Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 1

Record of Decision  

Nautilus Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement  

USDA‐Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest

Northern Hills Ranger District

Lawrence, Meade and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision regarding actions I am authorizing under

the Nautilus Project and the rationale for my decision. The Nautilus Project was initiated in

November 2009 primarily to reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation on National

Forest System (NFS) land within the project area. Over 70 percent of the pine stands within the

project area is currently categorized as having a high insect risk rating. Areas in which a high risk

rating is identified could experience extensive tree mortality if an infestation were to become

established.  

The Nautilus Project has been completed under the provisions of the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The project qualified for HFRA under Title I, Section 102(a) of

the Act, which includes areas that contain or are adjacent to an insect epidemic that poses a risk

to forest resources. A forest health evaluation for the project area was completed by a Forest

Service Entomologist. That report concluded that epidemic levels of mountain pine beetles exist

in the Nautilus project area (Allen 2010). Craig Bobzien, the Forest Supervisor for the Black Hills

National Forest, concurred with that finding and determined that the project  met the criteria in

Section 102(a)(4) of HFRA.

The Nautilus Project was also intended to respond to the need to reduce the risk of high

intensity wildfires, improve watershed conditions, provide for a diversity of wildlife habitat, and

conduct research forestry activities. All of these needs are consistent with direction contained in

the 1997 Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended

by the 2005 Phase II Amendment (Forest Plan, USDA‐FS 2005).  

The Nautilus Project was originally set to be analyzed as part of the larger Steamboat Project.

After reviewing the available data and considering timelines, I determined that it would be more

efficient to split the Steamboat area in two using Nemo Road and Forest Highway 26 as the

dividing line. This division left Steamboat Rock, the landmark for which the original project area

was named, in the eastern half, so the west half was renamed Nautilus. The east half will retain

the Steamboat name and will be analyzed at a future date.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 2

Public Involvement

Comments on the Nautilus Proposed Action (identified as Alternative B in the Nautilus Draft and

Final Environmental Impact Statements), potential concerns, and opportunities for managing

the Nautilus project area were solicited from members of the public, other public agencies,

tribal governments, adjacent property owners, interest groups, and Forest Service specialists.

Various methods were used to request comments, including:

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

November 24, 2009. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal through

December 2, 2009.

 A news release was submitted to the local news media on November 23, 2009. This

release introduced the project to the public by providing a description of the project

area and an explanation of the proposal. The release also solicited public comment on

the project.

 A scoping letter was mailed to over 750 interested parties, including property owners,

tribal members, state and federal agencies, and other organizations on November 18,

2009. This letter included a description of the project area, an overview of the planning

process, a general explanation of the proposed actions, and an invitation to comment.

Forty‐three comments from 36 different parties were received during the scoping

period. These were evaluated to determine whether significant issues existed and

whether additional alternatives needed to be developed.

 A public open house meeting was held at the Community Hall in Nemo, South Dakota,

on December 2, 2009. The meeting was attended by 36 interested parties who met with

Forest Service officials to view maps of the project area and discuss the proposed

actions. Attendees were encouraged to submit comments on the proposed actions or to

document their concerns associated with the project area.

 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on June

4, 2010.

 A legal notice announcing the availability of the DEIS was published in the Rapid City

Journal on June 4, 2010, initiating the 45‐day comment period. The Forest Service

received 19 comment letters during the DEIS comment period. Content analysis

identified specific, separate statements within each letter and categorized them. The full

comments and the Forest Service response to each of them are presented in Appendix E

of the Nautilus Project FEIS. Comments led to relatively minor clarifications in the FEIS.

 Other information sharing, communication and interaction with interested parties,

agencies, and individuals has occurred on a continuing basis during project planning.

Information shared by such parties has been considered by the IDT in the development

of this EIS.  

A legal notice announcing the availability of the FEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on

September 3, 2010, initiating the 30‐day objection period. Three objections were submitted

during the objection period. Objection Reviewing Officer, Dennis Jaeger (Deputy Forest

Supervisor on the Black Hills National Forest), reviewed the objections that were submitted and

assembled a team of resource specialists to review the information and analyses contained in

the Nautilus FEIS and the project record. Based upon that review, the Reviewing Officer

determined that the analysis was sufficient to allow me to move forward in authorizing a
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 3

decision based on the Nautilus FEIS. However, the Reviewing Officer required that this Record of

Decision contain certain information to help the public understand my rationale for addressing

the two significant issues identified in the DEIS and FEIS and to help the public understand how

the Selected Action is consistent with Forest Plan direction. In particular, the Reviewing Officer’s

direction (Jaeger 2010) required the following:

1) explain the two issues identified in the EIS in terms of a cause and effect relationship,

and  

2) provide some specific citations to effects analysis to demonstrate the basis for [my]

conclusions with regard to Forest Plan consistency.

This Record of Decision addresses these two items per the Reviewing Officer’s direction. Item 1

is addressed below in the sections titled Treatment of Activity Fuels and Measures to Reduce

Mortality to Trees where Prescribed Fire is Applied under the description of the Selected Action.

Item 2 is addressed in the discussion regarding consistency with the Forest Plan in the section

titled Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy.

Project Area

The Nautilus project area is located immediately west of Nemo, South Dakota and

approximately 7 miles northwest of Rapid City, South Dakota. Of the 41,302 acres in the project

area, 5,699 acres are private land and the remaining 35,603 acres are NFS land. Treatments are

proposed only on NFS land within the Northern Hills Ranger District (NHRD) administrative

boundary, except where rights‐of‐way are established to access NFS land across private

property. The project area includes all or part of the following land base:   

Table 1. Nautilus Project Area Legal Land Description

Township Range Section

2 North 4 East 1‐6, 9‐12

2 North   5 East 1‐18

2 North 6 East 7, 18

3 North 3 East 36

3 North 4 East 1‐5, 10‐14, 20‐29, 31‐16

3 North   5 East 4‐9, 15‐22, 27‐34

4 North   4 East 28, 29, 32‐36

4 North   5 East 29‐33

Black Hills Meridian

Approximately 257 miles of known road, including National Forest System (NFS) and non‐system

roads, are located in the Nautilus project area. U.S. Highway 385, Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker

Canyon Road), and Forest System Road 414.5 (Nemo Road) are the primary travel routes

through the project area. Approximately nine miles of the Centennial Trail crosses the project

area. Recreation features located in the project area include the Pilot Knob and Box Elder

trailheads to the Centennial Trail and the Boxelder Forks campground. The Steamboat Rock

Picnic Area is immediately adjacent to the project area. Two administrative sites are located in

the project area:  the Boxelder Job Corps, administered jointly by the Forest Service and the US

Department of Labor, and the Nemo work center, administered by the Forest Service.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 4

Private land is located across the project area with concentrations along the primary travel

routes. Many private residences, both seasonal and year‐round, are located in the project area.  

The Nautilus project area is comprised of the following Management Areas (MA), which are

identified in the Forest Plan:

 MA 5.1 (Resource Production Emphasis) – 20,069 acres

 MA 5.3A (Black Hills Experimental Forest) – 3,394 acres

 MA 5.4 (Big Game Winter Range) – 12,140 acres

As is typical of the Black Hills National Forest, the vegetated area of the Nautilus project area is

dominated by ponderosa pine, which covers 98 percent of the NFS land. White spruce, aspen,

grasslands and non‐forested areas are present on less than one percent of the NFS land each.

Numerous small pockets (10 acres or smaller) of aspen, bur oak and other hardwoods are

scattered across the project area.  

Decision and Description of the Selected Action

The Nautilus Project purpose and need, as specified in the Nautilus Project Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA‐FS 2010), provides the focus of and scope for the proposed

action and alternatives under the direction of the Forest Plan. Forest Plan direction is

summarized in Chapter 1 of the Nautilus Project Area FEIS. Given the purpose and need, I have

reviewed the alternatives and analysis disclosed in the FEIS, the issues identified during public

scoping, information contained in the project record, Forest Plan direction, public comments

received on the Draft EIS, and objections filed following the release of the Final EIS. Based on

this review, I have decided to implement Alternative B with minor modifications (Alternative B is

hereafter referred to as the Selected Action). Design measures and monitoring applicable to the

Selected Action are included in Appendix A of this Record of Decision. These measures were

developed to ensure consistency with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. My reasons for

selecting Alternative B are explained under Rationale for Selected Action, presented later in this

ROD. The modifications to Alternative B are described under Rationale for Modifying Alternative

B to Develop the Selected Action below.

The Selected Action

This section describes the Selected Action in detail. Map 1 in Appendix B displays the planned

vegetative and fuels treatments while Map 2 in Appendix B shows the associated road

construction or maintenance activities for the Selected Action.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 5

Table 2. Summary of Major Actions Authorized in the Selected Action (Alternative B‐Modified)  

Primary Vegetation Treatments Acres

Overstory Removal 7,164

Commercial Thinning (40 to 60 BA) 6,638

Pre‐commercial Thinning 6,350

Individual Tree Selection 3,883

Seed Cut 2,138

Hardwood Enhancement 764

Prescribed Burning 710

POL Thinning 456

Meadow Enhancement 246

Group Selection 215

Total Treatment Acres 28,564

Transportation System Activities Miles

Road Construction 8

Road Conversion (non‐system to system) 5

Road Reconstruction/Pre‐use Maintenance 148

Total Road Activities 161

Description of Vegetation Treatments

Overstory Removal

The objective of removing overstory trees is to liberate the established understory regeneration.

In areas identified as visually sensitive, an average of 5 to 10 overstory trees per acre will be

retained in a clumpy arrangement. Residual trees will also be retained at seed cut spacing where

regeneration is less than 400 trees per acre at least two feet tall or where prescribed burning is

done. Prescribed burning following treatment is generally not proposed in order to protect

regeneration, but is included in selected stands to maintain road‐to‐road containment

perimeters for prescribed burn units. In all stands where overstory removal is prescribed, pre‐

commercial thinning is also prescribed as a follow‐up treatment in order to retain appropriate

growing stock levels (see the description of pre‐commercial thinning below). Overstory removal

treatments are the appropriate silvicultural prescription in stands that have experience a seed

cut in the past. Removing the overstory reduces competition and allows established understory

trees to develop more fully.  

Commercial Thin

Retention densities would vary from 40 to 60 square feet of basal area. The best formed, most

dominant, and vigorous trees would be retained. This treatment is prescribed for stands with a

ponderosa pine cover type. Species selected for retention would discriminate against white

spruce. Conifers may be removed from within and up to 30 feet from the edge of aspen pockets

in excess of 1⁄4 acre. Commercial thins reduce the stocking density in ponderosa pine stands,

making them less susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestation.

Pre‐commercial Thinning

Pre‐commercial thinning involves the reduction of standing stems less than nine inches DBH,

retaining 200‐400 stems per acre (~12 foot spacing). Pre‐commercial thinning decreases stand

density, which improves overall stand health and reduces fire hazard. While pre‐commercial
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 6

thinning is prescribed as the primary treatment for 6,350 acres within the Nautilus project area,

it is also authorized as a potential follow‐up maintenance treatment on 19,862 acres where

some other primary treatment is authorized.

Individual Tree Selection

Individual tree selection (also called single‐tree selection) is a method of creating or maintaining

an uneven‐aged stand structure. Uneven‐aged stands, when completely regulated, have at least

three distinct age classes present. In this method, individual trees in all diameter classes are

removed to create a broken or uneven canopy. The largest number of stems is in the smallest

diameter class, with the number decreasing more or less regularly with increasing size. The

fewest number of stems is in the largest diameter class. Individual tree selection creates an

uneven‐aged stand that contains a variety of habitat components, increasing habitat diversity

for plants and animals.

