Nautilus Project Area

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E   

Response to Comments
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐2

This page intentionally left blank.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐3

Introduction

Implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1508.4 direct

agencies preparing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) to “assess and consider comments

both individually and collectively”, and to respond by one of the following means:

 Modify alternatives, including the proposed action.

 Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by

the agency.

 Supplement, improve, or modify the analysis.

 Make factual corrections.

 Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the

sources, authorities, or reasons supporting the agency’s position and,

ifappropriate, indicate those circumstances that would trigger agency reappraisal

or further response.

Public comments submitted on the Nautilus Project DEIS are addressed below.  Letters and the

comments within them are addressed in the order they were received.  In some cases, the letters

received are not reprinted here in their entirety; only the portion of the letter containing specific

comments is presented here.  Each letter, in its entirety, is located in the Nautilus Project file located at

the Northern Hills Ranger District.

Response to Comments

Letter 1:  Roger Bamsey

Comment 1‐1:   I support the action alternative of Alternative B.

  

The Forest Plan Directions are clearly stated through Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 10 and I agree

with the Forest Plan Objectives which are to protect the resources of the Black Hills

National Forest by managing the ecosystems.

  

The proposed actions of Alternative B describe exactly what is needed to keep the forest

healthy for future generations.  With the number of dead trees in the Black Hills it is easy

to see that these actions are needed.

  

You and your staff have done a great job of outlining what is needed to get your job

done of properly managing the Black Hills National Forest, and you have provided the

background information why this action must be taken to keep the forest in great shape.

  

Response 1‐1: Comment noted.   

Letter 2:  Larry Svoboda, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8

Comment 2‐1:   The Nautilus Project Alternative B includes approximately 25,350 acres of USFS land on

which prescribed burning could occur.  Although it is not anticipated that all of this

acreage would be burned, it is expected that approximately 1,000 acres per year, for a
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐4

total of 10,000 acres over the life of the project, would be burned.  This significant

prescribed fire activity may cause degradation of air quality and visibility in the region.  

EPA is concerned that the DEIS does not contain any air impact analysis presenting

direct, indirect, or cumulative air quality impacts that would be associated with

prescribed burning on the large acreage under consideration.  Such information is

necessary for the decision‐maker to ensure protection of air quality and visibility if the

prescribed burns are ultimately conducted.   

At a minimum, the Final EIS should summarize existing air quality near the project area

and should identify smoke sensitive receptors (such as population centers and Class I and

Class II areas).  USFS should consult with the South Dakota Department of Environment

and Natural Resources for any modeling and mitigation measure required under State

regulations or the State Implementation Plan to address Clean Air Act requirements.

Response 2‐1: Air quality and smoke dispersal is considered and addressed when individual burn plans

are completed.  Once a burn unit is identified, the fuels specialist is able to much more

accurately document the sensitive smoke areas and conditions required for satisfactory

dispersal and transport based on site specific conditions (e.g. proximity to homes and

communities).  A discussion of smoke management and air quality was added to the Fire

and Fuels section of the FEIS (pages 77‐78).

Comment 2‐2:   In addition to the items discussed above, we recommend that the Final EIS include:  (1)

discussion of appropriate smoke monitoring techniques and mitigation (including

meteorological conditions favorable for mitigated prescribed fire smoke and alternatives

to prescribed fire such as mechanical fuel reduction methods); (2) requirements for the

incorporation of the interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation

Procedures Guide (July 2008) into the site‐specific burn plans designed for each

prescribed burn conducted under this project; (3) adherence to the USFS internal process

for managing prescribed fire; and (4) commitment to public notification of pending

burns.

Response 2‐2:   See Response 2‐1.  All of these items are documented in individual prescribed burn

plans.

Comment 2‐3:   While the DEIS notes that riparian vegetation usually becomes re‐established within

three years of disturbance, Appendix C Design Criteria and Monitoring, does not

establish a timeline for revegetation monitoring.  EPA recommends five years.  In

addition, EPA recommends assessing erosion impacts for three years after road

construction is completed.  Further, since the DEIS notes that break down of hydrophobic

soils resulting from prescribed burns should occur within five years, we suggest post

prescribed burn monitoring to confirm expectations that hydrophobic soils break down

enough to no longer adversely impact hydrologic processes.

Response 2‐3: The following monitoring requirements were added to the FEIS (page C‐14) to address

revegetation at road stream crossings:   

 Monitor road stream crossings after 3 years.

 If revegetation not established, identify measures to mitigate situation.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐5

 Following mitigation, monitor site for next 2 years to ensure revegetation.

To address hydrophobic soils, a design criterion was added to the FEIS (page C‐11)

requiring that post‐burn monitoring be included in prescribed burn plans to evaluate the

breakdown of hydrophobic soils following the application of fire.

