30302 23 2 5.4 TPP 3A SANI

30302 24 10 5.4 TPP 3C OR

30302 25 2 5.4 GRA PE

30302 26 2 5.4 TAA 4A HR

30302 27 4 5.4 TAA 2 HR

30302 29 3 8.2 TPP 4B SANI

30302 30 1 8.2 GRA DEFER

30302 31 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 32 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 33 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 34 4 5.4 GRA DEFER

30302 35 4 8.2 TPP 4B VDT

30302 36 2 8.2 TPP 4A VDT

30302 37 2 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 38 8 5.4 TPP 3A OR

30302 39 2 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30302 40 2 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30302 41 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30303 1 55 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 2 62 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 3 109 5.4 TPP 4B GSH DF

30303 4 133 5.4 TPP 4A CT

30303 5 10 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30303 6 51 5.4 TPP 4B FS

30303 7 3 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30303 8 16 5.4 TPP 3C GSH

30303 9 13 5.4 TPP 4A GSH DF

30303 10 12 5.4 TPP 4C POL

30303 11 53 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 12 26 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 13 26 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30303 14 23 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 15 10 5.4 TPP 4B VDT

30303 16 34 5.4 TPP 4C VDT DF

30303 17 21 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30303 18 18 5.4 TPP 4B GSH
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-4

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30303 19 40 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 20 14 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30303 21 8 5.4 GRA PE

30303 22 24 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30303 23 7 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30303 24 62 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 25 6 5.4 TAA 3A HR

30303 26 7 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30303 27 11 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30303 28 4 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 29 37 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 30 11 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30303 31 34 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30303 32 12 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30303 33 58 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 34 10 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30303 35 17 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30303 36 4 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30303 37 12 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30303 38 17 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

30303 39 48 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30303 43 76 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30304 2 1 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30304 4 18 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 5 7 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 6 15 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 7 30 5.4 TPP 4C VDT

30304 8 27 5.4 TPP 2 POL

30304 9 27 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30304 10 17 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30304 11 2 5.4 GRA PE

30304 12 33 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30304 13 18 5.4 TPP 2 GSH

30304 14 3 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

30304 15 6 5.4 GRA PE

30304 17 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 18 10 5.4 GRA PE

30304 19 3 5.4 GRA PE

30304 20 6 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

30304 21 11 5.4 TPP 4A GSH
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-5

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30304 22 29 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

30304 23 68 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30304 24 8 5.4 TPP 2 GSH

30304 25 2 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30304 26 2 5.4 GRA PE

30304 27 7 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 28 5 5.4 GRA PE

30304 29 1 5.4 GRA PE

30304 30 3 5.4 GRA PE

30304 31 3 5.4 TPP 3B CT50

30304 32 4 5.4 TPP 4A CT50

30304 33 3 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

30304 34 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30304 35 1 5.4 TPP 4A CT50

30304 36 4 5.4 GRA PE

30304 44 26 5.4 GRA PE

30304 45 2 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30304 46 4 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30304 47 18 5.4 TPP 2 POL

30304 48 16 5.4 TPP 4C VDT

30305 1 4 5.4 GRA PE

30305 2 11 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

30305 3 127 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30305 4 69 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

30305 5 22 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 6 27 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 7 5 5.4 GRA PE

30305 8 13 5.4 TPP 3B CT

30305 9 30 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30305 10 23 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30305 11 37 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30305 12 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 13 16 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30305 14 12 5.4 TPP 3B GSH

30305 15 42 5.4 TPP 3C GSH

30305 16 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 17 9 5.4 TPP 4C OR

30305 18 20 5.4 NFL DEFER

30305 19 3 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 20 4 5.4 TPP 3C GSH
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-6

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30305 21 7 5.4 TPP 4B OR

30305 22 5 5.4 TPP 2 CT

30305 23 31 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30305 24 9 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30305 25 20 5.4 TPP 4B OR

30305 26 12 5.4 TPP 2 OR

30305 27 22 5.4 TPP 3C GSH

30305 28 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 29 14 5.4 TPP 4C CT

30305 30 7 5.4 TPP 4C CT

30305 31 11 5.4 TPP 4C CT

30305 32 5 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30305 33 6 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 34 2 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 35 4 5.4 TPP 4C CT

30305 36 15 5.4 TPP 3C OR

30305 37 9 5.4 TPP 4C CT

30305 38 7 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 39 13 5.4 TPP 3B POL

30305 40 6 5.4 TPP 4B CT

30305 44 23 5.4 TPP 2 POL

30305 45 3 5.4 GRA PE

30305 47 2 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30305 48 12 5.4 TPP 2 POL

30305 49 22 5.4 TPP 3B CT

30305 50 1 5.4 GRA PE

30305 51 9 5.4 TPP 2 CT

30305 52 5 5.4 GRA PE

30305 53 14 5.4 TPP 4A CT

30305 54 3 5.4 TAA 1 HR

30305 55 5 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30305 56 4 5.4 TPP 3C POL

30305 57 6 5.4 GRA PE

30305 58 6 5.4 TPP 3C OR

30305 59 7 5.4 TPP 4A CT

30305 60 3 5.4 TAA 4A HR

30305 61 14 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 62 12 5.4 TPP 3C CT

30305 63 17 5.4 TPP 4A VDT

30305 64 15 5.4 TPP 4B VDT
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-7

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30305 65 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30305 66 16 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 67 24 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30305 68 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30305 69 5 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30305 70 5 5.4 GRA PE

30305 71 5 5.4 GRA PE

30305 72 2 5.4 GRA PE

30305 73 5 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30305 76 20 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30306 2 36 5.4 TPP 3A CT

30306 40 9 5.4 TPP 4C SWSC

30306 41 11 5.4 TPP 3C POL

30306 42 35 5.4 TPP 4B SWSC DF

30306 45 28 5.4 TPP 4C SWSC DF

30306 46 34 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30306 49 13 5.4 GRA PE

30306 56 54 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30306 57 14 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

30306 59 16 5.4 GRA PE RX

30306 61 8 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30306 62 10 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30306 66 23 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30306 67 4 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30306 68 21 5.4 TPP 3B GSH

30306 81 2 5.4 GRA PE RX

30306 82 2 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER

30306 96 1 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER

30307 25 18 5.4 TPP 4C VDT

30307 28 80 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

30307 61 2 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30307 62 2 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER RX

30307 63 3 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER

30307 69 31 5.4 GRA PE RX

30308 1 24 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30308 2 67 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB

30308 3 109 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30308 4 110 5.4 TPP 4A OR RX

30308 5 38 5.4 TPP 4A POL RX

30308 6 39 5.4 GRA PE RX
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-8

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30308 7 13 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30308 8 21 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30308 9 3 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

30308 10 22 5.4 TPP 4C VDT RX

30308 11 41 5.4 TPP 4A POL

30308 12 80 5.4 TPP 4B VDT RX

30308 13 5 5.4 TPP 3A OR RX

30308 14 16 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30308 15 33 5.4 TPP 3A CT

30308 16 18 5.4 TPP 3B GSH RX

30308 28 104 5.4 TPP 3C CT RX

30308 29 30 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30308 31 14 5.4 TPP 3C SANI RX

30308 32 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR RX

30308 33 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR RX

30308 34 3 5.4 TAA 3C HR RX

30308 35 21 5.4 TAA 2 HR RX

30308 36 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR RX

30308 42 10 5.4 TPP 4A SANI RX

30308 44 17 5.4 TPP 3B OR RX

30308 45 83 5.4 TPP 4B CT RX

30308 50 4 5.4 TPP 3A OR RX

30309 1 50 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB/DF

30309 2 53 5.4 TPP 3A SANI RX

30309 3 17 5.4 TPP 4A CT RX

30309 4 17 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30309 5 6 5.4 TPP 4A OR RX

30309 6 69 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30309 7 12 5.4 TPP 4A POL RX

30309 8 14 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30309 9 11 5.4 TPP 4A OR