Seed Cut

The seed cut treatment involves thinning overstory trees to create optimal regeneration

conditions. The best formed overstory trees are retained at approximately 30 square feet of

basal area (approximately 35 foot spacing between trees). Site preparation for seedling

establishment may be accomplished with prescribed burning. Seed cuts are prescribed to

provide a sustained yield of timber over time while also reducing stocking density and,

subsequently, the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and fire hazard.

Hardwood Enhancement

Hardwood enhancement is intended to maintain or encourage hardwood growth. Maintaining

or expanding hardwood stands is desirable to provide a diversity of habitat for plants and

animals. Hardwood stands can also act as natural fuel breaks as they typically have a lower

flammability than pine stands. This treatment may be applied to stands with either a pine or

aspen cover type.  

 Stands with a pine cover type—When applied to stands with a pine cover type, the pine

portion of the stand will be treated with a commercial thin. Pine areas within stands

with a 4C structural stage would be thinned to 60 BA, and pine areas within stands with

a 4B structural stage would be thinned to 40 BA.  

 Stands with an aspen cover type—When applied to stands with an aspen cover type, all

commercial and non‐commercial pine may be removed across the stand.  

Regardless of cover type, areas of older, decadent or declining aspen may be thinned or clear‐

cut to regenerate the aspen. While hardwood enhancement is prescribed as the primary

treatment for 764 acres within the Nautilus project area, it is also authorized as a potential

alternative treatment on 1,475 acres where some other primary treatment is authorized.

Prescribed Fire

Objectives of prescribed fire include:

 reducing natural and activity fuels;

 maintaining the effectiveness of fuel treatments over time by controlling regeneration

densities;
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 7

 enhancing soil conditions by returning inorganic and organic chemicals found in logging

slash to the soil; and

 enhancing wildlife habitat by creating vegetative diversity across the landscape and

stimulating forage production for big game.  

In addition to the 710 acres of prescribed burning identified as a primary treatment in Table 2

above, prescribed burning was identified as a potential follow‐up treatment on 24,640 acres

where some other primary treatment was identified. It is not expected that all of this acreage

would be burned. Rather, it is anticipated that approximately 1,000 acres per year (a total of

10,000 acres over the life of this project) would actually be implemented. The full 24,640 acres

was analyzed for burning to allow for flexibility in the future. Specific burn units would be

selected after the initial vegetation treatments have been completed and resulting site

conditions are observed. For each prescribed burn that is conducted, a site specific burn plan

would be developed prior to implementation.

Product‐other‐than‐log Thinning (POL Thinning)

Products other than logs are made from trees generally 5‐9" DBH. The primary objective of

these treatments is to increase growth and vigor of remaining trees. Suppressed, defective, and

excess trees are removed. This treatment may be commercial or non‐commercial, depending on

the pulp and pole markets. Dominance is a desirable characteristic and is taken into account

during tree retention selection. Product other than log thinning reduces stand density at an

earlier stage than commercial thinning, increasing overall stand health and reducing fire hazard.

Meadow Enhancement

This treatment involves removal of pine in historical meadow areas to increase vegetative

diversity and grass production in meadow communities. Similar to hardwood stands, meadows

provide a diversity of plant and animal habitat as well as natural fuel breaks where wildfires

could potentially slow down or stop. While meadow enhancement is prescribed as the primary

treatment for 246 acres within the Nautilus project area, it is also authorized as a potential

alternative treatment on 45 acres where some other primary treatment is authorized.

Group Selection

This uneven‐aged treatment creates or maintains multiple age classes in even‐aged groups and

maintains the age classes in perpetuity through stand regulation. Groups are up to two acres in

size and are scattered throughout a site. Groups occupy 20% of the site. Groups are openings

designed to create the youngest age class of trees. The rest of the site will be variable density

thinned. To achieve regulation, the site would have five age classes, each age class occupying

20% of the site. Group selection creates an uneven‐aged stand that contains a variety of habitat

components, increasing habitat diversity for plants and animals.

Description of Road Activities

New Road Construction

Road construction refers to creating new routes where no route has previously been developed.

New roads would be constructed to Forest Service specifications and would adhere to Forest

Plan Standards and Guidelines, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) and project‐

specific design criteria.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 8

All new roads constructed under the Nautilus Project would be closed following the completion

of management activities. The method of closure would be determined based on site conditions.

Possible closure methods include installing gates or fences to block access; placing boulders,

logging slash, or dirt berms to block access; or route obliteration and recontouring to prevent

access.

Road Conversion

Road conversion refers to the addition of non‐system roads to the National Forest Road System

(NFS). These are routes that currently exist on the ground. They are typically user‐created routes

or routes that were used in the past for forest management activities. Under this decision, the

route would be added to the NFS and improved as necessary to meet Forest Service

specifications. Like newly constructed roads, converted routes would also adhere to Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines, WCPs, and project‐specific design criteria. As with new construction,

these routes would be closed following management activities.  

Road Reconstruction/Pre‐use Maintenance

Reconstruction or pre‐use maintenance is proposed for existing NFS roads that would require

improvement prior to management activities occurring. Reconstruction could include widening

the road or slight rerouting based on site specific conditions. Pre‐use maintenance involves

more routine activities such as grading or brushing of the roadway. These two activities were

lumped together for analysis purposes to allow for flexibility in applying specific activities. Road

conditions may change between the time of analysis and implementation of the project.

Analyzing for both activities provides leeway for applying the most appropriate action at the

time of implementation.

Temporary Roads

Temporary roads may also be required to facilitate vegetation management activities. These are

generally short spurs off of other routes that are not intended to become part of the Forest’s

transportation system but are only intended to facilitate the management actions associated

with this decision. These roads are closed to motor vehicle access following harvest activities,

and closure includes any actions necessary (e.g., slashing in the route, seeding to promote

revegetation, etc.) to stabilize the route surface and reduce erosion.

Description of Other Authorized Activities

Watershed Improvement Projects

Per Forest Plan direction, watershed improvement projects must be proposed when forest

management activities are proposed in Class 3 watersheds. These are watersheds that have

been identified as being highly sensitive to management activities. Eight out of the nine

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7th‐level watersheds that comprise the Nautilus project area are

identified as Class 3 watersheds. For this reason, I am authorizing the following watershed

improvement projects:

 The meadow and hardwood enhancement treatments that are identified in Table 2

above and that occur along streams are intended to enhance watershed conditions.

 The number of connected disturbed areas (CDAs) across the project area will be reduced

through the road maintenance activities identified in Table 2 above.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 9

 Road‐stream crossings that are currently impassable to fish and that are contributing to

stream sedimentation will be repaired along routes that will be used to accomplish

vegetation treatments. The priority will be on perennial and intermittent streams.

 Forest System Road (FSR) 706.1A (0.22 miles) will be decommissioned. The location and

condition of this road is negatively impacting Jim Creek.

 Non‐functioning fish passage structures in Estes Creek, Jim Creek, South Boxelder Creek

and Boxelder Creek will be repaired or removed.

 The junction of the Centennial trail and the West Fork Estes Creek near the end of FSR

740.1B will be repaired. This may involve rerouting the trail or road for a short distance.

Meadow and streamside vegetation will be re‐established where user‐created off‐

highway vehicle paths have destabilized the banks of West Fork Estes Creek in this area.

Experimental Forest Research Forestry Activities

Experimental forests are places that are designated for long‐term and manipulative research of

forest and range vegetation (Adams et al 2004). Experimental forests are well suited to evaluate

a variety of silviculture techniques and the short and long‐term silvicultural, managerial, and

ecological effects of these techniques. The Nautilus project area contains the Black Hills

Experimental Forest. I am authorizing treatments within the experimental forest to further the

research objectives developed by researchers at the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain

Research Station. The treatments authorized include individual tree selection, pre‐commercial

thinning, and prescribed burning across the 3,394 acre experimental forest. These treatments

are included in Table 2 above.

The research proposed within the BHEF has two primary long‐term objectives. The first is to

apply and evaluate the use of the irregular or free selection silvicultural system in a very

productive ponderosa pine forest (Graham and Jain 2005). The second is to conduct the classic

reverse J‐curve uneven‐aged concept (Nyland 2002). This study will evaluate a variety of

ecological effects of the forest conditions created by these silvicultural systems. For example,

this study will document the impact the treatments associated with each silvicultural system

have on creating and maintaining forest conditions that are resilient to insect, disease, and

wildfire within a changing climate. In addition, because both silvicultural systems are fully

replicated using a scientific design, future research opportunities exists for wildlife, hydrology,

or other research purposes.

The first of a series of replicated studies was installed on the Priest River Experimental Forest in

Idaho; however, these results, if only applied in this one location, have limited applicability to

other landscapes and places. Thus to fully understand the applicability of results, similar studies

need testing in other locations. The BHEF study is one of several similar studies being placed

within other Experimental Forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Other locations include the

Deception Creek Experimental Forest and the Boise Basin Experimental Forest, both in Idaho

(Adams et al 2004).

Under the proposed vegetation treatments, harvesting of trees would provide a variety of

overstory tree canopy cover. Slash created through these treatments would be managed by

various means such as underburning, jackpot burning, mechanized piling, or mastication. After

the stands have been treated, the establishment and development of understory vegetation

would be studied and quantified using research protocols. Other ecosystem components

including nutrient cycling, vegetation dynamics, species composition, gap size, shape and
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 10

orientation of openings and insect and disease activity would be evaluated as a function of the

different vegetation treatments.  

Sanitation Harvest Provision

I am authorizing the development and application of sanitation harvest treatments across

National Forest System lands in the project area on an as needed basis. The purpose and need

for the Nautilus project recognizes that there is a need to alter stand structure within the

project area to reduce the threat of mountain pine beetle infestation. In an effort to be

responsive to mountain pine beetle infestations as they emerge over time, sanitation harvest

proposals may be prepared for newly identified areas of mountain pine beetle infestation. These

proposals would identify site specific treatments intended to limit the spread of beetles.

The intent of the sanitation harvest provision is to increase the efficiency and speed at which

the Forest Service is able to respond to emerging mountain pine beetle infestations. Proposed

treatments would likely involve cutting green beetle‐infested trees and thinning stands to

residual basal areas below 80 to reduce the number of mountain pine beetle available to infest

healthy trees and to increase stand resiliency and decrease the likelihood of a sustained

outbreak. Consultation with a Forest Service entomologist indicated that sanitation harvest

methods should be pursued when a population has reached incipient epidemic levels (Allen

2010). The first major sign of incipient epidemic levels occurring are groups of beetle‐hit trees

beginning to show up on a landscape scale. Specifically, when two or more groups of three to

four beetle‐attacked trees on 20 to 320 acres occur in two to three consecutive years (Allen

2010).  

If sanitation harvest treatments are deemed necessary to respond to emerging mountain pine

beetle infestations, Black Hills National Forest employees will utilize the most recent

information available (e.g. aerial pest survey data, stand exam data, field verification) as they

design and prioritize sanitation harvest proposals to ensure that the most effective strategy is

developed. Proposals will be reviewed by resource specialists prior to implementation to

determine whether any special design criteria are required to protect forest resources and to

ensure that the proposals comply with Forest Plan direction. No new system roads would be

constructed to access sanitation harvest units.

Harvest Systems

The specific harvest system to be employed for any given area to be treated would be

determined at the time of layout. The harvest system selected will be based on topographical

considerations, acceptable levels of residual fuels within stands, and soil nutrient requirements.

In general, whole tree yarding is preferred within the WUI to reduce fuel loading.