Comment 2‐4: ...we are concerned with the lack of water quality data provided in the DEIS.  A brief

discussion and summary of the best available water quality data for the project area

should be included in the Final EIS.  These data should include fecal coliform and total

bacteria counts, nutrient concentrations, and temperature.  In addition, stream health

information should be provided for Hay and Little Elk Creeks (similar to that provided for

Boxelder, South Boxelder, Estes, and Jim Creeks).

Response 2‐4:   Water quality is not monitored by the Forest Service; it is monitored by the South

Dakota Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR).  The most

recent water quality data available from SDDENR was used during analysis of the

Nautilus Project.  A memorandum of understanding (MOU) exists between the Forest

Service and SDDENR, which states that implementation of the Best Management

Practices (BMPs) and Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) would maintain or

improve water quality.  The Nautilus Project incorporates the BMPs and WCPs (DEIS,

page C‐3).

Stream health information was not collected on Hay Creek or Little Elk Creek.   

A total of 0.5 mile of Hay Creek, divided amongst three short reaches, is on FS lands with

the remainder on private land.  Therefore, stream health of Hay Creek is more

influenced by actions on private property than by Forest Service actions.  Approximately

1.5 miles of the intermittent reach of Little Elk Creek is within the Nautilus project area.  

Again, this reach is divided by private property.  Because this reach was intermittent and

not perennial, stream health assessments were not conducted.

Comment 2‐5: In the design of stream crossings, EPA recommends BMPs to prevent sedimentation of

surface waters and restoration as soon as possible to prevent sedimentation flow into

streams.  The BMPs should be inspected and maintained frequently and should be

adjusted in response to inspection findings.  Bioengineering methods or soft bank

protection to stabilize stream banks are recommended as opposed to riprap to ensure

full restoration.

Response 2‐5:   As stated on page C‐3 of the DEIS, South Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs)

would be implemented in the Nautilus Project.  Specific design criteria related to stream

crossings appear on pages C‐12 and C‐13.  Design of stream crossings would be

considered on a site by site basis with input from the hydrologist, soils scientist, or

fisheries biologist as necessary.

Comment 2‐6: Under the Nautilus Project proposed action, approximately eight miles of new road

construction and six miles of unclassified road conversion are required to facilitate

vegetation management activities.  Although the DEIS is silent on the subject, we assume

that these new roads would not be built in any inventoried Roadless Areas and

recommend that the FEIS clarify that point.  The DEIS notes that although the new roads
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐6

would be closed when activities are completed, it is often difficult to effectively close

roads in the Black Hills.  If the closures are less than 100% effective, negative

environmental impacts associated with the new roads could continue.  Therefore, EPA

recommends that a monitoring plan and schedule be developed to assess the

effectiveness of road closures.

Response 2‐6:   No inventoried Roadless Areas exist within the Nautilus project area, so none of the

newly constructed or converted roads would be located in Roadless Areas.   

Letter 3:  Robert Stewart, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior

Comment 3‐1:   The DEIS states that “Limited (aquatic ecosystems) field surveys were completed in 2008

within the Nautilus project area.  The results of the field work were used to generate this

report.  Records of the field surveys conducted to support the analysis in this document

are located in the Nautilus project file.”  It would be beneficial to the public for the final

EIS to include these survey results as an Appendix, and to provide a discussion of the field

survey results and findings along with possible mitigation options.

Response 3‐1:   The survey results were not included in the DEIS in the interest of keeping the document

as concise as possible (per CEQ 1500.3).  As noted on page 136 of the DEIS, the survey

results are in the project file and are available on request to anyone who is interested.  

The field survey results are reflected in the “Existing Conditions” section of the

Hydrology and Soils analysis, located on pgs. 136 through 147 of the DEIS.  Design

criteria are listed in Appendix C; those specific to water and soils are found on pages C‐

5, C‐9, C‐10, C‐12, and C‐13.

Comment 3‐2: The website referenced for the Peterson 1995 reference is incorrect. The correct website

is:  http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sdatlas/ .

Response 3‐2:   Thank you for locating that error.  The website address is correct in the FEIS.

Letter 4:  John Persell, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (co‐signed by Nancy Hilding, Jonathan

Ratner, Dick Artley and Wendy Roth)

Comment 4‐1: The Nautilus DEIS only considers a “no action” alternative and a single “action”

alternative.  Not only does this strongly indicate the agency’s predisposition toward

Alternative B, the proposed action, but USFS excluded from consideration several

alternatives suggested by the public.  Consideration of only one action alternative

provides no points of contrast or comparison on which USFS can make its ultimate

decision whether to authorize the Nautilus Project.  Instead, the agency only has one set

of impacts before it in terms of acres to be treated, board feet to be harvested, roads to

be constructed and reconstructed, habitat to be destroyed, watersheds to be degraded,

noxious weeds to be introduced, etc.