30309 10 10 5.4 TPP 3B SANI

30309 11 40 5.4 TPP 4A SANI RX

30309 12 13 5.4 TPP 3A GSH RX

30309 13 13 5.4 TPP 3A GSH RX

30309 14 73 5.4 TPP 3B GSH RX/DF

30309 15 12 5.4 TPP 4B CT RX

30309 16 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30309 17 163 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30309 18 6 5.4 TAA 4A HR
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-9

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30309 19 4 5.4 TAA 4C HR

30309 20 3 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

30309 21 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30309 22 14 5.4 TPP 5 SANI

30309 23 7 5.4 TAA 3A HR RX

30309 45 14 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30309 46 3 5.4 TAA 4A HR

30309 47 9 5.4 TAA 2 HR RX

30309 48 10 5.4 TAA 3A HR RX

30309 49 6 5.4 TAA 3B HR

30309 55 2 5.4 TPP 3A GSH RX

30309 61 1 5.4 TPP 4C SANI

30309 62 32 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

30309 63 6 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

30309 64 4 5.4 TPP 3A POL

30309 65 3 5.4 TPP 4A GSH RX

30309 66 1 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30309 67 3 5.4 TPP 4A SANI RX

30309 68 11 5.4 TPP 4A CT RX

30401 1 28 4.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30401 2 14 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30401 3 41 4.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30401 4 20 4.1 TPP 3A OR DF

30401 5 24 4.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30401 6 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 7 15 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 8 38 4.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30401 9 42 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30401 10 38 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 11 12 4.1 TWS 4A SANI DF

30401 12 6 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 13 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 14 41 4.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30401 15 3 4.1 TPP 3B SANI DF

30401 16 46 4.1 TPP 3C SANI DF

30401 17 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 19 21 4.1 TPP 3B OR DF

30401 22 8 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 23 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30401 25 7 4.1 TWS 4C GSH DF
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-10

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30401 26 31 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 27 31 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 28 46 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30401 29 11 4.1 TAA 2 HR

30401 30 3 4.1 TWS 4B SANI

30401 31 28 4.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30401 36 11 4.1 TPP 4C SANI

30401 37 4 4.1 TPP 4B SANI

30401 45 9 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30402 5 8 4.1 GRA PE

30402 6 14 4.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30402 7 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30402 8 59 4.1 TPP 3B GSH DF

30402 9 19 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30402 10 21 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30402 11 37 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30402 12 9 4.1 TPP 4B SANI

30402 13 8 4.1 TAA 3B HR

30402 14 1 4.1 NFL DEFER

30402 15 7 4.1 TPP 4B SANI

30402 16 2 4.1 TPP 3C GSH

30403 1 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30403 2 18 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30403 3 6 4.1 GRA PE

30403 4 112 4.1 TPP 4B GSH RX

30403 5 14 4.1 TPP 4B CT RX

30403 6 6 4.1 TPP 4A CT

30403 7 71 4.1 GRA PE RX

30403 8 18 4.1 TPP 4B CT50 RX

30403 9 20 4.1 GRA PE RX

30403 10 1 4.1 TAA 1 HR

30403 11 9 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30403 12 3 4.1 GRA PE

30403 13 13 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30403 14 25 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30403 15 1 4.1 GRA PE

30403 16 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30403 17 1 4.1 GRA PE

30403 18 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30403 19 12 4.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-11

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30403 20 7 4.1 TPP 4A CT

30403 21 2 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 RX

30403 22 3 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30403 23 1 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 RX

30404 1 8 4.1 TPP 3A GSH

30404 2 16 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 3 40 4.1 TPP 4B OR

30404 4 19 4.1 TPP 2 SANI DF

30404 5 3 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 6 8 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30404 7 3 4.1 TPP 4C SANI DF

30404 8 33 4.1 TPP 4C FS DF

30404 9 5 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30404 10 6 4.1 TPP 4C GSH

30404 11 31 4.1 TPP 4C GSH

30404 12 16 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30404 13 21 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 14 9 4.1 TPP 4C SANI

30404 15 17 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30404 16 4 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30404 17 19 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30404 18 5 4.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30404 19 13 4.1 TPP 4C SANI DF

30404 20 12 4.1 TPP 3A CT DF

30404 21 19 4.1 TPP 4C SANI

30404 22 21 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30404 23 1 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30404 24 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30404 25 24 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30404 26 5 4.1 TAA 3A HR

30404 27 7 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30404 28 3 4.1 TPP 3C GSH DF

30404 29 8 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30404 30 4 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30404 31 2 4.1 TPP 4B CT

30404 32 2 4.1 TPP 4A CT

30404 33 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30404 34 3 4.1 GRA PE

30404 35 2 4.1 GRA PE

30404 36 6 4.1 TPP 3C CT50
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-12

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30404 37 4 4.1 GRA PE

30404 38 10 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30404 39 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30404 40 26 4.1 TPP 3A GSH

30404 41 8 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30404 42 5 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30404 43 13 4.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30404 44 2 4.1 TPP 4B SANI

30404 51 2 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30404 52 27 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30405 1 40 4.1 TPP 4B VDT

30405 2 16 4.1 TPP 3C GSH

30405 3 71 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30405 4 22 4.1 TPP 4C CT50

30405 5 156 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30405 6 108 4.1 TPP 3A GSH

30405 7 17 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 8 9 4.1 TPP 4B SWSC

30405 9 57 4.1 TPP 4C SANI

30405 10 49 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 11 25 4.1 TPP 3B CT

30405 12 11 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

30405 14 38 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30405 15 3 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 17 26 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30405 18 15 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 19 21 4.1 TPP 3C GSH

30405 28 4 4.1 TAA 3B HR

30405 29 3 4.1 TPP 4C GSH

30405 30 1 4.1 TPP 3A GSH

30405 31 1 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30405 32 14 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 41 44 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30405 42 66 4.1 TPP 3A GSH DF

30405 43 43 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30405 44 8 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER RX

30406 1 59 4.1 TPP 4C GSH

30406 2 10 4.1 TPP 4C CT

30406 3 36 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30406 4 9 4.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-13

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30406 5 30 4.1 TPP 4B OR

30406 7 4 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30406 8 97 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30406 9 58 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30406 10 10 4.1 TPP 3C CT50

30406 11 22 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30406 13 50 4.1 TPP 4B GSH

30406 14 21 4.1 TPP 4B OR

30406 16 8 4.1 GRA PE

30406 17 15 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30406 18 13 4.1 TPP 4A GSH

30406 19 16 4.1 TPP 4C CT

30406 20 37 4.1 TPP 4B CT

30406 21 23 4.1 TPP 4C SANI DF

30406 22 17 4.1 TAA 4B HR

30406 27 5 4.1 GRA PE

30406 28 10 4.1 GRA PE

30406 29 6 4.1 GRA PE

30406 30 3 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30406 31 7 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30406 32 2 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30406 33 1 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30406 48 3 4.1 TPP 3C GSH DF

30406 49 22 4.1 TPP 4C CT

30406 50 8 4.1 GRA PE

30406 57 10 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30406 58 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30406 59 46 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30406 60 25 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30406 62 3 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30406 63 145 4.1 TPP 3C GSH

30406 64 16 4.1 TPP 3B GSH

30407 1 56 4.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30407 2 33 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30407 3 79 4.1 TPP 4A VDT DF

30407 4 9 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30407 5 44 4.1 TPP 3A SANI DF

30407 6 32 4.1 TPP 4B SANI

30407 8 17 4.1 TPP 3A SANI

30407 9 129 4.1 TPP 4B GSH DF
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-14

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30407 10 20 4.1 TPP 3A SANI

30407 12 26 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30407 16 142 4.1 TPP 3C GSH DF

30407 19 6 4.1 TWS 4A SANI

30407 20 15 4.1 TPP 4B CT

30407 21 18 4.1 TPP 3C GSH DF

30407 22 2 4.1 TAA 3C HR

30407 24 40 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30407 25 88 4.1 TPP 3A OR DF