Treatment of Activity Fuels

During the scoping period, I received comments raising concerns about the absence of a

detailed discussion of the treatment of activity fuels resulting from commercial and non‐

commercial harvest activities associated with the proposed action. I determined this to be a

significant issue, as fire hazard reduction was identified as a component of the purpose of and

need for action within the Nautilus project area. Activity fuels resulting from harvest activities

have the capacity to affect wildfire behavior. If limbs and tree tops are left on‐site and scattered

throughout stands following commercial harvest activities or small diameter trees are lopped

and scattered throughout a stand during pre‐commercial thinning activities, these woody by‐
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 11

products increase the level of surface fuels within stands. Surface fuel loading is an important

component in determining the intensity and severity of fire. Stands that have higher levels of

surface fuels burn more intensely and can pre‐heat the canopies of surrounding vegetation. This

pre‐heating drives the moisture from and raises the temperature of the needles, allowing the

canopy to more readily ignite. For this reason, I felt it was important to clarify and include in the

description of Alternative B how activity fuels resulting from commercial and non‐commercial

treatments will generally be treated. I determined that this issue could be addressed by

clarifying the proposed action but did not feel that it required the development of an additional

alternative. A description of the Northern Hills Ranger District’s approach to addressing activity

fuels resulting from commercial and non‐commercial treatment activities within the Nautilus

project area follows and is incorporated as part of the Selected Action.

Commercial Treatments

Commercial treatments entail cutting commercial‐sized trees and removing the logs from the

site. There has not historically been a market for the residual material (i.e., limbs and tops of

trees) resulting from commercial timber harvest. The residual material, often referred to as

slash or activity fuel, functions as a fuel source that could potentially feed a forest fire. Because

fuels reduction is a key objective in the Forest Plan, harvest methods that allow for the removal

of activity fuels are generally preferred over those that do not. This is especially true in the

wildland urban interface and adjacent to private property. In such areas, slash is generally piled

and burned. Less frequently, material is chipped and distributed on site. As markets for biomass

develop, it is expected that logging slash will become commercially valuable. As that happens,

slash may be hauled off‐site rather than piled and burned.

Sometimes, it is neither feasible nor desirable to pile and burn activity slash. This is the case in

areas where the terrain makes the use of certain logging equipment a challenge or in areas

where soil productivity is a concern. In such areas, slash is often lopped and scattered on site.

Non‐Commercial Treatments

Pre‐commercial thinning treatments entail cutting trees that are not of a commercial size.

Where funding and terrain allow, this is usually accomplished with a masticator/chipper. The

machinery cuts the trees and grinds or chips them, dispersing the material across the forest

floor. On steep sites or in rocky areas, such machinery cannot be used. Instead, trees are cut by

hand, and the material is lopped and scattered on site. Mastication/chipping is a preferred

method for accomplishing pre‐commercial thinning  because the activity fuels, while left on site,

pose less of a fire hazard than the larger material resulting from the lop and scatter method. If

trees are hand‐felled adjacent to private property and fuel loading is a concern in that area, the

material is often piled and burned to eliminate high levels of surface fuels.  

Measures to Reduce Mortality to Trees where Prescribed Fire is Applied

During the scoping period, I received comments raising concerns about the absence of a

detailed discussion of the measures that would be taken to ensure that tree mortality resulting

from prescribed fire remains within acceptable limits and to ensure that prescribed fires do not

escape containment. Many stands within the project area were previously treated with a

silvicultural prescription that emphasized stand regeneration. Prescribed fire, under certain

conditions, has the capacity to kill the regeneration in these stands and reduce stand

productivity. For this reason, I felt it was important to clarify and include in the description of

Alternative B the objectives of prescribed fire within the Nautilus project area and the factors
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 12

taken into consideration when determining whether to apply prescribed fire in an area. I

determined that this issue could be addressed by clarifying the proposed action but did not feel

that it required the development of an additional alternative. The description of prescribed

burning above in the description of treatments comprising the Selected Action includes

discussion of the objectives of prescribed burning. A description of the factors considered when

developing prescribed burn unit boundaries as well as procedures for implementing prescribe

fire follows and is incorporated as part of the Selected Action.

Procedures for Implementing Prescribed Fire

Prior to any prescribed burn taking place on the ground, a burn plan will be developed. Burn

plans will be reviewed by Forest resource specialists to ensure consistency with the Forest Plan

and will be authorized by the Line Officer. These plans identify the area in which a prescribed

burn would take place, the objectives of applying fire to the ground, the conditions under which

a burn would be allowed, and the methodologies for achieving the objectives of the burn.

Considerations for Determining Prescribed Fire Unit Boundaries

As burn plans are developed for areas within the Nautilus project area, the following items will

be considered when determining the boundaries of prescribed burn units:

1) Prescribed burning would be emphasized in pine stands that are proposed to be

commercially thinned or in areas where hardwoods are prevalent. Commercially

thinned stands where little regeneration is present allows for a larger window in which

burns may be carried out to meet specified objectives. Prescribed burning in both pine

and hardwoods can also create diversity in vegetative conditions across the landscape

and reduce the rate at which a wildfire might spread across the landscape.

2) Stands that are within 1⁄2 mile of concentrated urban interface areas (e.g. Elk Ridge

Subdivision, Misty Meadows) would not generally be included as part of a prescribed

burn unit to alleviate concerns about the potential for escape. However, prescribed

burning may be considered as a follow‐up or maintenance treatment in these areas

when doing so would meet stand objectives and the potential for escape is determined

to be low.

3) Stands that have either been treated in the past with a silvicultural prescription that

emphasized stand regeneration (e.g. overstory removal or seed cut) or are proposed for

such a treatment under the Nautilus proposed action would not generally be included as

part of a prescribed burn unit if the following apply:

a) Pre‐commercial thinning within the stand has already been accomplished or is

prescribed, or

b) There are nine or more tons per acre of dead and down fuels three inches in

diameter or less.

However, prescribed fire may be authorized in such stands as a follow‐up or

maintenance treatment to achieve stand objectives when other treatment methods are

not available. The goal behind this consideration is to reduce tree mortality in areas

where regeneration harvest has or will be applied. It is estimated that approximately 10

tons of dead and down fuels will produce fireline intensities or flame lengths sufficient

to kill 95 percent of pine trees 20 feet in height and less. Trees that are 20 feet tall are

those that have a diameter breast height (DBH) of 3 to 5 inches. Where there is a
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 13

specified objective to retain trees smaller than 3 inches to 5 inches, surface fuel loadings

would be such that the fireline intensity would achieve objectives provided by a Forest

Service silviculturist. Prescribed burning may be used to treat stands in which the

majority of stems per acre are in the seedling stage, provided surface fuel loading does

not produce fireline intensities that would result in unacceptable mortality in trees as

defined by a Forest Service silviculturist.

There may be instances in which such stands are included in a prescribed burn unit

boundary. Reasons for inclusion may be to consolidate a burn block and reduce the

need for dozer line construction, which leads to additional and longer lasting ground

disturbance, or to control seedling/sapling density to maintain or enhance fuel

treatment effectiveness.

Post‐sale Activities

The Knutson‐Vandenburg (KV) Act authorizes the Forest Service to collect money from timber

sales for resource enhancement, protection, and improvement work in the timber sale area. In

addition to the activities already described, I am authorizing the following enhancement,

protection, and improvement work within the Nautilus project area. These activities will be

implemented as staffing and funding allow:

 Regeneration Surveys and Site Preparation:  All stands in which Seed Cut harvest is

applied will be examined three and five years after harvest to determine if planned

treatments were successful in establishing a new stand or if additional treatments are

needed to reforest the stand. All stands in which Overstory Removal is applied will be

examined three and five years after harvest to ensure minimum stocking standards have

been met. Site preparation may be needed in some of these stands based on the results

of surveys. Site preparation may include activities such as mechanical scarification or

prescribed burning to expose mineral soil for ponderosa pine establishment.  

 Vegetation monitoring:  Post treatment data collection for use in monitoring and

evaluation of activities. Follows standard stand exam protocols for complete condition

evaluation. Could be implemented on any treatment type not covered by 3rd and 5th

year post‐harvest regeneration surveys.

 Removal of encroaching pine from hardwood stands:  Removal of pine from selected

hardwood stands. All activity‐created material would be hand‐piled and burned. These

treatments may occur in addition to those areas proposed for hardwood enhancement

under the Selected Action as described in Table 2.  

 Removal of encroaching pine from meadow areas:  Removal of pine from selected

meadows. All activity‐created material would be lopped and scattered. These

treatments may occur in addition to those areas proposed for meadow enhancement

under the Selected Action as described in Table 2.

 Noxious weed treatment and monitoring:  Spray and monitor noxious weeds following

ground disturbing activities.

  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 14

Rationale for Modifying Alternative B to Develop the Selected Action

Modification of Treatments: Previously Authorized Treatments

I have decided to modify stand treatments for two stands totaling 21 acres because I have

decided to implement previously authorized treatments in these stands. Under the Research

Rochford Decision Notice (USDA‐FS 2004), POL thinning treatments were authorized on NFS land

overlapping stands 81804‐79 and 81903‐74. As displayed in the Table 3 below, I am retaining

the option to conduct pre‐commercial thinning or prescribed burning under this decision but am

not authorizing the commercial treatment identified in Alternative B of the Nautilus Project FEIS.

Table 3. Treatments Modified Due to Previously Authorized Treatments

Stand

Number

Stand Size

(Acres)

Alternative B Proposed Treatment Modified Treatment for the

Selected Action

081804‐ 79 5 Commercial Meadow

Enhancement/Pre‐Commercial

Thinning/Prescribed Burning

Pre‐Commercial

Thinning/Prescribed Burning

081903‐74 16 Seed Cut (30 BA)/Pre‐Commercial

Thinning/Prescribed Burning

Pre‐Commercial

Thinning/Prescribed Burning

Modification of Transportation System Actions: Previously Authorized Conversions to the NFS

I have decided to modify Alternative B for the Selected Action to show that approximately 1 mile

less of existing road will be converted (or added) to the National Forest Road System (NFS) and 1

mile of more existing road may be maintained or reconstructed to facilitate treatments under

this decision. My rationale for doing so is that about one mile of road identified for conversion

to the NFS under the Nautilus project has already been authorized to be added to the NFS under

the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision (USDA‐FS 2010).

While a decision has already been made to add these routes to the NFS, I am retaining the

option to conduct maintenance on these routes or to reconstruct them as needed in order to

conduct the treatments authorized under this decision. The changes from Alternative B to the

Selected Action are displayed in Table 4 below.  

Table 4. Road Activities Modified Due to Previously Authorized Changes

Route Identifier in the

Nautilus FEIS

Route Length

(Miles)

Alternative B Proposed

Activity

Modified Activity for the

Selected Action

Unclassified Route 080193 0.55 Road Conversion

(non‐system to system)

Road Reconstruction or

Pre‐use Maintenance

Unclassified Route 120135 0.11 Road Conversion

(non‐system to system)

Road Reconstruction or

Pre‐use Maintenance

Unclassified Route 130122 0.30 Road Conversion

(non‐system to system)

Road Reconstruction or

Pre‐use Maintenance

Additional Soils Mitigation

There are 168 stands in the project area identified as having soils for which retention of

sufficient soil nutrients is of concern. I have determined that additional mitigation is required on

4 of these stands to ensure adequate soil nutrient retention on site. These are stands for which

a commercial treatment that is part of the shelterwood system is authorized but for which no
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 15

follow up thinning is scheduled to occur. To ensure an appropriate amount of organic material

on site, activity slash in these stands must either be lopped and scattered throughout the stands

or harvest must be accomplished during the winter months, as winter logging results in

additional limb breakage and, consequently, additional activity slash on the ground.