Response 4‐1:   Although only two alternatives, the no action and action, were fully analyzed in the

DEIS, that does not mean that other alternatives were not considered.  Thirteen

separate alternatives (not including Alternatives A and B) suggested during the scoping

process were considered.   The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) states that the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐7

agency shall consider a no actions alternative, an action alternative and an additional

action alternative “if the additional alternative is proposed during scoping AND meets

the purpose and need of the project”.  The justification for not carrying any of those

alternatives forward for detailed analysis is explained in the Nautilus DEIS (pages 38‐42).

Comment 4‐2:   The “Purpose and Need for Action” outlined in the DEIS does not justify examination of  

only a single action alternative.  There are many other alternatives that could serve the

purpose and need to reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and high

intensity wildfire, improve watershed conditions, provide for a diversity of wildlife

habitat, and conduct research forestry activities.  Public comments brought several

alternatives to the agency’s attention, all of which USFS summarily dismissed without

thoughtful consideration of how they might be adjusted to still meet the purpose and

need.  USFS must consider more alternatives in the FEIS to avoid violating NEPA,

including other amounts of acres to be treated, board feet to be harvested, roads to be

constructed and reconstructed (and closed or decommissioned), habitat to be destroyed,

etc.

Response 4‐2: See Response 4‐1 regarding consideration of a range of alternatives.  NEPA requires

consideration of a no action alternative and an action alternative with additional

alternatives as necessary to address the significant issues.  Disposition of issues and

development of alternatives is described on pages 25‐29 of the Nautilus DEIS.  NEPA

does not require the detailed analysis of a minimum number of alternatives (beyond the

no action and action); rather, it requires that a range of alternatives be considered with

those that could meet the purpose and need being fully analyzed.

Comment 4‐3: USFS must also acknowledge and consider many other issues besides the two it deemed

“significant”:  “treatment of activity fuels and impacts associated with fuel loading and

subsequent insect risk,” and “prescribed fire and potential impacts such as damage or

mortality to trees in stands in which prescribed fire is implemented.”  There are many

other issues that are not “conjectural in nature” and are “supported by scientific

evidence” such as how the elimination of 23,350 acres of vegetation through various

treatments will impact wildlife habitat and viability and how 161 miles of road work will

impact wildlife habitat and viability.  Wildlife habitat and viability are never irrelevant to

or beyond the scope of proposed actions, as the “diversity of habitat” mandate from

NFMA is applicable to every project.

Response 4‐3:   The commenter does not specify which additional issues should be considered

significant.  A complete listing of the issues identified and how each one was classified

and why is located in the Nautilus project file and is available upon request.  The effects

of the proposed actions on wildlife habitat are explained in detail in the Nautilus DEIS,

wildlife report and biological evaluation.   

Comment 4‐4:   USFS proposes the Nautilus Project under the authority of the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act, legislation enacted to “expedite the approval of hazardous fuel

reduction and forest health restoration projects.”  HFRA itself is inherently flawed and

based on public fear of insects and fire stoked by timber industry lobbyists.  USFS justifies

the Nautilus Project by asserting that logging will reduce the spread of mountain pine

beetles and reduce wildfire risk.  Neither of these premises is supported by science.  Map
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐8

6 of the DEIS declares most of the project area to be in “high” risk for insects.  The DEIS

asserts the “Forest Plan (Table B‐5) indicates the tie between mountain pine beetle risk

and fire hazard and shows that any stand at medium or high beetle risk is at medium to

very high fire hazard.”  However, in another NEPA document, USFS recognizes that,

although “beetle infestation is sometimes assumed to increase fire risk,” actual

“research on the relationship between beetle infestation is not conclusive” (Simard et al.

2008, cited in the Rattlesnake FEIS).  Thus, the Nautilus DEIS has not considered the best

available science or responsible opposing science the agency has noted in other BHNF

projects, and instead proposed to cut down trees to reduce beetles and fire risk without

conclusive evidence such practices are effective.

Response 4‐4: The correlation the commenter makes between Table B‐5 from the Forest Plan and the

quote from the Simard et al. article in the Rattlesnake FEIS is not accurate.  As stated in

the Nautilus DEIS (page 56), Table B‐5 of the Forest Plan shows that stands with a

medium or high risk of beetle infestation also have a medium to very high fire hazard.