30407 26 38 4.1 TPP 4A CT

30407 27 47 4.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30407 28 19 4.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30407 29 22 4.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30407 32 26 4.1 TPP 4B CT50 DF

30407 33 36 4.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30407 35 13 4.1 GRA PE

30407 43 7 4.1 TAA 3B HR

30407 45 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30407 46 27 4.1 TPP 4A CT DF

30407 47 3 4.1 TPP 4A CT DF

30407 49 17 4.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30407 50 3 4.1 TPP 4A SANI

30407 51 6 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30407 52 42 4.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30407 53 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30407 54 16 4.1 TPP 4A OR

30407 55 12 4.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30407 57 12 4.1 TPP 4A POL

30501 3 121 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30501 4 32 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30501 5 8 5.1 TPP 5 SANI

30501 6 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT50

30501 7 24 5.1 TAA 4A HR

30501 8 21 5.1 TPP 5 SANI

30501 9 23 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30501 11 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30501 12 18 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30501 16 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30501 17 19 5.1 TPP 4B POL

30501 18 57 5.1 TPP 4A SANI
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-15

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30501 19 26 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30501 20 17 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30501 21 12 5.1 NFL SANI

30501 22 78 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30501 23 10 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30501 24 42 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30501 25 21 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30501 26 32 5.1 TPP 3C POL DF

30501 31 23 5.1 GRA PE

30501 35 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30501 36 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30501 37 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30501 38 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30501 39 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30501 46 5 5.1 GRA PE

30501 47 45 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30501 48 14 5.1 TPP 4B HC

30501 50 36 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30501 51 4 5.1 TPP 3C CT

30501 52 38 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30502 1 71 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30502 2 17 5.1 TPP 3C POL DF

30502 3 68 5.1 TPP 4B CT RX

30502 4 56 5.1 TPP 4A CT RX

30502 5 36 5.1 TPP 4A CT RX

30502 8 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30502 11 42 5.1 TPP 4C SANI

30502 13 18 5.1 GRA PE RX

30502 14 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30502 15 12 5.1 GRA PE RX

30502 17 15 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30502 18 23 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30502 19 14 5.1 TWS 4C SANI

30502 21 65 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30502 24 12 5.1 TPP 4C HC

30502 25 8 5.1 TPP 4B HC

30502 26 2 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30502 27 8 5.1 TPP 4A SANI RX

30502 29 10 5.1 TPP 4A SANI RX

30502 30 36 5.1 TPP 4A SANI RX/DF
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-16

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30502 34 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30502 35 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30502 36 3 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER RX

30502 37 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30502 38 2 5.1 GRA DEFER

30502 39 2 5.1 TPP 3A SANI

30502 40 3 5.1 TPP 2 GSH

30502 41 2 5.1 GRA PE RX

30502 43 37 5.1 TPP 4A SANI RX/DF

30502 44 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI RX

30502 45 1 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30502 46 18 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30502 53 30 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30502 56 73 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30502 58 7 5.1 GRA PE

30502 59 17 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30502 60 79 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30502 62 33 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30502 63 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30503 2 22 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30503 3 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30503 4 42 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30503 5 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30503 6 8 5.1 GRA PE

30503 7 20 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30503 8 16 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30503 9 25 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30503 10 21 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30503 11 36 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30503 12 73 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30503 13 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30503 15 45 5.1 TPP 4A VDT

30503 16 13 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30503 17 23 5.1 TAA 2 HR

30503 18 1 5.1 TAA 2 HR

30503 19 3 5.1 TAA 1 HR

30503 20 2 5.1 TAA 1 HR

30503 21 2 5.1 GRA PE

30503 22 2 5.1 TAA 1 HR

30503 24 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-17

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30503 25 31 5.1 TPP 3B SANI

30503 26 23 5.1 TPP 3B VDT DF

30503 27 18 5.1 TPP 3B CT50

30503 28 3 5.1 TPP 4B HC

30503 29 16 5.1 TAA 2 HR DF

30503 30 6 5.1 TAA 2 HR DF

30503 31 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30503 32 1 5.1 GRA PE

30503 33 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30503 44 31 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30505 5 4 5.1 GRA PE RX

30505 15 15 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30505 19 34 5.1 TPP 4B GSH RX

30505 20 9 5.1 GRA PE

30505 25 197 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30505 26 27 5.1 TPP 4C GSH

30505 27 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30505 30 24 5.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30505 32 5 5.1 GRA PE

30505 35 33 5.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30505 36 67 5.1 TPP 4B GSH RX

30505 37 32 5.1 GRA PE RX

30505 40 8 5.1 TPP 3C CT RX

30505 43 12 5.1 TPP 4B HC RX

30505 44 100 5.1 TPP 4B VDT RX

30506 2 160 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30506 3 15 5.1 GRA PE

30506 4 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30506 7 27 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30506 12 45 5.1 TPP 3C SANI

30506 13 10 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30506 14 23 5.1 TPP 3C CT

30506 15 38 5.1 TPP 4C CT

30506 18 20 5.1 TPP 5 SANI

30506 20 19 5.1 TPP 5 SANI

30506 33 28 5.1 TPP 4A CT DF

30506 34 36 5.1 GRA PE

30506 35 27 5.1 TPP 4A OR DF

30506 36 92 5.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30506 37 30 5.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-18

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30506 38 4 5.1 TAA 3B HR

30506 39 7 5.1 TAA 4A HR

30506 40 4 5.1 TAA 4A HR

30506 41 8 5.1 GRA PE

30506 42 2 5.1 TPP 4C CT

30506 46 16 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30506 59 71 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30506 60 24 5.1 TPP 3C HC DF

30506 61 16 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30506 63 56 5.1 TPP 4C VDT DF

30506 65 31 5.1 GRA PE

30506 67 27 5.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30506 69 25 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30506 70 5 5.1 GRA PE

30507 1 95 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30507 2 59 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30507 4 38 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30507 5 60 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30507 7 64 5.1 TPP 4B VDT DF

30507 8 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30507 9 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30507 10 30 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30507 11 102 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 DF

30507 12 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 DF

30507 13 116 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30507 15 6 5.1 GRA PE

30507 16 33 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30507 19 90 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30507 20 10 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30507 21 3 5.1 TAA 1 HR

30507 22 9 5.1 TAA 3A HR

30507 23 1 5.1 TAA 3B HR

30507 25 4 5.1 TAA 3A HR DF

30507 27 11 5.1 GRA PE

30507 28 7 5.1 TAA 3A HR

30507 29 3 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER

30507 31 9 5.1 TPP 3C SANI DF

30507 32 8 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30507 33 11 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30507 34 21 5.1 TPP 4B CT
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-19

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30507 41 22 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30507 42 9 5.1 GRA PE

30507 44 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30507 45 29 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30507 46 2 5.1 TAA 2 HR

30508 1 28 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30508 2 12 5.1 GRA PE

30508 4 15 5.1 TPP 4B OR DF

30508 5 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30508 8 25 5.1 TPP 4C VDT DF

30508 9 18 5.1 TPP 4B VDT

30508 10 18 5.1 TPP 4B VDT

30508 11 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30508 12 3 5.1 GRA PE

30508 13 11 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30508 14 16 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30508 17 8 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 DF

30508 18 59 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30508 19 3 5.1 TAA 4B HR

30508 20 4 5.1 TAA 3B HR DF

30508 24 95 5.1 TPP 4C FS DF

30508 25 21 5.1 TPP 4C CT DF

30508 26 3 5.1 TPP 4B OR DF

30508 28 3 5.1 TPP 4B OR DF

30508 29 7 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30508 30 5 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30508 31 5 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30508 43 4 5.1 GRA PE

30508 45 11 5.1 TPP 4B HC DF

30508 46 90 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30508 47 4 5.1 GRA PE

30508 48 97 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 DF

30508 49 4 5.1 GRA PE

30606 28 1 5.1 GRA DEFER

30903 1 52 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30903 2 19 5.1 TPP 3C CT

30903 3 20 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 4 16 5.1 TPP 4A FS