Table 5. Treatments Modified to Ensure Adequate Soil Nutrients

Stand

Number

Stand Size

(Acres)

Selected Action Mitigation Measure

081703‐49 24 Commercial Thin (60 BA)/Prescribed

Burning

Lop and scatter or winter log

081704‐42 7 Overstory Removal Lop and scatter or winter log

081705‐36 13 Commercial Thin (60 BA) Lop and scatter or winter log

081902‐27 45 Commercial Thin (60 BA) Lop and scatter or winter log

Rationale for Selected Action

Need for Action

A total of two alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Nautilus Project FEIS. Alternative A was

the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative, as its name implies, involves taking no

action in the project area at this time. Alternative B was the Proposed Action that was intended

to respond to the purpose of and need for action identified for this project and that was

released for scoping prior to the release of the DEIS. After reviewing the issues, analysis and

public comments, I have selected Alternative B with modifications as described above. I feel that

the Selected Action best addresses the purpose and need for action and the objectives for

management within the project area. Table 6 below displays how each alternative addresses

elements of the purpose and need for the project.

Table 6. Movement toward the Purpose and Need by Alternative

Purpose and Need Element Alternative

A B

Element 1: Reduce Pine Beetle Risk Acres Percent Acres Percent

Insect Risk Rating

High 24,763 72% 4,758 14%

Moderate 7,366 22% 11,948 35%

Low 2,169 6% 17,592 51%

Element 2: Reduce Fire Hazard Acres Percent Acres Percent

Fire Hazard Rating

Very High 23,627 66% 5,202 15%

High 8,125 23% 4,753 13%

Moderate 3,056 9% 14,244 40%

Low 795 2% 11,404 32%

Element 3: Provide Diversity of Wildlife Habitat Acres

Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession) 1,250 1,250

Hardwood Enhancement 0 764

Meadow Enhancement 0 246

Element 4: Improve Watershed Conditions

Number of Connect Disturbed Areas Remaining 44 12

Roads Decommissioned (miles) 0 0.2

Hardwood Enhancement (acres along streams) 0 162
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 16

Meadow Enhancement (acres along streams) 0 189

Element 5: Provide Opportunities for Research

Forestry

Acres

Research Treatment in Experimental Forest 0 3,394

In determining which alternative to select for this project, I first considered whether active

management is appropriate in the project area at this time. After reviewing all materials related

to this project, including the analysis documented in the Nautilus Project FEIS, specialist reports

and supporting documents, public input, and Forest Plan direction, I believe active treatment is

appropriate and needed in the project area at this time for the following reasons:  

Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations and Conditions for Epidemic Infestation

The Forest Plan provides direction for maintaining a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce

the susceptibility of ponderosa pine stands to mountain pine beetle infestation. Forest Plan

Objective 10‐07 states that where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to

management objectives for ponderosa pine, the acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are at

medium or high risk for infestation should be reduced.

Aerial pest surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 indicate that pockets of mountain pine beetle

activity are established in the southwestern portion of the Nautilus project area with the

potential to spread into densely stocked pine stands to the east and north. Currently, 89% of the

ponderosa pine stands in the project area are rated as being at a high or medium risk of

mountain pine beetle infestation.

A forest health evaluation conducted by a Forest Service entomologist specifically for the

Nautilus project are concluded that mountain pine beetles were present at epidemic levels

within the project area and had the potential to spread into densely stocked pine stands (Allen

2010).

The Selected Action will substantially reduce the acreage of pine stands that are at medium or

high risk for infestation.  

Reduce Risk of High Intensity Fires

Forest Plan Objective 10‐01 directs that the Forest be managed for 50‐75% moderate‐to‐low fire

hazard in the wildland urban interface (WUI). The Nautilus project area includes 5,699 acres of

interspersed private land. The Lawrence, Meade and Pennington County Community Wildfire

Protection Plans establish a 1⁄2 mile WUI buffer around all structures.

Currently, there are 489 known private structures located either within the Nautilus project area

or within 1⁄2 mile of the project area boundary. Approximately 89% of the forested land in the

project area is rated as high or very high fire hazard and only 11% is rated low or moderate. The

amount of NFS land in the project area classified as at‐risk WUI is 22,732 acres, 64% of the total

NFS land in the area.

Improve Watershed Conditions

Forest Plan direction calls for improving watershed conditions in Class 3 watersheds, which are

identified as being impaired and in need of improvement. The Forest Plan states that

“management activities can still occur in these watersheds, but watershed improvement
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 17

projects, or other activities which will improve the health of the watershed, must be a part of

project planning.” The Nautilus project area includes all or portions of nine hydrologic unit code

7th‐level (HUC 7) watersheds. Eight of these nine watersheds are identified as Class 3.

Provide for a Diversity of Wildlife Habitat

The Forest Plan provides for a diversity of forest structure, and wildlife habitat, through

structural stage objectives in specific MAs. These structural stage objectives outline the desired

Forest‐wide distribution of ponderosa pine age classes and are designed so that a variety of

structure, ranging from open grassland to late successional (i.e., old growth) forest, will exist

across the forest. Structural stage objectives are in place for MAs 5.1 and 5.4 in the Nautilus

project area (Objectives 5.1‐204 and 5.4‐204).  

The Nautilus project area contains 20,069 acres of MA 5.1 and 12,140 acres of MA 5.4. In

general, the structural stage distributions, both Forest‐wide and within the project area, are

skewed heavily to mature forest (structural stage 4) with a lack of early to mid‐successional

habitat (structural stages 1, 2 and 3) and late successional habitat (structural stage 5). Habitat

for a variety of wildlife species, including Region 2 Sensitive Species, Management Indicator

Species and Species of Local Concern is located within the project area.

Conduct Research Forestry Activities

Forest Plan direction is in place for conducting research on forestry practices and techniques on

the Black Hills Experimental Forest. Objective 5.3A‐701 calls for cooperation with the Rocky

Mountain Research Station (RMRS) to accomplish research activities. Objective 5.3A‐201 directs

the use of harvest practices, including untested experimental practices, to meet the needs of

designed experiments. The overall goal of the Experimental Forest is to provide an area to apply

experimental techniques, which may not be typically used elsewhere in the Black Hills, and to

use information gained from that research to provide insight into effective management of the

entire BHNF and, possibly, other ponderosa pine forests in the western United States.

Conclusion

Given this information, I believe that active management should be utilized in the project area

to address the needs discussed above. The road construction, conversion and

reconstruction/pre‐use maintenance activities identified above are necessary at this time to

access units selected for treatment and to affect an appreciable change within the project area.

I have concluded that active management is the best course of action for this project and I

therefore reject Alternative A (No Action).  

Reasons for Not Selecting Other Alternatives Considered

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

of this alternative along with my rationale for not selecting it is presented below. Further

information can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. See Table 5 below for a comparison of the

alternatives.  

Alternative A (No Action)  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires study and use of the no action

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

Record of Decision

Page 18

This alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other

action alternatives. Under the no action alternative, no effort to modify existing vegetation or

related fuels and habitat conditions in the project area would occur. Actions such as ongoing

Forest protection efforts and recurring maintenance on system roads would continue as

directed by the Forest Plan. Actions analyzed under past projects or proposed by future projects

may still occur.  

Given the existing fire hazard ratings and insect risk ratings, as well as the amount of wildland

urban interface, existing mountain pine beetle infestations, and prevalence of Class 3

watersheds in the project area, I feel that taking no action at this time would be a mistake that

has the potential to result in real and substantial losses in forest resource values. For this

reason, I did not select Alternative A.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis  

The Nautilus IDT considered 13 additional alternatives that were not carried forward for

detailed analysis in the EIS. Descriptions of these alternatives and an explanation for why each

was eliminated from detailed analysis are located in the FEIS, Section 2.3.

Table 5. Comparison of Vegetation Treatments (in acres) by Alternative

Vegetation Treatment Alternative

A B

Commercial Hardwood Enhancement 0 463

Commercial Meadow Enhancement 0 45

Non‐commercial Hardwood Enhancement 0 301

Non‐commercial Meadow Enhancement 0 206

Overstory Removal   0 7,164

Commercial Thin to 40 BA 0 3,286

Commercial Thin to 50 BA 0 660

Commercial Thin to 60 BA 0 2,692

Seed Cut   0 2,154

Individual Tree Selection 0 489

Group Selection 0 215

Product‐other‐than‐log 0 456

Experimental Forest   0 3,394

Pre‐commercial Thin 0 6,329

Total Acres 0 27,854

Total Sawtimber Volume (MBF) 0 93,658

Total Roundtimber Volume (CCF) 0 187,316

Fuels Treatment Alternative

A B

Standalone Prescribed Burning 0 710

Prescribed Burning Following Vegetation

Treatments 0 24,640

Total Acres 0 25,350

Road Construction Alternative

A B

New Road Construction 0 8

Non‐system to System Road Conversion 0 6
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 19

Existing Road Reconstruction/Pre‐use

Maintenance 0 147

Total Miles 0 161

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferable alternatives is required [Section 101

NEPA; 40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the

alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the

project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical

environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources.

In the case of the Nautilus Project, I have determined that Alternative B is environmentally

preferred.

From a short‐term (less than 5 years), non‐disturbance perspective, the no action alternative

(Alternative A) meets many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short

term, Alternative A provides the most acres for species preferring more mature, dense pine

habitat, maintains the highest number of snags for wildlife, and has the least risk of damaging

cultural resources. However, it risks long‐term negative effects from epidemic mountain pine

beetle infestations and high intensity wildfires within this area.  

Taking a longer term perspective over the next twenty years, Alternative B is considered the

environmentally preferred alternative. Although some activities would generate short‐term

disturbance related to vegetation management, these activities would also reduce significant

long‐term environmental risks such as fire hazard and the risk of epidemic mountain pine beetle

infestation. Alternative B would also lessen the impacts to watersheds in the project area by

repairing roads and eliminating the majority of the existing connected disturbed areas (CDAs)

that are currently contributing to sedimentation of streams. In addition, activities such as

meadow and hardwood enhancement would maintain or improve structural diversity in the

project area, preventing pine from overtaking open or hardwood areas.

Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy

Another aspect of the process for selecting an alternative is ensuring that the decision actions

comply with all legal requirements and policy. The Selected Action meets the following legal

requirements:  

Federal Laws  

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

All surveyed and inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places will be buffered and avoided during resource management

activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional

Cultural Properties and sacred areas will be protected. Reference is made to the consultation

with the South Dakota State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) under State Laws section

below.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 20

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and

documentation. The process of preparing the Telegraph EIS and ROD was completed in

accordance with NEPA.  

The Endangered Species Act, 1973

A determination was made that no threatened or endangered species currently exist in the

Nautilus project area nor does the project area contain critical habitat for any listed species.

Therefore, a Biological Assessment (BA) was not necessary since the Nautilus project would have

“No Effect” on threatened or endangered species and no impact on critical habitat.  

Effects of the Nautilus Project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented in

the Wildife/Fisheries Biological Evaluation (BE) (Goldberg 2010a) and the Botany BE (Larson

2010), which are summarized in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. A determination was made that the

proposed activities may adversely impact individuals but are not likely to result in a loss of

viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

The Clean Water Act, 1982

The Selected Action will conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 1982. This act

establishes a non‐degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The Selected Action is

not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be

accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices and

other design criteria of project activities.  

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977

The Selected Action will be implemented to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards

through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards.  