Stands at risk of beetle infestation don’t necessarily have an infestation at the moment,

but possess characteristics (e.g. densely stocked trees) that make them more

susceptible to infestation if beetles are introduced.  Table B‐5 says nothing about the

relationship of already infested stands and fire hazard.  The Simard et al. quote is

referring to fire hazard of stands that have already been infested by pine beetles.  The

Nautilus DEIS does not make the claim that infested stands have a higher fire hazard.  As

Table B‐5 suggests, stand characteristics that place a particular stand at high risk of

beetle infestation also make that stand susceptible to high intensity fire, but the effect

on fire hazard of the actual presence of beetles is not considered in this table.

The Nautilus DEIS references several pieces of scientific literature supporting the idea

that active forest management will reduce pine beetle risk and fire hazard.  Amman et al

(1989) state that “Silvicultural control measures are the most efficient.  Thinning stands

of lodgepole and ponderosa pines will prevent or minimize beetle‐caused mortality.”  

Schmid and Mata (2005) conducted research plots in the Black Hills National Forest and

their results showed that 77 percent of pine trees in an uncut control block (basal area

great than 110) became infested while only 9 percent of the trees in a block thinned to

60‐70 basal area were infested over a 17 year period.  The Phase II Amendment FEIS, to

which the Nautilus DEIS tiers, states on page III‐350, “The primary stand attributes that

influence crown‐fire initiation and spread are surface‐fuel loading, canopy‐base height,

and canopy‐bulk density.  These attributes can be directly managed by vegetation

treatments.”  Pollett and Omi (2002) found that, in ponderosa pine stands, treatments

that reduce density and change the composition of stands will reduce probability of

crown fires, decrease the severity of impacts, and enhance fire suppression

effectiveness and safety.  Graham et al (2004) found that thinning followed by

prescribed burning was particularly effective in reducing the risk of high intensity fire in

ponderosa pine.  The commenter does not provide citations for scientific research

refuting these claims.

Comment 4‐5:   In testimony before U.S. House of Representative Subcommittees on the current

mountain pine beetle outbreak just a year ago, Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick

Cables stated, “It is clear that we can’t stop this current infestation.  Thinning stands has

proved ineffective.”...By premising yet another project on combating beetle infestation,
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐9

USFS apparently deems its own Regional Forester’s testimony to be inaccurate, but

provides no conclusive evidence logging will stop beetles’ spread.  In fact, the more large

trees are removed, the more smaller trees will likely be infested.  USFS owes the public

an explanation why, in the face of such clear statements from the Regional Forester, it

continues to proceed with projects based on an assumption that cutting down trees will

actually reduce the beetle infestation.  In the face of a plethora of science questioning

the efficacy of logging to stop the beetles’ spread, USFS owes the public and is required

under NEPA to demonstrate a science‐based rationale for such projects, explaining why

opposing science does not apply to the facts at hand.  See Black et al. “Battling forest

insects may be counter‐productive” (2010)...

Response 4‐5: The statements of the Regional Forester are taken out of context by the commenter.  

Mr. Cable’s testimony is referring to the Colorado beetle forests where thousands of

acres of beetle‐killed trees, predominantly lodgepole pine, already cover the landscape;

thinning in that situation is ineffective.  In contrast, while beetles are  at epidemic levels

in the Black Hills and intensifying, the evidence is clear that thinning ponderosa pine,

which is dominant in the Black Hills, ahead of beetle infestations is effective (Shepperd

and Battaglia 2002).  Aerial photography of the infestations in the central and southern

Hills over the past five years demonstrates the efficacy of previous scientific research,

often dramatically (www.ForestPhoto.com, keyword “aerial”).  Projects such as Nautilus

are designed to thin forest stands ahead of the beetle outbreaks by increasing individual

tree and stand vigor and resilience, an outcome that is achievable because of a vigorous

and active timber industry infrastructure in the Hills.

The Black et al. paper is actually titled “Insects and Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review

of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives”.  The title the commenter used

comments from various news releases about the paper.  Regardless, as the actual title

suggests, the paper focuses on treatments in roadless areas of Colorado that have

already been heavily impacted by pine beetles.  In contrast, the Nautilus Project is

located in a well roaded area of South Dakota where pine beetles are not yet well

established, but are at incipient levels or increasing.  The overall conclusion of the paper

(which itself is a review of other studies) is that thinning to stop an already well

established beetle infestation is not effective.  The Nautilus project is focused on the

scientific principles of maintaining living resilient ponderosa pine forests in the Black

Hills.  The Black et al. paper finds both evidence against and support for the type of

strategy proposed in Nautilus and states on page 15 that “...if a bark beetle infestation is

relatively small and concentrated in a limited area, it may be feasible to reduce the

population growth by removing infested trees from a forest stand or thinning a stand to

reduce stress on trees...”  This statement supports the purpose and need of the Nautilus

Project.  Shepperd and Battaglia (2002) in their publication Ecology, Silviculture, and

Management of Black Hills Ponderosa Pine (2002) offer a detailed discussion of research

results in the Black Hills showing the efficacy forest management to meet various

objectives by thinning, salvage/sanitation, and precommercial and commercial thinning,

with the most effective treatments taking place prior to outbreaks or in the incipient

stages of outbreaks.   