30903 5 36 5.1 TPP 4A POL

30903 6 71 5.1 TPP 4A GSH RX
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-20

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30903 7 5 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30903 8 23 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 9 29 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30903 10 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 11 17 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 12 38 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 13 38 5.1 GRA PE

30903 14 21 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 15 52 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 16 12 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 17 23 5.1 TPP 3A GSH

30903 18 10 5.1 TPP 4A POL RX

30903 19 54 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 20 15 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30903 21 12 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30903 22 13 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30903 23 14 5.1 TPP 3B FS

30903 24 33 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30903 25 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 26 37 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 27 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 28 13 5.1 TPP 3A SANI DF

30903 29 5 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30903 30 6 5.1 TPP 3A HC

30903 31 14 5.1 TPP 3B CT

30903 32 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 33 3 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 34 6 5.1 TAA 3A HR

30903 35 17 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 36 1 5.1 TAA 1 HR

30903 37 8 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 38 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT DF

30903 39 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30903 40 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 41 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30903 42 7 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30903 43 4 5.1 TPP 1 CT

30903 44 6 5.1 TPP 3B CT

30903 45 3 5.1 TPP 3A OR

30903 46 3 5.1 TPP 4A OR
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-21

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30903 47 14 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30903 48 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 49 14 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 50 1 5.1 TPP 4A HC

30903 51 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 52 3 5.1 TPP 3B GSH

30903 53 13 5.1 GRA PE

30903 54 44 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 55 9 5.1 TPP 2 GSH

30903 56 3 5.1 GRA PE

30903 57 6 5.1 GRA PE

30903 58 4 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30903 59 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 60 3 5.1 GRA PE

30903 61 12 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30903 63 3 5.1 TPP 4A OR

30903 64 2 5.1 TPP 4A OR

30903 65 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30903 66 1 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30904 1 48 5.1 GRA PE

30904 2 29 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30904 3 4 5.1 GRA PE

30904 4 12 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30904 5 10 5.1 TPP 3C GSH

30904 6 35 5.1 GRA PE

30904 7 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30904 8 71 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30904 9 14 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30904 10 20 5.1 TPP 3C CT50 DF

30904 11 16 5.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30904 12 27 5.1 TPP 4C FS

30904 13 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30904 14 16 5.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30904 15 10 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30904 16 2 5.1 GRA PE

30904 17 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30904 18 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30904 19 10 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30904 20 2 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30904 21 5 5.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-22

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30904 22 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30904 23 3 5.1 GRA PE

30904 24 58 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30904 25 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30904 26 1 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30904 27 8 5.1 TPP 3C GSH

30904 28 2 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30904 29 11 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30904 30 4 5.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30904 31 1 5.1 GRA PE

30904 32 3 5.1 GRA PE

30905 10 39 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30906 1 42 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 2 42 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 3 26 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30906 4 30 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30906 5 43 5.1 TPP 4B VDT

30906 6 51 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30906 7 4 5.1 GRA PE

30906 8 3 5.1 GRA PE

30906 9 102 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30906 10 12 5.1 TPP 4A POL

30906 11 21 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30906 12 69 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 13 41 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 14 22 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 15 13 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 16 6 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30906 17 2 5.1 TPP 4A VDT

30906 18 23 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30906 19 2 5.1 NFL DEFER

30906 20 5 5.1 TAA 4B HR

30906 21 5 5.1 NFL DEFER

30906 22 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30906 23 2 5.1 GRA PE

30906 24 3 5.1 TPP 1 GSH

30906 25 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30906 26 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 27 19 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30906 28 5 5.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-23

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30906 29 18 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30906 30 5 5.1 GRA PE

30906 31 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30906 32 1 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30906 33 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 34 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30906 44 15 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30906 45 9 5.1 TPP 2 PCT

30907 1 1 5.1 NFL DEFER

30907 2 27 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30907 3 35 5.1 TPP 4A FS

30907 4 26 5.1 TPP 3B POL

30907 5 12 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30907 6 63 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30907 7 20 5.1 TPP 3A CT50

30907 8 71 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30907 9 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 DF

30907 10 7 5.1 TPP 1 SANI

30907 11 1 5.1 NFL SANI

30907 12 4 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30907 13 5 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30907 14 2 5.1 TPP 4B SANI FB

30907 15 2 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30907 16 3 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30907 17 12 5.1 TPP 4C GSH

30907 18 9 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30907 19 1 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30907 20 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30907 21 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT50

30907 22 5 5.1 TPP 3A POL

30907 23 5 5.1 TPP 3B CT50

30907 24 6 5.1 TPP 4A CT50

30907 25 8 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30907 26 16 5.1 TPP 3C CT

30907 27 2 5.1 GRA PE

30907 28 2 5.1 GRA PE

30907 29 3 5.1 GRA PE

30907 30 20 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30907 31 13 5.1 TPP 3B CT

30907 32 3 5.1 TPP 1 SANI
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-24

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30907 33 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30907 34 1 5.1 GRA PE

30907 35 8 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30907 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30907 37 7 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30908 10 64 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30908 16 37 5.1 TPP 4A GSH DF

30908 39 22 5.1 TPP 4A SANI DF

30909 2 93 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30909 3 25 5.1 TPP 3B DEFER FB

30909 4 8 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30909 5 96 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30909 6 59 5.1 TPP 4B SANI DF

30909 7 12 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30909 8 48 5.1 TPP 3C GSH

30909 9 36 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30909 10 319 5.1 TPP 4B GSH DF

30909 11 23 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30909 12 37 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30909 13 13 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30909 14 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30909 15 14 5.1 TPP 4C GSH

30909 16 1 5.1 GRA PE

30909 19 8 5.1 GRA PE

30909 22 27 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30909 23 28 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30909 24 6 5.1 GRA PE

30909 27 20 5.1 GRA PE

30909 28 10 5.1 GRA PE

30909 29 9 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30909 31 9 5.1 GRA PE

30909 35 3 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30909 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30909 37 67 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30909 39 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30912 12 47 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30912 13 1 5.1 GRA DEFER

30913 2 7 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30913 3 22 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30913 4 95 5.1 TPP 4A GSH
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-25

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30913 5 2 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30913 6 51 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30913 8 42 5.1 TPP 3A PCT

30913 9 66 5.1 TPP 4B FS

30913 12 6 5.1 GRA PE

30913 13 20 5.1 TPP 4A CT50

30913 15 20 5.1 GRA PE

30913 16 9 5.1 TPP 4B DEFER FB

30913 17 3 5.1 TPP 3A PCT

30913 18 13 5.1 GRA PE

30913 21 3 5.1 GRA PE

30913 22 2 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30914 1 47 5.1 TPP 4C GSH DF

30914 2 12 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30914 3 50 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30914 4 27 5.1 TPP 4C GSH

30914 5 4 5.1 NFL DEFER

30914 6 30 5.1 TPP 4B SANI

30914 7 40 5.1 TPP 4B CT

30914 8 1 5.1 GRA PE

30914 9 74 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30914 10 11 5.1 TPP 3C GSH DF

30914 11 36 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

30914 13 24 5.1 TPP 4B DEFER FB

30914 14 27 5.1 TPP 3B GSH DF

30914 15 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30914 16 41 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30914 17 7 5.1 TPP 4C GSH

30914 18 8 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30914 19 5 5.1 GRA PE

30914 20 5 5.1 TAA 2 HR

30914 23 14 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30914 24 13 5.1 GRA PE

30914 25 8 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30914 26 4 5.1 GRA PE

30914 27 3 5.1 TPP 2 GSH

30914 28 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30914 29 4 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

30914 30 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30914 31 2 5.1 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-26

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

30914 32 1 5.1 GRA PE

30914 33 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50

30914 34 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30914 35 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30914 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

30914 37 3 5.1 GRA PE

30914 38 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT

30914 39 8 5.1 TPP 3C CT

31201 3 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

31201 9 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

31203 26 49 5.1 TPP 4A FS

31205 36 6 5.1 GRA PE

31205 50 3 5.1 GRA PE

31206 1 89 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31206 2 18 5.1 TPP 4B GSH