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

Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974

All alternatives were developed to be in full compliance and consistent with NFMA as

summarized below.  

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), 2003

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA, Public Law 108‐148) was signed by President

Bush after being passed by a large bi‐partisan majority in both the House and Senate. The act

contains a variety of provisions to expedite the approval of hazardous fuel reduction and forest

health restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk to wildland fire or

insect and disease epidemics. The Nautilus project area meets the insect and disease criteria set

forth by HFRA in that mountain pine beetle infestations are present both within and adjacent to

the project area and forest conditions within the project area are such that there is a risk of an

epidemic infestation (Allen 2010). Therefore, the Nautilus Project was analyzed using the

provisions of Title I, Sec. 102(a) of HFRA.

The following demonstrates the Nautilus Project’s consistency with applicable portions of HFRA:

 The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan.

 The proposed action does not include treatments in designated wilderness, wilderness

study areas or other Federal land where timber harvest is prohibited.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 21

 Collaboration with local governments was conducted through the scoping process and

informal meetings.

 The proposed action is on Federal land that includes or is adjacent to an epidemic of

disease or insects that pose an imminent risk to a forest resource (Allen 2010).

 The primary objective of the project’s purpose and need is to reduce mountain pine

beetle risk.

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act  

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

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

with the Forest Plan. My decision is consistent with this direction in that:

 Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan goals and objectives (FEIS, Chapter 1).

 I have reviewed the Black Hills National Forest Fiscal Year 2008 Monitoring and

Evaluation Report (USDA‐Forest Service 2001) and Region 2 Management Indicator

Species (MIS) guidance for projects. The effects of planned activities on MIS are

consistent with the Forest Plan (FEIS, Chapter 3).  

 Planned activities are consistent with management area direction (FEIS, Chapter 3).

 Planned activities comply with Forest Plan standards (FEIS, Chapter 3).

The 1982 planning rule has been superseded and is no longer in effect. The scope of analysis for

a Forest Plan’s Management Indicator Species (MIS) is determined by the Forest Plan’s

management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring

direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project‐specific monitoring or surveying for MIS

(Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan, p. I‐11, Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes

monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS, but

rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan, p. I‐11,

Objective 238). The Nautilus Project analyzed the following MIS because habitat for these

species is available in the project area:  black‐backed woodpecker, brown creeper, golden‐

crowned kinglet, grasshopper sparrow, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, beaver, white‐tailed deer,

and mountain sucker.  

Consistency with Plan Direction—Forest Plan Objectives

This section contains a discussion of how the Selected Action is responsive to a number of Forest

Plan Objectives. It is not an exhaustive listing; however, it provides information on key

objectives related to this project as well as the specific objectives identified by those who

submitted objections during the project’s objection period. The Selected Action is consistent

with the direction in the Forest Plan because:

 It meets Objective 103, for maintaining and improving long‐term stream health. Existing

stream condition is discussed on pages 143‐147 of the FEIS. The direct, indirect and

cumulative effects of Alternative B are discussed on pages 152‐156. Design criteria, which

will be implemented to maintain and improve long‐term stream health, are listed in

Appendix C of the FEIS under ‘Soil and Water’.  

 It moves toward meeting Objective 201, managing for a maximum of 92,000 acres of aspen.

The Selected Action includes 764 acres of commercial and non‐commercial hardwood
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 22

enhancement, which would maintain and possibly expand existing aspen stands by

removing encroaching conifers. Post‐harvest projects are included which would remove all

non‐commercial sized conifers from existing and converted aspen stands (FEIS, page 42).   

 It is consistent with Objective 221, which calls for the conservation or enhancement of

habitat for Region 2 Sensitive Species and species of local concern (SOLC). This is

documented in the wildlife and botanical resource analyses prepared for this project.

Project‐specific design criteria intended to ensure conservation of Region 2 Sensitive and

SOLC wildlife and plant species is included in Appendix A of this Record of Decision.

 It is consistent with Objective 238a to maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse,

beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, white‐tailed deer and brown creeper.  Refer to

discussion of Objective 201 above. The Selected Action will maintain meadow acres

(objective 205) through 251 acres of meadow enhancement treatments. See pages 89 and

104‐109 in the FEIS for a discussion on meadow and grassland habitat. The Wildlife BE

discusses snags (Objective 211) in the analysis of effects on the black‐backed woodpecker

on pages 26‐29 and snags are protected through design criteria in Appendix C listed under

“Snags and Down Woody Material”. Spruce (Objective 239‐LVD) is discussed on pages 88

and 104‐109 of the FEIS. Movement toward Management Area Objectives 5.1‐204 and 5.4‐

206 are discussed on pages 68‐70 of the FEIS.  

 It is consistent with Objective 238b to maintain habitat for black‐backed woodpecker

(Goldberg 2010a, pages 26‐29). The Wildlife BE discusses snag objective 211 and standard

2301 in the black‐backed woodpecker analysis on pages 26‐29 and snags are protected

through design criteria in Appendix C listed under “Snags and Down Woody Material”.

Movement toward Management Area Objectives 5.1‐204 and 5.4‐206 are discussed on

pages 68‐70 of the FEIS.  

 It is consistent with Objective 238c to maintain habitat for golden‐crowned kinglet (Wildlife

Report, pages 39‐41). Spruce (Objective 239‐LVD) is discussed on pages 88 and 104‐109 of

the FEIS.  

 It is consistent with Objective 238d to maintain or enhance habitat for mountain suckers

(Goldberg 2010a, pages 58‐62).  

 It is consistent with Objective 10‐07 to reduce acreage of ponderosa pine at medium or high

risk for infestation of mountain pine beetle. Refer to Table 2‐3 on page 47 and Table 3‐7 and

Figure 3‐4 on page 60 of the FEIS for a comparison of how each alternative affects pine

beetle risk. The discussion of the effect of the project on mountain pine beetle risk is found

on pages 61‐64 and 71‐73 of the FEIS.

Consistency with Plan Direction—Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines  

With the implementation of the design criteria identified in the Nautilus Project FEIS and

incorporated into this Record of Decision (Appendix A) as well as the additional mitigation

measures outlined in this decision, I have determined that the Selected Action is consistent with

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. The design criteria that appear in Appendix A were

developed by the project Interdisciplinary Team specifically to ensure consistency with Forest

Plan Standards and Guidelines. These measures were also included in the DEIS and FEIS, and the

resource effects analyses prepared for the Nautilus Project assumed that these design measures

would be implemented.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 23

Below I am providing additional information regarding how my decision is consistent with two

Forest Plan standards that were identified in the objections submitted during the project’s

objection period.  

 Standard 1301: My decision is consistent with Forest Plan Standard 1301, which states

that only those actions that maintain or improve long‐term stream health and riparian

ecosystem condition are allowed in the water influence zone next to perennial and

intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands. Effects to stream health and riparian

ecosystem condition were discussed in the watershed analysis prepared for this project

(Dempsey 2010). Specific management measures to ensure consistency with this

standard are included in Chapter 10 of Forest Service Handbook 2609.25—Watershed

Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA‐FS 2006). Where the Interdisciplinary Team felt

additional clarification on implementation of those measures was needed, they

produced project‐specific design criteria. These are included in the Soil and Water

sections of the design criteria in Appendix A of this Record of Decision.

 Standard 2305: My decision is consistent with Forest Plan Standard 2305, which states

that all soft snags should be retained unless they are a safety hazard. Design measures

specifying the treatment of snags for the Nautilus Project were included in both the

Nautilus DEIS and FEIS. They are also included as part of this decision and are specified

in Appendix A. In addition, the wildlife analysis prepared for this project includes a

discussion of snags and the anticipated effect of Alternative B on snag habitat (Goldberg

2010b).

Best Available Science  

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

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

responsible opposing views, and, where appropriate, acknowledges incomplete or unavailable

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

specialist reports show that relevant literature has been reviewed and considered by resource

specialists in preparation of this EIS. In addition, the record shows that all literature cited by the

public during the comment period has been reviewed and considered by resource specialists on

the Nautilus Project IDT.  

Resource Management Requirements  

The NFMA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish certain resource management

guidelines included in the agency directives system. I find that the activities in this project

decision comply with the NFMA law, as follows:  

 Irreversible resource damage will not occur. The project will not cause irreversible

resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition (FEIS, Chapter 3).  

 Adequate restocking is assured (see Silviculture report in project file).   

 No clearcutting is proposed (FEIS, Chapter 3 and Appendix B).

 No timber harvesting will occur on lands not suited for timber production. No harvest

will occur for timber production purposes on lands classified as unsuitable for timber

harvest (see Silviculture report in project file).  

 No created openings will be larger than 40 acres (FEIS, Chapter 3 and Appendix B).  
• Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) requirements are met (FEIS, Chapter 3

and Appendix B).

Other Laws

South Dakota State Best Management Practices (BMP) are incorporated into project design.

Consultation with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

The SHPO offices have been consulted concerning the proposed activities in the Nautilus project

area. The SHPO concurred with our determination of "No Historic Properties Affected". The

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be consulted about measures to protect

significant archeological sites from adverse effects, should any be identified during project

implementation.

Administrative Review

This decision is not subject to review under regulations at 36 CFR 215. The analysis for this

project was completed under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Section 105 of the Act specifies that a "Special Administrative Review Process" be established

for authorized projects and that a pre-decisional review be utilized. This pre-decisional review

process is contained in 36 CFR 218.

The Nautilus Project FEIS and preferred alternative were made available to the public on

September 3, 2010. A legal notice for the FEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on

September 3, 2010. In this notice, the public was notified that the decision based on the FEIS for

the Nautilus Project would be made following the pre-decisional objection process, pursuant to

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218. The Objection Reviewing Officer also submitted a

written response to each objection on November 3, 2010, as required by 36 CFR 218.11.

Implementation

Implementation of activities under the Selected Action will occur based on this Record of

Decision. Acreages and locations are approximate and may vary during implementation

depending on site conditions. Once this decision is signed, implementation of the Nautilus

Project selected action can begin immediately pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR 218.12.

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision contact Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger,

Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 North Main Street, Spearfish, SD 57783, or Ed Fischer,

Environmental Coordinator, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 North 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730.

Signed: \K"\:.(\c,,,A.'r — RHONDA O'BYRNE

District Ranger

Northern Hills Ranger District

Black Hills National Forest

Nautilus Project Area

Record of Decision

Page 24

Date: \ \ 
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 25

Literature Cited

Adams, M.B., L. Laughry and L. Plaugher. Compilers. 2004. Experimental forests and ranges of

the USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Report NE‐321. Newtown Square, PA. US Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station.  

Allen, K.A. 2010. Evaluation of mountain pine beetle activity in the Nautilus area of the Black

Hills National Forest. Biological Evaluation R2‐10‐01. USDA‐Forest Service, Rapid City Service

Center. Rapid City, SD.

Dempsey, M. 2010. Nautilus project area watershed report. USDA‐Forest Service, Black Hills

National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

Goldberg, J. 2010. Wildlife/fisheries biological evaluation for the Nautilus project. Black Hills

National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

Goldberg, J. 2010. Wildlife/fisheries specialist report for the Nautilus project. Black Hills National

Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

Graham, R.T., T.B. Jain. 2005. Application of free selection in mixed forests of the inland

northwestern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 209(1/2): 131‐145.

Jaeger, D. 2010. Letter dated November 3, 2010 from Dennis Jaeger to John Persell and Richard

Artley. Black Hills National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Custer, SD.