Comment 4‐6:   Regional Forester Rick Cables asserts USFS has changed its “focus from prevention to

reducing risks to public safety and infrastructure.”  The authors of Battling forest insects
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐10

may be counter‐productive similarly suggest USFS funds would be better used by

mitigating risks around buildings and communities, not needlessly logging far from such

infrastructure.  “Overall,” the authors conclude, “it is going to be much less expensive,

more effective and less damaging to focus fire‐hazard reduction efforts around

communities and homes than it would be to try to make a wholesale modification of

forest structure over large landscapes.” (Black et al., page 22).

Response 4‐6: The quote from the Regional Forester is again taken out of context.  In the quoted

statement, Mr. Cables is referring to the situation in Colorado, where pine beetles have

become so prevalent that it is no longer effective to treat the problem itself, nor is there

economic capacity to do so.   The focus in Colorado has shifted toward treating those

areas where public accesses the forest to mitigate the safety hazards associated with

beetle‐killed trees.  It is true in the Colorado situation that, as the Black et al. paper

suggests, this strategy is more cost effective than “wholesale modification of forest

structure”.  However, a very different situation exists in the Black Hills National Forest

and, specifically, in the Nautilus project area where modification of forest structure can

and is being accomplished to reduce the impacts of widespread mountain pine beetle

infestations as discussed in Response 4‐5 (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002).

Comment 4‐7:   USFS must take a complete hard look at the efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine

beetle infestation, and must consider and respond to the best available science and

responsible opposing science regarding the efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine

beetle infestation in a manner available to the entire public.  USFS cannot authorize a

project based on such a clearly flawed purpose and need, unless it adjusts the project to

legitimately protect public safety and infrastructure solely within the wildand‐urban

interface.  USFS must also disclose how and when it determined beetle infestation risk,

and the data on which it bases its infestation risk determinations in the final statement

itself.

Response 4‐7: The efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine beetle infestation is addressed in

Responses 4‐4, 4‐5 and 4‐6 above.  The commenters provide the Black et al. paper as

evidence against the Nautilus project, but as discussed in Response 4‐5, that paper lends

support to the Nautilus purpose and need.  No other “responsible opposing science” is

brought forth by the commenter to show that active forest management, including

harvest of commercial timber, would be ineffective in reducing mountain pine beetle

risk in a situation similar to that which exists in the Nautilus project area.

Beetle infestation risk was determined based on stand exam data that was collected

from the Nautilus project area in 2007.  Stand exams determine the existing structure

and condition of the forest and measure such factors as tree density, tree size, species

composition, canopy cover and several others.  This data is used to assign each stand a

structural stage and a correlating pine beetle risk value (low, medium or high).  Stand

exam data for the Nautilus Project is located in the project file and is available upon

request.

Comment 4‐8:   Map 8 of the DEIS asserts “very high” and “high” existing fire hazard in the Nautilus

Project area (DEIS, Appendix A).  USFS asserts the fire behavior and severity “factor that

can most effectively be manipulated by humans is fuels” (DEIS, page 70).  The agency
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐11

goes on to describe three different types of fuels:  surface, ladder, and aerial.  USFS “uses

structural stages as a proxy for these features to estimate crown fire hazard.”  This

means the agency has not really assessed whether these fuels are present in the project

area, but has decided, because it earlier assigned stands to various structural stage

classifications, its fire hazard ratings are credible.  However, the structural stage

classifications include many trees that do not fit the respective size criteria, and so this

“proxy” approach is flawed from that start.

Response 4‐8: The Nautilus DEIS tiers to the Forest Plan and the Phase II Amendment FEIS (DEIS, page

10).  The proxy approach of using structural stages for determining fire hazard ratings

was analyzed in the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan, which withstood appeal

and was not challenged in court and is currently the programmatic document for

management of the Black Hills National Forest.

As described above in Response 4‐7, stand exams are used to gather data on current

forest conditions, which are then used to assign structural stages.  This data was

collected on the ground, in the project area.  The commenter offers no evidence that

this data is flawed.

Comment 4‐9: Furthermore, the agency’s wildfire risk reduction theory wholly fails to consider the

probability of a wildfire of significant size and potential destruction will visit any given

piece of land in the project area.  Published science shows only “2 to 4.2% of areas

treated to reduce fuels are likely to encounter fires that would otherwise be high or high‐

moderate severity without treatment.” (Rhodes and Baker 2008)  Furthermore, “in the

remaining 95.8‐98% of treated areas, potentially adverse treatment effects on

watersheds are not counterbalanced by benefits from reduced fire severity.”