31206 3 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

31206 4 7 5.1 TPP 4A SANI

31206 5 46 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31207 1 32 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31207 3 68 5.1 TPP 4A FS

31207 4 10 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31207 6 24 5.1 TPP 3A GSH

31207 7 14 5.1 TPP 3A GSH

31207 9 18 5.1 TPP 4A CT50

31207 10 2 5.1 GRA PE

31207 11 27 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31207 12 3 5.1 GRA PE

31207 13 28 5.1 TPP 4B FS

31207 18 6 5.1 GRA DEFER

31208 1 74 5.1 TPP 3B GSH

31208 2 17 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31208 7 16 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31208 13 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH

31301 1 22 5.4 TPP 4A CT

31301 2 42 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 3 45 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 4 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31301 5 158 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31301 6 43 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 7 2 5.4 GRA PE
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-27

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

31301 8 34 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31301 9 46 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31301 10 24 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 11 39 5.4 TPP 3B SANI

31301 12 29 5.4 TPP 4A SWSC

31301 13 21 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 14 21 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31301 15 28 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 16 67 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31301 17 12 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 18 52 5.4 TPP 3C POL

31301 19 21 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31301 20 11 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 21 9 5.4 TPP 1 SANI

31301 23 2 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

31301 24 4 5.4 TAA 3B HR

31301 25 1 5.4 TPP 4B HC

31301 26 8 5.4 TPP 3B CT50

31301 27 16 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 28 10 5.4 TPP 3A SANI

31301 31 12 5.4 TPP 3B POL

31301 32 11 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB

31301 33 6 5.4 GRA PE

31301 34 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 35 29 5.4 TPP 4A POL

31301 36 15 5.4 GRA PE

31301 37 6 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

31301 38 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 41 3 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31301 43 13 5.4 TPP 3B GSH

31301 44 8 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31301 52 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

31301 53 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31302 3 5 5.4 TPP 2 HC

31302 4 10 5.4 TPP 3A HC

31302 7 10 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31302 8 91 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31302 9 60 5.4 TPP 4B CT DF

31302 10 26 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31302 11 25 5.4 TPP 4C SANI
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-28

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

31302 12 22 5.4 TPP 4B GSH DF

31302 13 29 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31302 15 57 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31302 16 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31302 19 19 5.4 TPP 4B HC DF

31302 21 6 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31302 22 21 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31302 34 19 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 1 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 2 37 5.4 TPP 3B OR

31303 3 52 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 4 3 5.4 GRA PE

31303 5 42 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31303 6 56 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 7 51 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

31303 9 44 5.4 TPP 4A SANI FB

31303 10 50 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 11 58 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 12 34 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 13 36 5.4 TPP 3B GSH

31303 14 44 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 15 72 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 16 8 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31303 17 45 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31303 21 3 5.4 GRA DEFER

31303 22 20 5.4 GRA PE

31303 24 20 5.4 TPP 4A OR

31303 25 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31303 26 4 5.4 GRA PE

31303 29 6 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 30 12 5.4 TPP 4C GSH DF

31303 31 3 5.4 TPP 4A GSH DF

31303 34 88 5.4 GRA PE

31303 36 108 5.4 GRA PE

31303 47 14 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31303 54 57 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31303 55 47 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

31303 56 19 5.4 TPP 3B GSH

31303 57 62 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31304 1 36 5.4 TPP 3C CT
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-29

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

31304 2 48 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 3 3 5.4 NFL SANI

31304 4 62 5.4 TPP 3C CT

31304 5 40 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 6 45 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 7 34 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31304 8 67 5.4 TPP 3C CT50

31304 9 42 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31304 10 50 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

31304 11 1 5.4 TPP 2 DEFER

31304 12 16 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

31304 13 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 14 29 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

31304 15 7 5.4 GRA PE

31304 16 10 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 17 22 5.4 TPP 4C CT DF

31304 18 15 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31304 19 14 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31304 20 2 5.4 GRA PE

31304 21 10 5.4 GRA PE

31304 22 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 23 14 5.4 TPP 3B CT

31304 24 15 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB

31304 25 2 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31304 26 14 5.4 TPP 4C GSH

31304 27 6 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 28 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH

31304 29 2 5.4 GRA PE

31304 30 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

31304 31 6 5.4 TPP 4A GSH

31305 1 33 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31305 2 28 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31305 3 81 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 RX

31305 4 46 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB

31305 5 17 5.4 TPP 4B POL

31305 6 42 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 RX

31305 7 95 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 RX

31305 8 10 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31305 9 6 5.4 GRA PE

31305 10 44 5.4 TPP 4B CT50
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-30

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

31305 11 17 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 12 15 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 13 35 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 RX

31305 14 12 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 15 1 5.4 GRA PE

31305 16 3 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 17 15 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 19 7 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31305 20 8 5.4 TPP 3B CT50

31306 1 3 5.4 TPP 3B POL

31306 2 27 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31306 3 43 5.4 TPP 4B FS

31306 4 25 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31306 5 31 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31306 6 4 5.4 GRA PE

31306 7 1 5.4 GRA PE

31306 8 4 5.4 TAA 3B HR

31306 9 48 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31306 10 38 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31306 11 78 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB/DF

31306 12 18 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 13 59 5.4 TPP 3B CT50

31306 14 63 5.4 TPP 3B POL

31306 16 3 5.4 GRA PE

31306 17 49 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31306 18 23 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 20 30 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 22 34 5.4 GRA PE

31306 23 1 5.4 TAA 2 HR

31306 24 55 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 25 19 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 26 3 5.4 TPP 1 CT

31306 28 22 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 29 30 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31306 30 13 5.4 TPP 3C CT

31306 31 2 5.4 TAA 3A HR

31306 32 10 5.4 TPP 3B CT

31306 37 19 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31306 39 14 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31307 1 42 5.4 TPP 4C CT50
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-31

Location and Site Acres Management

Area Cover Type ExistingStructural Stage

Alternative 2

Prescription

Alternative 2

Fire & Fuels

31307 2 26 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31307 3 42 5.4 TPP 4C CT50

31307 4 47 5.4 TPP 4B CT50

31307 6 32 5.4 TPP 3C CT

31307 7 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31307 8 24 5.4 TPP 4A SANI

31307 14 45 5.4 TPP 3B POL

31307 15 41 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31307 16 4 5.4 NFL DEFER

31307 18 7 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31307 19 30 5.4 GRA PE RX

31307 20 112 5.4 TPP 4C VDT

31307 26 18 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31307 27 16 5.4 TPP 3C CT

31307 29 36 5.4 GRA PE RX

31307 32 18 5.4 TPP 4C CT

31307 34 36 5.4 TPP 4B SANI

31307 36 125 5.4 TPP 4C VDT

31307 40 17 5.4 TPP 4B CT

31310 4 93 5.4 TPP 4B SANI FB

Appendix E:

FINDINGS: SILVICULTURE
 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E

E-1

Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and 

Policy

Vestal Project EIS

The following findings are made based on the environmental analysis and the 

silvicultural prescription:

Consistency with plans [16 U.S.C. 1604 (i)]: 

1. Timber harvest would occur on lands suited for timber production or would 

occur in areas where timber harvest is permitted and is necessary to help 

achieve other resource management objectives.

All areas to be harvested are suitable and permissible for harvest. 

2. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan.

See page II-25 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan for 

acceptable Silvicultural Systems.

Timber Harvest [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]: 

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; 

See Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report.

2. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years 

after final regeneration harvest.

Regeneration surveys would be accomplished on all shelterwood seed cuts 

(3rd and 5th years), overstory removals (1st year), and on all selection cuts (5th

year) to assure the stands have regenerated properly. There would be no 

clearcutting in the Vestal project area.

3. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water 

are protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of 

water courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are likely to seriously 

and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat.

See Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report.

4. The harvesting system to be used was not selected primarily because it will 

give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.

Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)]: 

1. For clearcutting, if it is the optimum method.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E

E-2

Clearcutting would not be used in the Vestal project area.