Larson, J. 2010. Botany biological evaluation for the Nautilus project. Black Hills National Forest,

Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

Nyland, R.D. 2002. Silviculture: concepts and applications, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw‐Hill.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2001. Black Hills monitoring and evaluation report for fiscal year 2000.

USDA‐Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2004. Research‐Rochford Project Decision Notice. USDA‐Forest Service,

Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2005. Record of decision for the phase II amendment to the 1997 revised

land and resource management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. USDA‐Forest

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2005. 1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills

National Forest, as amended by the phase II amendment. USDA‐Forest Service, Black Hills

National Forest. Custer, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2006. FSH 2509.25 – watershed conservation practices handbook. Rocky

Mountain Region (R‐2), Denver, Colorado.  
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 26

USDA‐Forest Service. 2009. Fiscal year 2008 monitoring and evaluation report. USDA‐Forest

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2010. Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan. Black Hills

National Forest. Custer, SD.

USDA‐Forest Service. 2010. Final environmental impact statement for the Nautilus project. Black

Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, SD.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326‐W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250‐9410 or call (202) 720‐

5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 27

Appendix A

Nautilus Selected Action  

Design Criteria and Monitoring
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 28

Nautilus Selected Action Design Criteria and Monitoring

Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, Regional Watershed Conservation Practices

(WCPs, Forest Service Handbook 2509.25), Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, South Dakota

Best Management Practices and other management requirements apply to the proposed

activities. Management requirements such as applicable Forest Plan standards are repeated

here only if clarification is required. An ArcGIS shapefile containing site‐specific design criteria

information is located in the Nautilus planning record. This spatial data will be used by those

implementing the Selected Action to help ensure application of the design criteria.

Applies To: Measure

All Activities Brush Disposal:

 Disposal of slash piles created through timber harvest or fuel treatments

would be funded appropriately. Rehabilitation of pile sites would include

site preparation and seeding to return the sites to productivity and

control the spread of noxious weeds.

All Activities Heritage Resources:

 All culturally sensitive areas, Traditional Cultural Properties, graves,

potential graves and sites eligible or considered unevaluated to the

National Register of Historic Places should be avoided under proposed

activities with a 100‐foot buffer. Further mitigations if defined would be

identified in the project file for each property and would be required for

project implementation; any properties with mitigations not identified in

this EIS would need Heritage review and SHPO concurrence before

project implementation. Heritage site locations and specific mitigations

are outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

compliance reports, on file at the Northern Hills Ranger District. Heritage

site locations are not identified in this EIS to protect sensitive site

information according to Section 304 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (1966, as amended) and Section 9 of the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act (1979).

 In the event that culturally sensitive areas, Traditional Cultural

Properties, graves, potential graves and sites eligible or considered

unevaluated to the National Register of Historic Places cannot be

avoided, or new heritage resources are found during implementation of

the project, all activity must stop and a member of the District Heritage

Staff must be notified to determine an appropriate course of action.

Appropriate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office,

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other applicable parties would

take place as directed by 36CFR800.

 Leaders of project activities described in this EIS will review the heritage

report and geospatial data for areas to protect and consult with District

Heritage Staff on specific mitigations. Project leaders should contact

District Heritage Staff for additional assistance in marking the sites for

protection on the ground.

All Activities Improvements:

 All Forest Service‐authorized improvements, such as fences and water

developments, would be shown as protected improvements on timber

sale area maps and protected during management activities.  

 Protect all documented NFS land boundary corners, posts, and bearing

trees.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 29

Applies To: Measure

 Avoid or protect utility infrastructure in the project area during project

implementation.

 Avoid or protect improvements under special use permit.

 Protect all mining corner posts and active mining claim developments.

All Activities Meadows:

 White spruce will not be removed from wet meadows unless they are

considered a safety hazard.

 Surface disturbing activities (e.g., creation of skid trails, location of

landings, construction of temporary roads, etc.) will be avoided as much

as possible in meadows. If during implementation activities such as these

cannot be located outside of meadows, the district hydrologist, botanist,

and wildlife biologist will be contacted prior to implementation to

determine if special requirements are warranted to protect site integrity.

All Activities 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 infested with noxious weeds and considered to be

at high risk for spread, off‐road equipment associated with the activity

will be washed before leaving the site 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.

 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.

 Review of the area for noxious weed infestations will 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.

All Activities Public Safety:

 Appropriate signing or other cautionary measures would be implemented

in conjunction with all management activities to ensure public safety.

Implementation of these measures would be the responsibility of the

person initiating the action (e.g., logging contractor, prescribed fire

manager).

All Activities Range:

 Managers of vegetation treatment projects would consult with District

range managers to ensure alteration of natural barriers does not allow

livestock to circumvent fences.

All Activities Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 Refer to the botany design criteria shapefile for identified plant habitat

and to the Biological Evaluation/Specialist Report for a verbal description

of plant habitat.

 Any suitable habitat for sensitive plant species outside of treatment units

would be avoided unless approved by a qualified botanist for entry.

 Any R2 Sensitive plant or animal species or plant or animal 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,
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 30

Applies To: Measure

and biologist and/or botanist.  

All Activities Recreation:

 Non‐motorized trails would be shown as protected improvements on

timber sale maps. Project administrators would ensure protection of

trails during project implementation.

All Activities Revegetation:

 Disturbed soil would be revegetated in a manner that optimizes plant

establishment for that specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil

replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and placement of

weed‐free mulch as necessary. Revegetation would be initiated as soon

as possible, generally not to exceed 6 months, after termination of

ground‐disturbing activities. All disturbed soils would be revegetated

with native species when available, using seed mixtures free of noxious

weeds. On areas needing the immediate establishment of vegetation,

non‐native, non‐aggressive annuals, non‐aggressive 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.

All Activities Scenery:

 Activity slash would be reduced to natural levels within 300 feet of US

Highway 385, Nemo Road, or Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker Canyon Road)

unless not visible due to changes in topography. Slash would be treated

within 1 year of harvest completion.

All Activities Snags and Down Logs:

 Conifer snags over 20 inches dbh and those with cavities would be cut

only for safety reasons. Conifer snags under 20 inches dbh would be cut

only for safety reasons or when necessary for construction of roads, skid

trails, firelines, and log landings. – Standard 2301a

 Retain all hardwood snags except for those that are considered a safety

hazard.—Standard 2301b

 Retain at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a

minimum diameter of 10 inches in ponderosa pine stands and 100 linear

feet per acre in white spruce stands to help retain moisture, trap soil

movement, provide microsites for establishment of forbs, grasses,

shrubs, and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife.—Standard 2308a  

 In vegetation treatment units, 1 pile of woody material per 2 acres would

be left to create near‐ground structure for small mammal species, except

within 300 feet of buildings.—Standard 3117

 Any snag cut for safety reasons will be retained on site as coarse woody

debris.

All Activities Soil and Water:

 Implement Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices to ensure

adequate protection of soil, aquatic, and riparian systems.  

 Some proposed activities would take place on soils identified as having a

potential for severe erosion. The following provisions, intended to

minimize the amount of exposed bare soil, off‐site transport, and soil

displacement, are to be implemented: (1) on slopes over 30 percent,

harvesting and skidding methods that minimize the amount of soil

displaced into piles or windrows would be used in order to leave soil

intact and in place; (2) prescribed burns on slopes over 30 percent would

be conducted when soil, duff, and large fuels are sufficiently moist to
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 31

Applies To: Measure

retain duff as ground cover for prevention of erosion.

 Some proposed activities would take place on soils that are more

susceptible to compaction. The following provisions, intended to reduce

the risk of detrimental compaction would be implemented.  1) Heavy

equipment would avoid streams and swales (low‐lying or depressed and

often wet stretches of land) except to cross at designated points, build

crossings, or conduct restoration, unless protected by at least one foot of

packed snow or two inches of frozen soil.

 To reduce potential for compaction and/or rutting, the following

measure applies on all soil map units:  Heavy equipment will be operated

for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit (Soil

moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3‐mm

threads without breaking or crumbling), the soil is protected by at least

one foot of packed snow, or the top two inches of the soil are frozen

(WCPH management measure 13/design criteria (b)).

 No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 50 feet of

perennial or intermittent streams or springs.

 No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 100 feet of

wetlands.

All Activities Wildlife:

 Any newly discovered raptor nests, snail colonies, red‐bellied snake

hibernacula or bat roosts (i.e., snags/rock formations observed being

used by bats, or newly discovered mines and caves) would be evaluated

by a district wildlife biologist prior to implementation to determine if

special requirements are warranted to protect site integrity.  These

resources would be protected in accordance with Forest Plan Standards.

 To minimize disturbance to nesting goshawks a timing restriction will

apply from April 1 through August 15 within 1⁄2 mile of active nests by

minimizing human‐caused noise and disruption beyond that occurring at

the time of nest initiation. The following activities would not occur during

the timing restriction: fuel reduction activities, cutting, skidding, yarding,

decking, hauling, road construction and other activities that may disturb

nesting birds. Exceptions might be: hauling within 1⁄2 mile of active nest

sites during the nesting season if it is reasonable to assume that

goshawks in the area are habituated to this type of disturbance or

surveys indicate that goshawks are not nesting in the area (consult with a

district wildlife biologist to determine an appropriate course of action).

Specific site locations and GIS shapefile are documented in the project

file. – Standard 3111

 To minimize disturbance to nesting osprey a timing restriction will apply

from April 1 through August 31 within 1⁄4 mile of active nests by

minimizing human‐caused noise and disruption beyond that occurring at

the time of nest initiation. The following activities would not occur during

the timing restriction: fuel reduction activities, cutting, skidding, yarding,

decking, hauling, road construction and other activities that may disturb

nesting birds. Exceptions might be: hauling within 1⁄4 mile of active nest

sites during the nesting season if it is reasonable to assume that osprey in

the area are habituated to this type of disturbance or surveys indicate

that ospreys are not nesting in the area (consult with a district wildlife

biologist to determine an appropriate course of action). Specific site

location and GIS shapefile are documented in the project file. – Standard
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 32

Applies To: Measure

3204

 Tree marking will not occur from April 1 through August 15 within 1/8

mile of active goshawk nests to assure that goshawks do not abandon

nests.  From April 1 through August 15, if crews are being aggressively

watched or attacked by goshawks during marking activities they will

immediately abandon all marking efforts within 1⁄2 mile of the active

goshawk nest.  

 Avoid creating barriers (e.g., new open roads) between red‐bellied snake

hibernacula and riparian areas or wetlands. There are currently no known

hibernacula in the planning area.  This design criterion will apply to any

newly discovered hibernacula.—Standard 3116

All Activities Travel Management:

 While any projects resulting from this analysis are taking place, all gates

that would normally be closed will remain closed accept for

administrative purposes.  

Timber Harvest Aspen:

 Where hardwood enhancement sites are adjacent to commercial

treatment units, clear cut all conifers within one tree length

(approximately 75 feet) of aspen stand to maintain vegetative diversity

within the stand.   

 Conserve all live hardwoods (Standard 2301b) with wildlife cavities and

all snags (Standard 3124), except for those that are considered a safety

hazard.

 Cut and “hinge” all conifers within hardwood enhancement units to

remove encroaching ponderosa pine and spruce.  “Hinging” conifers is

intended to provide protection to aspen suckers and minimize impacts of

browsing. Cutting shall be in the form of “hinging” the pine

approximately 4 feet up from the ground.  A solid hinge will keep the tree

elevated, creating an aerial barrier to ungulates.  A series of pine should

be toppled over top of each other to form a “hedgerow” on the outside

of the clone to prevent native ungulates and livestock from crossing into

the clone. Conifer cut outside the clone could have the big tops and limbs

dragged into or thrown into the protected aspen clone to increase on‐site

material barriers.  Lop and scatter, or pile and burn, all conifers too small

to “hinge”.