Put another way, “over a 20‐year period, about 2‐4.2% of untreated areas would be

expected to burn at high or high‐moderate severity.”  The authors go on to calculate that

“it would take about 720 years (36 cycles of treatments), on average, before it is

expected that high‐severity fire affects slightly more than 50% of treated areas while

fuels are reduced.  Treatments would have to be repeated at 20‐year intervals for 340

years (17 cycles of treatments) before high‐moderate severity fire is expected to

encounter more than 50% of treated areas.  Even after this duration of repeated

treatments, it is likely that almost 50% of treated areas will be cumulatively affected by

repeated treatments without compensatory benefits from reduced fire severity.”

Response 4‐9: The Rhodes and Baker paper raises a good point that the likelihood of a wildfire

occurring in an area that has recently been treated is low.  However, the goal of the

Nautilus Project is not predict where fire may occur and focus fuel reduction treatments

on small areas.  Silvicultural treatments would be conducted on a large scale across the

project area to provide a widespread reduction in fire hazard.  This increases the

likelihood that if a fire does ignite, it will be of lower severity than if the stands were not

treated at all.

Research specific to ponderosa pine forests suggests that forest management

treatments are effective in reducing crown fire hazard.  Graham et al. (1999) concluded

that “the best general approach for managing wildfire damage seems to be managing
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐12

tree density and species composition with well designed silvicultural systems at a

landscape scale that includes a mix of thinning, surface fuel treatments, and prescribed

fire with proactive treatments in areas with high risk to wildfire”.  Graham et al (2004)

state that “fuel treatments cannot guarantee benign fire behavior but can reduce the

probability that extreme fire behavior will occur”.  Pollet and Omi (2000) conducted

research on the effects of thinning and prescribed fire treatments on crown fire severity

and concluded that “fuel treatments removing small diameter trees may be beneficial

for reducing crown fire hazard in ponderosa pine sites.”  The Nautilus Project would

reduce fuels, both commercially and non‐commercially (i.e., large and small trees), at a

landscape scale and would incorporate prescribed burning to reduce fire hazard across

the project area.

Comment 4‐10:In addition, “thinning lets in sunlight and wind, both of which dry out the forest interior

and increase flammability,” again casting doubt on USFS’ “logging to reduce wildfire

risk” premise for the Nautilus Project (Lawrence2001).  Research demonstrates the time,

energy, and money spent on fuels treatments could be better used elsewhere, and in fact

is more detrimental than beneficial to forest ecosystems.

Response 4‐10: The commenter states that research suggests that forest thinning is “more detrimental

than beneficial” but that research is not cited here for review.  The Lawrence testimony

before Congress does not suggest that and, although he cautions that thinning should

be considered and carried out carefully, he also makes the following statement: “Does

this mean we should not try to reduce fire intensity with thinning?  Not at all.”

Forest thinning in the Nautilus project area is not aimed solely at reducing fire hazard.  

As stated on page 21 of the DEIS, the primary purpose and need of the project is to

reduce mountain pine beetle risk.  The Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan

determined that actions that reduce pine beetle risk will have a similar effect on fire

hazard (and vice versa).  The actions proposed in Alternative B of Nautilus are focused

primarily on reducing pine beetle risk, with the reduction of fire hazard a secondary

benefit.

Comment 4‐11:USFS apparently deems extensive “fuels reduction” treatments far from structures and

infrastructure necessary because the Community Wildfire Protection Plans for the three

counties with land in the Nautilus Project area “recommend that areas within three

miles of ARC be managed in such a way that will minimize the chances of a crown fire

from threatening a community.” (DEIS, page 73) This is a mere recommendation, not a

mandate with which USFS must comply, given the science indicating the futility of and

ecosystem injury caused by most fuel treatments.  But the agency proposes to “reduce

wildland fuels both within and outside the WUI and adjacent ARC.” (DEIS, page 75) In

light of the low probability of a wildfire ever actually coming within three miles of an

alleged “at‐risk community”, USFS should not rush to undertake extensive vegetation

treatments (under any name – precommercial thinning, commercial harvest, etc.)

beyond one‐half mile of structures, when taxpayer resources would be better spent

within wildland‐urban interfaces (within one‐half mile of inhabited structures).  Science

makes clear that climate conditions, not “fuels,” bring about wildfires.  Yet USFS has not

assessed the actual probability of wildfire visiting particular parts of the project area,

and thus has not considered the best available science or taken a hard look at such
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐13

probability to comply with NFMA or NEPA.   