2. Clearcuts, coppice cuts, seed tree, and shelterwood regeneration harvests are 

appropriate to meeting the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan.

See page II-25 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan for 

acceptable Silvicultural Systems.

3. An interdisciplinary review was completed and the potential environmental, 

biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts were assessed and 

the cutting methods are consistent with the multiple use of the project area.

See Vestal Project EIS and specialist reports.

4. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable 

with the natural terrain.

5. Even-aged regeneration harvests made in one operation meet the 40-acre 

maximum size limit requirement.

There are no harvests that need to meet this requirement.

6. Harvest will be consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, 

recreation, esthetic resources, cultural and historic resources, and the 

regeneration of timber resources.

Vestal Project Botany BE and specialist report

Vestal Project Wildlife BE and specialist report

Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report

Vestal Project Heritage specialist report

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment [16 U.S.C. 1604 (m)]:

Stands of trees harvested have generally reached the culmination of mean annual 

increment of growth (CMAI).

Page II-26 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan 

Guideline 2411. Regeneration harvests of even-aged timber stands should 

not be undertaken until the stands have generally reached (or surpassed 95% 

of the) culmination of the mean annual increment measured in cubic feet.

CMAI occurs when the periodic annual increment equals the mean annual 

increment (MAI). The BHNF considers any stand that has reached 120 years 

old as having reached CMAI. All stands receiving regeneration harvests meet 

this requirement.

Finding prepared and 

recommended by: Date:

Donald M. Boone Jr.

Certified Silviculturist
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E

E-3

Findings accepted by: Date:

Lynn D. Kolund

District Ranger

Appendix F:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

ACTIVITIES

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-1

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities

Past Actions

Years Type of Activity Acres Project Name

1960-

present

Livestock Grazing Allotments: Cicero, French Creek, North 

Custer, South Custer, Tenderfoot

1980-1999 Timber Harvest 11,885 Buckhorn, Marble, Custer, Wabash, Ruby 

Creek, Thunderhead, Minnie, Sanator, 

Willow, Laughing, Atlantic, Bismark, Glen 

Erin Salvage

1982-1999 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement – thin/ weed 

and release

863 Marble, Ruby Creek, Sourdough, 

Thunderhead, Needles 2, Laughing, 

Buckhorn, Limestone, Minnie

1985-1999 Pre-commercial Thinning 5,302 Buckhorn, Marble, Custer, Wabash, Ruby 

Creek, Minnie, Sanator, Willow, Laughing, 

Atlantic, Bismark

1986-1998 Site prep for Natural 

Regeneration

925 Marble, Ruby Creek, Laughing, Bismark, 

Buckhorn

1986-1999 Weed Spraying 3,100 Marble, Ruby Creek, Sourdough, 

Thunderhead, Needles 2, Laughing, 

Buckhorn, Limestone, Minnie

1988-1999 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement - Forage

548 Custer, Willow, Bismarck, Laughing, 

Minnie, Elephant, Ruby Creek, Buckhorn, 

Sanator, Herbie, 

1990 Wildfire 14,518 Cicero Peak

1990-2000 Burn and Rehab Piles 600 Willow, Minnie, Bismarck, Laughing, 

Custer, Ruby Creek, Wabash, Herbie 

Salvage, Glen Erin, Garsong

1990-2000 Jackpot Burning 80 Needles 2, Goat, Buckhorn, Ruby Creek

1990-2011 Fuels Reduction – chipping, 

crushing/compacting

214 Bismarck, Minnie

1990-2011 Fuel Break Construction 1,010 Ruby Creek, Minnie, Buckhorn, Laughing, 

Willow, Custer, Sanator, Painter, Silverstar 

1991-1996 Plant Trees 40 Cicero Salvage, Outside Sale

1994-95 Fish Habitat Improvement 8 Sanator

1997-2002 Land Exchanges & 

Acquisitions

Acquired: 

1,274 ac.; 

Conveyed: 

1,337 ac.

Busskohl, Kreitz, Linde, Custer Area, 

Knuckles, Pacer 2

1999 Pine Encroachment control 160 Buckhorn

2000-2011 Timber Harvest 5,333 Limestone, Needles 2, Wabash, Silverstar, 

Goat, Little Quincy, Quincy Bug, Tenderfoot 

Bug, Joe Gulch, Atlantic Bug, BX10 

Settlement, Garsong, Painter

2000-2011 Pre-commercial Thinning 960 Limestone, Needles 2, Goat

2000-

Present

Burn and Rehab Piles 350 Needles 2, Buckhorn, Goat, Thunderhead, 

Bismarck, Limestone, Sanator, Painter, 

Elephant

2000-

Present

Jackpot Burning 25 Needles 2, Goat, Buckhorn, 

2000-2011 Wildlife Habitat 170 Bismarck, Buckhorn, Custer, Limestone, 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-2

Improvement - Forage Needles 2, Goat

2000-2011 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement – thin/ weed 

and release

282 Needles 2, Limestone

2000-2011 Weed Spraying 1,944 Painter, Limestone, Needles 2, Custer, 

Garsong, Thunderhead, Minnie, Laughing, 

Pringle

2007 Site prep for Natural 

Regeneration

108 Painter

2011 POL Thinning 345 Tenderfoot Bug, Joe Gulch, Atlantic Bug

2011 MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake Campground & Day Use 

Area

Weed Spraying 111 Custer County RAC 

Present Actions

Years Type of Activity Measure Project Name Comments

2011-2013 Timber Harvest 1,181 ac Wabash Resale

2011-2012 POL Thinning 102 ac Quincy Bug

2011-2014 POL Thinning 1,111 ac Goat

2011-2014 Precommercial Thinning 256 ac Goat

2011-2015 MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake 

Campground & Day 

Use Area, Bob 

Marshall Camp

On-going Maintaining Issued Easements 48 

easements

On-going Special Use Permits Multiple projects

On-going Land Exchange Cattail Land 

Exchange, Deer 

Valley Administrative 

Site Sale, Tenderfoot 

Creek Acquisition,

Federal parcels 

identified for 

conveyance or 

acquisition. 

On-going Encroachments Trespass & 

encroachment, 

dumping 

garbage/storage of 

personal items

Livestock Grazing Permits Allotments: Cicero, 

French Creek, North 

Custer, South Custer, 

Tenderfoot

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Years Type of Activity Measure Project Name

Forest-wide level planning project in 

response to the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic.

Forest-wide

Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project

Burn and Rehab Piles 50 Tenderfoot Bug, North Wabash

Jackpot Burning 272 acres Goat

2016 Broadcast Burn 32 acres Goat

2013, 2014 Wildlife Habitat Improvement 166 acres Goat

Weed Spraying 508 acres Goat
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-3

Range Improvement -implementation 

(dugouts, fencing, etc.)

French Creek Range 2010 EA 

(HC Range EA)

Thinning within a 1 mile buffer around 

Custer City

Mountain Pine Beetle Project 

(Custer County Commissioners)

MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake Campground & 

Day Use

MPB Prevention Spraying Camp Bob Marshall

Lake Enhancement Bismarck Lake Dredging

Road Maintenance – Implementation of 

Travel Management 

Black Hills Travel Management 

Plan

Land Exchange & Acquisitions Cattail Land Exchange, Deer 

Valley Administrative Site Sale, 

Tenderfoot Creek Acquisition,

Access Issues/Road System 

Management

As private land owners 

subdivide or develop property, 

access issues would occur.

Special Use Permits As private land owners develop 

property an increase in special 

use requests and applications for 

various uses would be expected. 

Small Tracts Act May be opportunities to pursue 

conveying land.

Utility Lines With new subdivisions 

emerging, new requests for 

electric, fiber optic, telephone 

lines that cross NFS land would 

be expected.

Encroachments Trespass & encroachment, 

dumping garbage/storage of 

personal items would continue 

to be expected. 