 Whenever possible, skid trails (or other surface disturbing activities) will

be placed directly adjacent to aspen stands (but not birch stands) to

promote expansion of aspen clones which are likely to benefit from

openings and ground disturbance.

Timber Harvest Harvest:

 Existing pine regeneration would generally be protected in stands

proposed for overstory removal harvest. Provisions related to felling,

bucking, and whole tree yarding would be included in the timber sale

contract. Log length yarding is the preferred method of timber removal.

Skid trails within these stands would be approved by the sale

administrator before commencement of logging. Landing locations

would, where feasible, take advantage of existing openings or areas with

no regeneration.

 To increase the likelihood of successful conifer regeneration, stands

proposed for seed cuts would be logged in the summer or early fall

where feasible to maximize the site scarification provided by the skidding
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 33

Applies To: Measure

operation, provided there are no concerns related to riparian areas,

noxious weeds, or sensitive plants. Cutting would be done in such a way

that areas would be restocked with trees within five years after harvest.

 Where stand variation dictates an alternative treatment to the majority

treatment, this variation shall be accommodated. For example, a quarter

acre pocket of aspen within a commercial thin stand of ponderosa pine

shall be cleared of conifers within and up to one tree length

(approximately 75 feet) from the edge of the pocket in an effort to

maintain vegetative diversity within stands.

Timber Harvest Road Restrictions:

 Timber sale units would be laid out to facilitate existing road restrictions

(for example, trees around gates and other barriers would be left uncut

to maintain obstructions and discourage driving around the gate or

barrier).

Timber Harvest Scenery:

 Layout and marking of timber sale units would comply with Forest‐wide

marking guides in effect at the time of implementation.

 Where possible, treatments would be designed to reduce the chance of

wind damage to residual trees. This may include retaining higher density

of mature trees on exposed ridges, lee slopes, and other areas prone to

high winds and heavy snow accumulation.

 To reduce effects of continuously even tree spacing on wildlife and

scenery, commercial thin treatments would emphasize tree health and

crown size over spacing. Residual trees in overstory removal and seed cut

units would be variably spaced.

 Skyline logging corridors would be as narrow as possible to minimize

visual effects of any soil displacement.

 Where existing conditions allow, treatments in forested areas adjacent to

other ownership would blend into adjacent tree density conditions rather

than creating strong vegetation edges. A horizontal transition zone of

two chains (132 feet) is suggested to achieve this transition in tree

density.

 Within 300 feet of US Highway 385,  Nemo Road, Forest Highway 26

(Vanocker Canyon Road ) and the Centennial Trail the following design

criteria will be in place:

1. Skid trails will be utilized during dry or frozen conditions to

minimize soil disturbance, and will be re‐seeded with native

grasses.  These techniques have been effectively used to reduce

soil displacement and speed up the re‐vegetation process along

these skid trails, reducing highly visual evidence of skid trails.

2. Where possible along these routes, 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.  Locations where it was not

used resulted in a ‘tree‐farm’ appearance (all trees same height

and evenly spaced across the landscape).  

3. Rehabilitate log decks within 300 feet of travel corridors by

returning to original contours, scarifying to eliminate compaction

(as necessary), and planting with native grass seed.  

4. Slash will be cleaned up to natural levels within 300 feet of these
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 34

Applies To: Measure

travel corridors.  This can be accomplished by slash clean up (e.g.

scattering and underburning, piling and burning, or chipping) after

logging.

5. Slash, once placed on the ground, needs to be treated in

accordance with Forest Plan guidelines 4112 and 5606.

Timber Harvest Range:

 All pasture gates would be identified on Timber Sale Area maps and kept

closed during the grazing season (June through October). Maintained

fences would be protected during logging operations.

 If log hauling or movement of heavy equipment related to the proposed

timber harvest causes damage to cattleguards, the timber purchaser

would be responsible for repair.

Timber Harvest Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species and SOLC:  

 Occurrences of Region 2 Sensitive Plants and Plant Species of Local

Concern would be avoided during all proposed timber harvest activities.

Known areas are identified in the design criteria shapefile.

 Suitable plant habitat would be excluded from mechanical treatment

areas.  Known plant habitat is identified in the design criteria shapefile.  

 Any skid trails, temporary roads, landings, or other disturbances

associated with logging activities in plant habitat would be designated in

consultation with a qualified botanist. These areas are included in the

design criteria shapefile.

 Any plant habitat outside of treatment units would be avoided unless

approved by a qualified botanist for entry.  These areas are included in

the design criteria shapefile.

Timber Harvest Recreation:

 Snowmobile trails would be shown as improvements on timber sale area

maps and protected during harvest operations. An evaluation of the

potential for conflicts between logging and trail use would take place at

the time of timber sale appraisal and contract preparation. If conflicts

appear likely between use of the snowmobile trails and specific logging

units or haul routes, logging would be restricted between December 1

and March 31 unless a logical and desirable alternative snowmobile route

is identified. Only those units and/or roads in conflict would be restricted

so that logging operations could proceed in the remainder of the sale

area.

 Winter operations of timber sale units that necessitate skidding across a

snowmobile trail but do not otherwise affect the trail may be allowed.

Determination would be made on a case‐by‐case basis, with crossings

permitted only at locations approved by the sale administrator and with

proper cautionary signing installed by the timber contractor.

Timber Harvest Soil and Water:

 Implement Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices to ensure

adequate protection of soil, aquatic, and riparian systems.  

 In stands where Lakoa, Rockoa or Citadel soils are present and slopes

exceed 30%, ensure that an overstory density of at least 80 BA remains

following timber harvest, unless more site specific Design Criteria is

established. If there is an urgent need (example: bark beetle mortality;

unable to create lower fuel loading mosaic around the site) to reduce BA

below this level, consult the district hydrologist for field verification of

the site to determine further potential of slope stability  impairment
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 35

Applies To: Measure

associated with additional levels of BA reduction.

 In stands where slopes exceed 55%, ensure that a tree overstory

component with a basal area density of at least 80 BA remains following

timber harvest and post sale activities. If there is a need to reduce BA

below this level, consult the district hydrologist for field verification of

the site to determine further potential of slope stability impairment

associated with additional levels of BA reduction.  

 Skid trails: Place slash in a well‐distributed pattern across the skid trail

surface and install waterbars, where necessary.following harvest

activities.

 When logging in previously disturbed stands, use existing skid trails and

landings whenever possible.

 Avoid locating any temporary roads, skid trails, or log landings within 100

feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands.

 Avoid conducting vegetation treatments that remove overstory trees

within 50 feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands.

Timber Harvest Wildlife:

 No treatments will be conducted within 500 feet of adit portal or shaft

openings of mines or caves to maintain microclimate of bat hibernacula

or nurseries, unless it is determined through bat surveys that the site is

not bat roost habitat.  Bat surveyors and bat survey protocols must be

pre‐approved by the district wildlife biologist and surveys must be

conducted prior to implementation. The 500 foot no treatment zone may

be reduced dependent upon survey results and topography and will be

determined by a district Wildlife Biologist. Known mine site locations are

documented in the project file.—Standard 3207

 Known snail sites with R2 Sensitive Species or Species of Local Concern

will be avoided (i.e., no vegetation treatments, no heavy equipment use,

and no skid trails, landings, temporary roads or any other activity that

may compact soils or alter ground cover, moisture regimes or litter

composition). Known site locations are documented in the project file.‐‐

Standard 3103

 Disturbance of newly discovered colonies of land snails would be avoided

until it is evaluated by a district wildlife biologist in order to determine if

R2 Sensitive Species or Species of Local Concern are present.  The district

wildlife biologist would determine appropriate buffer areas (no

treatment zones) around newly discovered colonies based on site‐specific

conditions. Avoidance zones or mitigation measures would be

determined on a case‐by‐case basis.

 In the event that a bald eagle is documented in a stand, the wildlife

biologist will be notified and harvest operations will be suspended until

the eagle has vacated the stand.‐‐Standard 3101d.

Timber Harvest Spruce Habitat:

 Commercial and non‐commercial treatments of ponderosa pine in spruce

dominated stands will not occur except within 200 feet of buildings or

where spruce is encroaching into hardwoods so long as other identified

design criteria does not apply in these areas.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 36

Applies To: Measure

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan:

 Prescribed burning would be implemented only under conditions defined

in a prescribed burn plan.

 In stands that have been designated as part of the suitable timber base,

at least 90 percent of the trees greater than 9 inches in diameter will be

retained. In other stands, at least 50 percent of the trees greater than 9

inches diameter will be retained.

 The District Silviculturist will assist with the preparation of or review the

final prescribed burn plan.

Prescribed Fire Improvements:

 Measures will be taken to protect utility lines and any other

improvements within the burn unit during prescribed burns.

Prescribed Fire Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 Where possible, direct ignition would not occur in habitat suitable for

supporting sensitive plants.  These areas are included in the design

criteria shapefile.

 Control lines that disturb soil, i.e. hand lines or dozer lines, would not be

located in plant habitat, unless needed to ensure safety.  These areas are

included in the design criteria shapefile.

Prescribed Fire Soil and Water:

 Implement Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices to ensure

adequate protection of soil, aquatic, and riparian systems.  

 Prescribed burns in some sites would take place all or partly on soils with

severe erosion hazard. These burns would take place only when burn

severity could be kept low.

 Small wetlands located in or immediately adjacent to any burn units

would be excluded from areas to be burned and protected from

disturbance.

 Prescribed burn plans will include monitoring measures to evaluate the

breakdown of hydrophobic soils, where applicable, following burn

implementation.

Prescribed Fire Scenery:

 Where possible, prescribed burns adjacent to US Highway 385, Nemo

Road, and Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker Canyon Road) would be burned

so that overstory trees visible from the road show as little scorch as

possible.

Prescribed Fire Wildlife:  

 In any given year, conduct prescribed burns on no more than 60% of a

contiguous meadow (that is >20 acres in size) to minimize impacts of

prescribed fire on butterflies and ground nesting birds.  Timing restriction

would apply to meadows from May 15 to August 15, to minimize impacts

to ground nesting birds. Fall burns are preferred.—Standard 3125   

 Prescribed burns within 1⁄2 mile of historic goshawk nests would be

coordinated with district wildlife biologist. Timing restriction would apply

from April 1 through August 15 if the nests are active.

 All documented land snail colonies with R2 Sensitive Species or Species of

Local Concern that are in prescribed burn units would be protected by

burning when snails are hibernating (i.e., when average daytime

temperatures are <50 degree Fahrenheit) or else these colonies will be

avoided. Specific site locations are documented in the project file.—
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 37

Applies To: Measure

Standard 3103

 No fire lines or direct ignition of fire will occur on known snail colonies

any time of the year. Specific site locations are documented in the

project file.

 During prescribed burning, protect existing guzzlers. Use whatever

technique the burn boss deems appropriate (e.g., foam, black lining,

wrapping, etc.), based on site conditions.  

 If Atlantis fritillary or regal fritillary butterflies occur in meadows that are

within burn units, redesign the project to conserve important habitat

components of known sightings (survey for butterflies as appropriate).  

No known occurrences of either species exist in proposed burn blocks.

Check with the district biologist prior to burning to determine if new

information indicates their presence.—Standard 3105   

 Prescribed burning in areas with caves or mines would be coordinated

with a district wildlife biologist. Impacts to bat hibernacula would be

avoided with the use of timing restrictions and/or establishing buffer

zones. Specific mitigations will be determined by a district Wildlife

Biologist and Fuels Specialist during burn plan development. Specific site

locations are documented in the project file. This design criterion will also

apply to any newly discovered hibernacula.—Standard 3102

Prescribed Fire Range:

 To avoid conflicts with grazing and to ensure that prescribed fire

mitigation is implemented, prescribed fire projects will be coordinated in

advance with the range management specialist.