Response 4‐11:  The commenter suggests that science exists “indicating the futility of and ecosystem

injury caused by most fuel treatments” and states that the USFS did not “consider the

best available science”, thereby violating NFMA and NEPA.  However, the commenter

does not provide any science refuting the efficacy of the proposed treatments or the

conclusions of studies such as those cited in Response 4‐9.

As stated in Response 4‐9, the goal of the Nautilus Project is not to predict where fire

will occur.  Fuel reduction treatments are intended to reduce the severity of fires that

do occur, not necessarily to reduce the probability that they will occur.   

Comment 4‐12: The Nautilus Project is illegal under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the

1982 planning regulations, the 1999 Appeal Decision of the Chief of the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS), and the 2000 Settlement Agreement between BCA et al. and USFS.

Response 4‐12: This issue is outside the scope of the Nautilus Project.   The Phase II Amendment,

satisfying the 2000 Settlement Agreement, was completed in October 2005 and the

Forest Plan as amended by Phase II was implemented in March 2006.  The Phase II

Amendment Record of Decision was upheld on appeal and neither that document nor

the amended Forest Plan has been challenged in court.  Therefore, the amended Forest

Plan is legal and is currently the programmatic document directing management of the

Black Hills National Forest.  The 2000 planning rule is in effect (July 15, 2009 letter from

Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief of National Forest System, to Regional Foresters).

Comment 4‐13: The Nautilus Project fails to ensure viable populations of wildlife on the Black Hills

National Forest.  The 1982 regulations regarding wildlife viability and Management

Indicator Species apply to the Nautilus Project.

Response 4‐13: The 2000 planning rule is in effect (July 15, 2009 letter from Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief

of National Forest System, to Regional Foresters).  The Forest Plan contains no

obligation to conduct project‐specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD,

pages 8, 20; Forest Plan, page I‐11, Objective 238).  The Forest Plan establishes

monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for

MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, page 20; Forest

Plan as Amended, page I‐11, Objective 238).  The Phase II ROD and amended Forest Plan

were upheld on appeal and were not challenged in court.

Comment 4‐14:USFS even fails to comply with its own legally flawed Forest Plan regarding MIS.  

Objective 238 would not be met under the Nautilus Project, leading to loss of habitat for

black‐backed woodpecker, brown creeper, white‐tailed deer and other MIS.

Response 4‐14: As defined by the Forest Plan, Objectives are “desired resource conditions in the area

covered by the Plan”.  They are not requirements, but goals.  Standards, however, are “a

limitation on management activities that is within the authority and ability of the agency

to meet or enforce...Deviation from the requirement requires a Plan amendment.”  

Standards are mandatory.   The analysis in the Nautilus Wildlife Reports concludes that

all applicable Forest Plan Standards would be met and Objectives, including 238, would
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐14

be worked toward.

The black‐backed woodpecker analysis in the Wildlife Report, on page 35, states: “The

Phase II Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate habitat for

maintaining a viable population of black‐backed woodpecker if standards are followed,

and if conditions move towards structural stage and late succession objectives at the

Forest level. Both alternatives in this project follow Forest Plan standards including snag

Standards 2301 and 2305, and work toward Objective 238‐b.  Under Alternative B

prescribed burns would positively affect black‐backed woodpeckers short‐term.  Both

alternatives contribute to meeting the Forest‐wide objectives for structural stage 5 (Late

Succession). Therefore, assuming that structural stage objectives are met Forest‐wide,

there would be adequate habitat for maintaining black‐backed woodpecker populations

across the Forest. Under both alternatives, black‐backed woodpeckers are likely to

continue to persist on the Forest.”

The brown creeper analysis on page 39 of the Wildlife Report states:”The Phase II

Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate habitat for maintaining a

viable population of brown creeper if standards are followed, and if conditions move

towards structural stage objectives at the Forest level. Both alternatives in this project

follow Forest Plan standards including snag Standards 2301 and 2305, the spruce

objective (239‐LVD), and work toward Objective 238. Therefore, assuming that

structural stage objectives are met Forest‐wide, there would be adequate habitat for

maintaining brown creeper populations across the Forest. Under both alternatives,

brown creepers are likely to persist on the Forest.”

The white‐tailed deer analysis on page 52 of the Wildlife Report states: ”The action

alternative would create a diversity of forest structures within the pine types, providing

additional forage in some stands with an increase in shrubs; and by providing suitable

cover in untreated or mature, dense stands throughout the Project Area. The action

alternative would result in a variety of structural stages providing year‐round habitat for

the white‐tailed deer.”

Analysis of the effects of the Nautilus Project on MIS species is found on pages 29‐59 of

the Wildlife Report.  For each species, the conclusion is made that applicable Standards

would be met, Objective 238 would be worked toward and that the population is likely

to persist on the Black Hills National Forest.