Mining 1 Mine Straight 8 Placer Mine

The State of South Dakota has an ongoing program to assist private landowners with 

identification of mountain pine beetle infested trees and initiation of other preventative 

treatments. It is expected that a significant number of acres of private land will be 

involved with this program in the next several years. More information on this program 

may be found here: http://www.sdda.sd.gov/Forestry/.

Appendix G:

SUMMARY: BIOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL

EVALUATION

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-1

Summary of Botany and Wildlife 

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

Introduction

This is a summary of the Vestal project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations 

(BA/BE’s), and is a review and analysis of actions proposed in the Vestal Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. The full BA/BE’s are in the Vestal project file. The 

purpose of a BA/BE is to determine how the proposed action and alternatives to the 

proposed action will affect federally listed species or sensitive species listed by the 

Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670, R2 Supplement No. 2600-2011-1, 2672.11 –

Exhibit 01, effective June 10, 2011). The Vestal BA/BE’s were prepared in accordance 

with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follow standards established in Forest Service Manual direction 

(2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §402). The Vestal BA/BE’s tier 

directly to the EIS for the revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended, the BA/BE completed for the Forest Plan 

revision, and the BA/BE prepared for the Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service 

2006).

Pre-field Review and Field Reconnaissance

Botany

Federally Listed Plant Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on September 14, 2010 for the state of South Dakota. There are no 

threatened or endangered plant species habitat known to occur in the State of South 

Dakota, nor does habitat that could support threatened or endangered plant species 

known from adjacent states occur in the project area (USFWS 2010a).

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species

The Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species list was updated by the Regional Forester on June 

10, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011). All R2 sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the 

Black Hills National Forest were considered in the evaluation. Based on the pre-field review, 

Viola selkirkii is the only known Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species that occurs within the 

project area. Suitable habitat is however present in the area for two other species. A prefield review was conducted of available information to assemble occurrence records, 

describe habitat needs and ecological requirements, and determine whether field 

reconnaissance is needed to complete the analysis. Sources of information included 

botanical surveys, Forest Service records and files, local professional judgment, and 

published research.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-2

Table G-1. Region 2 Sensitive plant species occurring within or with suitable habitat 

within the Vestal Project Area

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Distribution and Habitat

Species 

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present 

in 

Project 

Area?

Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

yellow 

lady’s 

slipper

Primarily circumboreal in distribution and rangewide is generally 

found in shady deciduous and mixed woodlands near streams, 

shrublands, swamps, bogs, and wet forests. Habitat in the Black 

Hills includes stream banks under both white spruce and 

deciduous overstories, moist cliffs and moist areas/seeps under 

white spruce or mixed conifer forest. Occasionally, it is found on 

upper mesic forest slopes. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 3,500 to 6,500 ft.

No Yes

Platanthera 

orbiculata 

large roundleaf orchid

Endemic to the boreal regions of northern North America, with a 

more southern distribution in the eastern United States. Black 

Hills occurrences are found primarily on shady, north-facing 

slopes in paper birch/hardwood or white spruce forests on moist, 

rich, humus soil. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 

4,300 to 6,200 ft.

No Yes

Viola 

selkirkii 

greatspurred 

violet

Viola selkirkii is a circumboreal herbaceous species, and 

rangewide it is locally abundant in specialized microsites in 

coniferous and deciduous forests. Black Hills occurrences are 

known from BKF lands, Custer State Park and Mt. Rushmore 

National Monument and are restricted to a concentrated area (ca. 

36 square miles) of the central core on igneous or metamorphic 

bedrock. Microhabitats are often moist, cold air drainages, in 

shaded to open areas, and often in the vicinity of granitic rock 

outcrops. White spruce is usually the dominant overstory with a 

variable understory. All currently known occurrences on BKF 

lands are located within the Black Elk Wilderness and/or the 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 5,200 to 7,000 ft.

Yes Yes

Wildlife

Federally Listed Wildlife Species

There are no federally listed wildlife species in the Vestal project area. A list of federally 

threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and was last verified on 

September 01, 2011 (USFWS 2011a). The South Dakota State Office is the primary 

center for all of the Black Hills, including Wyoming. The USFWS lists the following 

endangered and/or threatened species for Pennington County, South Dakota: whooping 

crane, Sprague’s pipit, and black-footed ferret.

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species considered

on the Black Hills National Forest under Section 7 consultation (letter of concurrence 

from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, dated August 8, 2003). 

It was determined that management activities on the Forest would have ‘no effect’ on 

these species because the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable habitat.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-3 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the conservation status of Sprague’s Pipit to 

determine whether the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

The status review found that listing Sprague’s Pipit as threatened or endangered is 

warranted, but that listing the species at this time is precluded by the need to complete 

other listing actions of a higher priority. To ensure this review was comprehensive, the 

Service solicited information from state and federal natural resource agencies and all 

interested parties regarding the Sprague’s pipit and its habitat. Sprague’s pipits use 

grassland habitat almost exclusively throughout the year. During the breeding season, 

Sprague’s pipits favor relatively large grassland patches. The grassland habitat 

associated with the project area consists of relatively smaller grassland patches mixed 

with areas of ponderosa pine forest. This species would be expected to migrate through 

the project area at most. This species was not observed during field surveys of the 

project area (2008-2011). The Vestal Project on the Black Hills National Forest system 

land would not reduce habitat for this species and therefore would have ‘no effect’ on the 

Sprague’s pipit.

Although the black-footed ferret is listed for Custer County, it is an experimental 

population located in eastern Pennington County; it is an endangered population, with 

provisions for accidental ‘take’, located in southern Custer County, where they have been 

re-introduced into Wind Cave National Park. Habitat for the black-footed ferret is not 

present in the project area because there are no large-sized prairie dog colonies. The 

Vestal Project would have ‘no effect’ on ferrets because the project area lacks suitable 

habitat.

Table G-2. Expected Occurrence of Threatened and Endangered Species within the

Project Area.

Species Status1 Species 

Present2

Habitat

Present3

Further 

Analysis 

Provided4

Habitat Description/Analysis 

Rationale

Black footed 

ferret (Mustela 

nigripes)

E NO NO NO

Prairie dog towns (USFWS 

2011b). No reintroduction sites or 

other known suitable habitat in the 

project area.

Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus 

spragueii)

C NO NO NO

Large grasslands (USFWS

2011e). No suitable habitat 

present. 1 E= Endangered in Custer County; C= Candidate in Custer County. 2 Confirmed records of species in project area or immediate vicinity.

3 Habitat Present- Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. 4

Further Analysis Provided- If the species is not suspected to occur and if suitable habitat is not present or 

habitat would not be affected by the proposed project then no further effects analysis for that species is 

necessary because they would not be expected to be adversely affected by the project as proposed. Refer to 

the Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale section of Table G-2.

Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on

June 10, 2011. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

There are now 25 species on the Region 2 sensitive species list that could be present in 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-4

the Black Hills.

The pre-field review of Region 2 Sensitive Species was completed using survey results, 

district records, literature reviews, on-line databases, and the South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Database. There are two, one of which was new in 2011, goshawk territories 

that have been monitored within the project area. There are two Frest sites within the 

project area, but no sensitive species have been recorded there. Stream surveys 

conducted by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, document the 

mountain suckers within the analysis area.

The following table lists Region 2 sensitive species that may be present in the Black 

Hills. Fourteen R2 sensitive species occur or could potentially occur (habitat may be 

present) in the Vestal project area (Table G-3). 

Table G-3. Expected Occurrence of R2 Sensitive Species within the Vestal project area.

Species Species 

Present1

Habitat 

Present2

Further 

Analysis 

Provided3

Habitat Description/Analysis 

Rationale

Fringed Myotis

(Myotis thysanodes) YES YES YES

This species forages on insects in a wide 

variety of habitats including grasslands 

and forested areas. Roosting sites also 

vary but include snags, caves, mines, 

and rock crevices (Keinath 2004). 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii)

YES YES YES

Forages on insects in a variety of 

habitats including forested and wet 

areas. Roosts in a variety of structures 

including caves, mines, and buildings 

(Gruver and Keinath 2006). 

Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus) NO YES YES

This bat roosts primarily among foliage 

in deciduous and coniferous trees, often 

along the edges of clearings. Forages on 

insects, especially moths (Valdez and 

Cryan 2009).

Black-tailed prairie 

dog 

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

YES YES YES

Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies

(USFWS 2011c). There is one prairie 

dog town within the project area.

American marten

(Martes americana) NO YES YES

Spruce forests with complex nearground structure, extending into 

Adjacent ponderosa pine stands 

(Buskirk 2002). 

Bighorn Sheep 

(Ovis canadensis 

canadensis)

NO NO NO

Prefers vegetative openness (grasslands, 

rocky areas, large burns and clear-cuts). 

Existing herds in the Black Hills are

mostly located in Custer State Park, in 

the Spring Creek area, and in the Elk 

Mountain range (Beecham et al. 2007). 

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus)

YES YES YES

In the Black Hills, bald eagles are still 

considered winter residents or spring/fall 

migrants. Usually found near unfrozen 

water or carrion in winter (Tallman et al. 

2002, USFWS 2011d). 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-5 

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis) YES YES YES

Forages in a variety of forested areas 

and small openings; nests primarily in 

dense mature conifer forests (Kennedy 

2003). 

American peregrine 

falcon 

(Falco peregrinus 

anatum)

NO NO NO

Tall cliffs in open areas near water 

(Johnsgard 1990). Not suspected to 

occur in project vicinity. There are no 

cliffs over 25’ high near open water in 

the project area.

Northern harrier 

(Circus cyaneus) YES NO NO

Prairies, open fields and marshes 

(Tallman et al. 2002). Not suspected to 

occur in project vicinity. Suitable 

habitat for this species is not present on 

federal lands within the project area; 

however, they have been observed in a 

private meadow, but no activities are 

expected to occur there.

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

americanus)

NO NO NO

Low elevation riparian areas and 

woodlands characterized with 

cottonwood-willow or bur oak (Panjabi 

2003). Suitable habitat for this species 

is not present in the project area.

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) NO NO NO

Dry grasslands and pastures, usually 

associated with prairie dogs or ground 

squirrels (Tallman et al. 2002). Not 

suspected to occur in project vicinity. 

Suitable habitat for this species is not 

present in the project area because only 

a small prairie dog town is within the 

project area.

Flammulated owl

(Otus flammeolus) NO YES YES Open ponderosa pine forests, cavity nester (McCallum 1994). 

Lewis’s woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis) NO NO NO

Open areas with large snags; oak and 

cottonwood forests (Anderson 2003, 

Panjabi 2003). Large acres of suitable 

habitat are not present within the project 

area, but it can be found adjacent to the 

project area in burned areas.

Black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus)

YES YES YES

Burned areas with a high density of preburn snags; dense and/or mature forests 

with a high snag density (Anderson 

2003, Panjabi 2003). 

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus) NO NO NO

Open country with scattered, low 

deciduous thickets (Tallman et al. 2002). 

Not suspected to occur in project 

vicinity because suitable habitat is not 

present.

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

NO NO NO

Found almost exclusively in native 

mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). 

Suitable habitat for this species is not 

present in the project area.
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-6

Long-billed curlew

(Numenius 

americanus)

NO NO NO

Considered native prairie specialists 

requiring short-grass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with nearly flat 

topography (Sedgwick 2006). Suitable 

habitat for this species is not present in 

the project area.

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens) YES YES YES

Riparian and wetland areas for tadpoles, 

sub adults, and breeding adults; upland 

habitats for foraging adults (Smith and 

Keinath 2007). 

Black Hills redbelly 

snake (Storeria 

occipitomaculata

pahasapae)

YES YES YES 

Wet meadows, woodlands, and forestmeadow edge habitat in the Black Hills 

(Smith and Stephans 2003). Denning 

habitat could include anthills and rocky 

outcrops areas near these habitats.

Lake chub (Couesius 

plumbeus) NO NO NO

Present only in Deerfield Reservoir 

(Isaak et al. 2003) which is not in the 

Vestal Project Area. 

Finescale dace 

(Phoxinus neogaeus) NO NO NO

Small lakes and cool, boggy 

environments associated with springs or 

beaver dams in the Redwater Drainage 

(Isaak et al. 2003). Species is not 

present in the project area.

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus)

YES YES YES 

Cool, clear, moderately swift mountain 

streams with mud, cobble, or boulder 

substrate (Isaak et al. 2003). Reported 

in French Creek downstream of 

Stockade Lake.

Cooper’s mountain 

snail

(Oreohelix strigosa 

cooperi)

NO YES YES

Lowland wooded or riparian areas on 

limestone soils (Frest and Johannes 

2002). 

Regal fritillary

butterfly

(Speyeria idalia)

NO YES YES

Tallgrass prairie and extensive 

grasslands with violets (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). Not suspected to occur 

in project vicinity. 1 Confirmed records of species in project area or immediate vicinity. 2 Habitat Present – Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. 3 Further Analysis Provided – If the species is not suspected to occur and if suitable habitat is not present or 

habitat would not be affected by the proposed project then no further effects analysis for that species is 

necessary because they would not be expected to be adversely affected by the project as proposed. Refer to 

the Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale section of Table G-3.

Determinations Summary – Flora (Botany)

The action alternative will result in both positive and negative impacts to Cypripedium 

parviflorum and Platanthera orbiculata. Positive impacts will be a decrease in the 

potential for a high intensity fire and increased water yields. Negative impacts may 

include an increase in noxious weeds and damage to any unknown or known individual 

plants. Any negative impacts to individuals are expected to be short-term, while longterm impacts should be beneficial. The following determination is valid for both species: 

“May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.”
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-7 

The action alternative will result in both positive and negative impacts to Viola selkirkii. 

Positive impacts will be a decrease in the potential for a high intensity fire and increased 

water yields. Negative impacts may include an increase in noxious weeds and damage to 

any unknown or known individual plants. Any negative impacts to individuals are 

expected to be short-term, while long-term impacts should be beneficial. The following 

determination is valid: “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.”

Table G-4. Determination Summary for R2 Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Cypripedium parviflorum

yellow lady’s slipper MAII MAII

Platanthera orbiculata

large round-leaf orchid MAII MAII

Viola selkirkii

great-spurred violet MAII MAII

NI = No impact

MAII = 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.

Determinations Summary – Fauna (Wildlife)

The determination of effects on federally listed wildlife species and Region 2 Sensitive 

Species in this BA/BE were made as the result of the information gathered in the prefield review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis for all alternatives. The basis for 

these determinations was potential habitat, distribution, and effects from proposed 

activities, and the Black Hills National Forest Plan, including the Phase II Amendment 

(Standards and Guidelines). The determination language is set forth in Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and by the USFWS.

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005b) evaluated 

population viability, and determined that all federally listed and sensitive species are 

likely to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are 

followed, and if conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. All standards and 

guidelines will be followed in proposed action of the Vestal project. Furthermore, all 

alternatives are consistent with Objective 221, which is to conserve or enhance habitat for 

sensitive species. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to affect habitat within the 

project area, but the project activities are following standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

persistence of all R2 sensitive species would not be affected by the proposed action of the

Vestal project.

With implementation of Forest Plan direction and project-specific design criteria, the 

following determinations are made for R2 Sensitive Species (Table G-5):

Table G-5. Determination Summary for R2 Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Bald eagle NI NI
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-8

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Fringed myotis MAII MAII

Townsend’s big-eared bat MAII MAII

Hoary bat MAII MAII

Northern goshawk MAII MAII

Flammulated owl MAII MAII

Black-backed woodpecker MAII MAII

Northern leopard frog MAII MAII

Black Hills redbelly snake NI MAII

Cooper’s mountain snail MAII MAII

Regal fritillary butterfly NI MAII

Mountain Sucker MAII MAII

Black-tailed prairie dog NI MAII

American marten MAII MAII

NI = No impact

MAII = 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.
 

Appendix H:

EPIDEMIC DETERMINATION

Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H

 H - 1 
Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H

 

H - 2