Prescribed Fire Recreation:

 Personnel from the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks

will be notified prior to the initiation of prescribed burns if the burn unit

includes or is adjacent to a designated snowmobile trail so that trail

markers may be removed or protected.

 Generally, slash piles will be located away from designated snowmobile

or cross‐country ski trails where possible. Where that is not possible and

piles are located immediately adjacent to trails, piles will either not be

burned between December 1 and March 31 to prevent melting of the

snow on the trail, or specific mitigation will be instituted to prevent snow

melt on the trail.

Prescribed Fire Heritage:

 In the event that sites are within a prescribed burn boundary, both

prehistoric and historic sites would be avoided by both hand line and

dozer lines.  Sites with consumables such as wood would either be

wrapped with structure protection material, or have either a wet line or

hand line placed around the resource.

Transportation

System

Dust Control:

 Dust control, if necessary, may be done with water, magnesium chloride,

calcium chloride, or equivalent.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 38

Applies To: Measure

Transportation

System

Noxious Weeds:

 District staff responsible for the noxious weed program would, in

coordination with the project engineer, inspect gravel pits for noxious

weed infestation before transport and use of gravel and other material.

Infestations would be treated to prevent spread.

 District staff responsible for the noxious weed program would inspect

stockpiled gravel annually for weed infestation in coordination with the

project engineer.

Transportation

System

Revegetation:

 Timber sale roads would be seeded after construction but before timber

harvest if any part of the gap between construction and harvest would

occur between April and October. This may be accomplished under the

road contract. If necessary, seeding would again occur after use of the

road is complete. Seeding may be delayed until after completion of

harvest if the gap between construction and harvest would be of short

duration and hydrology, soils, engineering, and noxious weed specialists

determine after field review that a delay would be acceptable.

Transportation

System

Soil and Water:

 Implement Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices to ensure

adequate protection of soil, aquatic, and riparian systems.  

 New road construction is to be designed to limit cut and fill slopes where

possible, particularly when located above steep slopes.

 Construction of landings, roads, and tractor and skid trails would be

avoided within 100 feet (or a distance equal to the mean height of

mature dominant late seral vegetation, whichever is more) of perennial

seeps, springs, and wetlands. If this is not possible, crossings would be

constructed and restored to prevent headcutting, gullying, erosion, and

sediment transport to ephemeral or perennial channels.

 Creation of large water collection points, such as road ditches or

excessively large water bars, would be avoided, particularly up‐gradient

of existing rotational site features, such as slumps and landslides. A

greater frequency of water bars than that identified as the maximum

spacing recommended in FSH 2509.25 for the Rocky Mountain Region is

to be used. FSH 2509.25 direction disclosed that the listed spacings were

maximum spacings and should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors,

such as amount of road use, downslope stability, erosion, etc. Foresty

Best Management Practices for South Dakota (2003) identifies suggested

drainage feature spacings (page 12) that have narrower spacings

between drainage features as compared to FSH 2509.25. The 2009 Field

Audit Report ‐ Implementation Monitoring of SD Forestry Best

Management Practices further support the greater need for more

frequent spacing of water bars. The audit identified some areas with

insufficient numbers of water bars on native surface roads. Temporary

road cuts exceeding two feet would be avoided. If this is infeasible

because of steep slopes, temporary roads would be re‐contoured.

 Where feasible, existing haul roads would be reconstructed with rolling

grades instead of ditches and culverts.

 Water bars and sediment barriers would be placed 10 to 20 feet below

water bar outlets and culvert outlets on skid trails steeper than 15

percent.

 Engineering staff would consult with a forest hydrologist and fisheries
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 39

Applies To: Measure

biologist on design of stream crossings. Fill slopes would be protected

with riprap, gabions, prompt seeding, or other measures approved by the

hydrologist, fisheries biologist, or soil scientist.  

 Placement of structures would comply with federal and state laws

regarding construction in and near waterways, including placement of fill

and measures to control sedimentation.

 Generally, do not locate any new system roads within 100 feet of streams

(perennial, intermittent or ephemeral), springs, or wetlands. If a stream

crossing is required, ensure that it is constructed to prevent headcutting,

gullying, erosion, and sediment transport to stream channels by

implementing Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices.

Transportation

System

Travel Management:

 In general, all newly constructed roads would be closed following

construction until needed for timber sale or related activities and closed

again after use. The exception to this would be newly constructed roads

that are designated open for motorized travel under the Forest‐wide

Travel Management project (in progress). Roads needed for timber sale

or related activities but normally closed to motorized vehicles would also

be closed when not in use.  

 All newly constructed roads that are to be closed following use will be

closed with appropriate methods, which may include: locked gates, dirt

berms, boulders, downed trees, fences, or re‐contouring.  

 Where new roads are constructed through existing range allotment

fences to access timber sale units, temporary cattle guards will be

installed at the crossing point. Immediately following completion of the

timber sale and all related activities, the cattle guard would be removed

and the fence returned to its original condition. Cattle guards would not

be replaced with any form of gate.

 Retain access routes as needed for utility line construction,

reconstruction, and maintenance of existing right‐of‐way corridors.

 Avoid or protect utility infrastructure during construction and

decommissioning of roads.

Transportation

System

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 A botanist will work with the road engineer to determine the best

placement of the proposed new road construction that will potentially

cross plant habitat. These areas are included in the design criteria

shapefile.

Transportation

System

Wildlife:

 Maintenance of existing roads in areas that pass through known snail

colonies will be limited to the clearing limits (i.e., roads may be

maintained to standard).  If needed improvements or realignment of

those areas go beyond the existing clearing limits, review and input by

the district wildlife biologist would be required to ensure that snail

colonies would not be impacted.—Standard 3103  

 Avoid constructing new roads through snail colonies.  Where data

suggests an overlap between new roads and known snail colonies, a

wildlife biologist and the engineer will together determine if there are

any feasible alternate road locations.—Standard 3103

 The presence of snails in any area not previously identified will be

brought to the attention of the district wildlife biologist before

maintenance or construction continues.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 40

Applies To: Measure

Transportation

System

Heritage:

 Sites that currently have a native surface road running through them will

have site specific mitigations detailed in the Heritage Specialist Report

following a review by District Heritage Staff to determine if further

consultation by the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, and

appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other applicable

parties is necessary as directed by Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act 1966 (as amended).
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 41

Nautilus Selected Action Monitoring  

The Northern Hills Ranger District would monitor implementation of the selected alternative.  

Timber sale administrators or other contract administrators would complete some of the project

implementation monitoring. Other resource specialists would be involved in monitoring of

specific mitigation measures relating to their particular resource area. Specific monitoring

requirements are listed below.

 Prescribed fire managers would establish photo points in prescribed burn units to

compare pre‐ and post‐treatment conditions and document fire behavior during

implementation.

 Fuels staff would evaluate effectiveness of fuel treatments in reducing fuel loading.

 Fire managers would evaluate burned areas to establish a timeline for maintenance

burning.  

 Project managers would monitor revegetation of disturbed and burned areas to

determine need for additional measures and noxious weed control.

 Engineering and hydrology/soils specialists would monitor effectiveness of erosion

control measures (seeding, water bars, etc.) one and three years following installation.  

 Hydrology/soils specialists would monitor soil compaction at a sample of timber sale

landings and harvest units.

 Timber sale administrators and hydrology/soils specialists would monitor application

and effectiveness of USDA Forest Service Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices.

 District resource specialists would monitor timber sale layout as needed to evaluate

project implementation of design criteria and assumptions used in the planning process.

District resource specialists would monitor timber sale implementation following sale

closure as needed to assess the efficacy of treatments and to gauge resource impacts

resulting from implementation.

 A hydrology specialist will evaluate road‐stream crossings after three years to assess

revegetation.  If revegetation has not been established, mitigation measures will be

identified and the effectiveness of those measures monitored for the next two years to

ensure revegetation occurs.
Nautilus Project Area  

Record of Decision

Page 42

Appendix B

Nautilus Selected Action Maps
[

 ̄ 0 2.5 5 1.25 Miles

Lawrenc

County

Pennington

County

Highway

385

Nemo, SD

Black Hills

Experimental

Forest

Vanocker Canyon Road
! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! ! !

!

! 

! !

! !

! !

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

[

414.5

US-385

FH 26

152.1

208.1

151.1

198.1

237.1

204.2

136.1

616.1

155.1

224.1

193.1

203.1

741.1

144.1

256.1

204.1

582.2

201.2

658.1

679.1

539.1

153.1 678.1

660.1

140.1

261.3

155.1A

582.1

679

136.1A

663.1

730.1

709.1

740.1

523.1

152.2G

145.1

136.3A

151.2C

730.1B

582.2E

152.2C

740.1B

152.1A

552.1

255.1

414.6K

137.1

741.1A

706.1

nau06

152 2. Q

664.1

414.6B

204.2B

582.2B

U130039

151.2I

202.2C

208.1N

nau20

582.1H

208.1F

237.2D

663.1B

198.1B

539.2

151.2D

U080190

151.2B

153.1B

198.1I

201.2A

582.2D

135.2A

U120089

155.1J

CTY-045

201.2D

414.6C

663.1F

431.1C

U080191

414.6I

431.1D

135.1N

U070048

U130183

U130037

616.1E

152.2E

152.2H

153.1H

198.1C

151.2G

539.3A

740.1A

nau19

nau04

198.1A

151.2F

204.2D

135.2H

155.1I

8.1

663.1C

nau01

155.1G

152.2N

616.2A

153.2C

679.1F

208.1G

nau05

237.2E

nau14

U130171

664.1A

U120143

152.2A

153.1A

237.2F

204.2I

U130001

678.1E

431.1E

U130090

U070206

U080184

135.1F

U080085

152.2J 152.2K

U130147

660.1D_DE

152.1E

741.1B

135.1E

nau08

198.1E

740.1C

237.1E

U130208

U120149

U130082

U070046

198.1D

15

U080194

1.2E

135.1A

152.2T

678.1A

660.1B

152.2L

203.3A

U130204

679.1B

198.3A

U080188

582.1J

414.6N

155.1D

U080141

198.1H

582.2K

208.1O

414.6G

204.2F

146.1

539.3

660.1A

nau09

U130249

U130086

414.6F

208.1A

237 1. F

U140050

431.1

208.1H

U130088

U130191

U080199

U130198

U070052

27.1

U120087

U120192

153.2G_DE

151.3A

U130026

730.1E

U120077

U130065

U130185

616.1C

U120136

216.1

136.3B

152.2I

155.1C

155.1F

nau15

U120091

155.1B

U130139

679.1

152.1D

U130110

U130068

582.2A

U130015

U120137

616.1B

740.1D

U130076

nau16

582.2F nau17

208.1K

U130096

552.1A

U130002

U130097

151.3B

135.2M

U080134

679.1A

663.1D

U130073

582.1I

U120079

U130255

U130010

U130125

nau03

414.6E

152.1C

U130053_DE

663.1A

153.1D_DE

nau10

U130104

U070217

152.2O

U130168

U130123

152.2P

414.6H

521.1

U130116

140.2A

U080186

255.1E

U070222

208.1C

 ̄ 0 2.5 5 1.25 Miles

Lawrenc

County

Pennington

County

Highway

385

Nemo, SD

de

Centennial

Trail