Comment 4‐15: The Nautilus Project fails to provide adequate protections to Region 2 Sensitive Species.

For R2 Sensitive Species, Objective 221 directs USFS to “conserve or enhance habitat”

and maintain long‐term persistence forest‐wide.  USFS fails to demonstrate how

Alternative B, the only action alternative considered, satisfies Objective 221.

Response 4‐15:  Analysis of the impacts of the Nautilus Project on R2 Sensitive Species is located in the

Nautilus Wildlife and Botany Biological Evaluations (BE).  Discussion of the methods

used to gather data and conduct the analysis is located on page 20 of the Wildlife BE

and includes:  

“Species viability was evaluated in the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment (USDA
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐15

Forest Service 2005a).  Each alternative in this project was evaluated as to

whether it is consistent with Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines

applicable to each species.

The indicators listed below are used to measure impacts of the project on

wildlife and fish habitat:  

 Ponderosa pine structural stage diversity (resulting structural stage

distributions)

 Hardwood and meadow communities (acres enhanced)  

 Transportation (miles of road constructed)  

 Snag retention  

 Riparian community and water quality effects  

Data for this report was obtained from surveys, monitoring reports, and

literature. Forest‐wide monitoring for birds is documented annually by the Rocky

Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005,

Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 2007, Giroir et al. 2007,  White and Giroir 2009)

and documented in the USFS Monitoring Reports (USDA‐Forest Service 2004,

2005c, 2006, 2007, and 2009).

Ground reconnaissance of potential treatment areas, areas of interest for

wildlife, and areas classified as structural stage 5 was conducted by a FS wildlife

biologist and biological technicians in the winter of 2008 and the spring, summer

and fall of 2009. Where ground reconnaissance was not feasible, aerial

photographs, USDA‐Forest Service Region 2 Vegetation data (R2veg data),

botany suitable habitat data, FS wildlife data, fauna data, pertinent literature,

and local knowledge were used for planning and analysis purposes. Northern

goshawk monitoring surveys were conducted by FS wildlife personnel and by

Craig Knowles of Fauna West in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Additional

surveying was done by FS wildlife personnel in areas of high potential habitat for

the northern goshawk. Frest and Johannes conducted surveys for sensitive snail

species in this area in 1991, 1993 and 1999 (Frest and Johannes 2002). Marrone

(2005) conducted butterfly surveys. Smith et al. (1998) conducted Herpetofaunal

Surveys. Incidental data for other sensitive wildlife species or species of concern

were obtained in conjunction with northern goshawk, botanical, and rangeland

surveys.  Fish occurrence and abundance data was based on Stewart and

Thilenius (1964), Ford (1988), Isaak et al. (2003), the South Dakota Department

of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) Stream Fisheries Database (2005a) and Belica

and Nibbelink (2006).”

Analysis of the impact in individual Sensitive Species is found in the BE on pages 21‐68.  

For each species, the wildlife biologist is required to make a determination regarding

population viability.  For all Sensitive Species either known to occur or having potential

habitat in the Nautilus project area, the determination was made that Alternative B

“may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the

Planning Area, nor cause a trend to federal listing”.  This satisfies the intent of Forest

Plan Objective 221.  All applicable Standards relating to Sensitive Species would be met.

Information on surveys for botanical sensitive species is found on pages 6 through 12 of
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐16

the Botany BE.  Effects analysis is presented on pages 17‐32.  No known populations of

sensitive plant species occur in the project area, but suitable habitat does.  Suitable

plant habitat would be protected through design criteria listed on pages C‐4, C‐8, C‐9, C‐

10, and C‐13 of the Nautilus DEIS.  Design criteria specific to wildlife are listed on pages

C‐6, C‐9, C‐10, C‐11, and C‐13 of the DEIS.

The commenter does not agree with the determinations presented in the Nautilus DEIS,

but does not provide evidence that the determinations are wrong or that the analysis

used to reached them is flawed.  Thorough analysis of the impacts to each species and

explanation of the determinations was completed by a qualified wildlife biologist and is

documented in the Nautilus Wildlife BE.

Comment 4‐16: The Nautilus Project fails to adequately protect or comply with Forest Plan Standards

regarding northern goshawks.  The Nautilus Project raises particular concerns for

northern goshawks, a Region 2 Sensitive Species for which the flawed Phase II

Amendment developed Standards...The USFS does not even adhere to the Standards in

the Forest Plan for this species.  Standard 3108 requires USFS, “if a nest area...occurs

within one‐half mile of the project area and protected area has not yet been identified

for that nest,” to determine in the project analysis “whether some of the protected

acreage should occur within the project area.”  USFS does not indicate the location of the

three goshawk territories already identified by the agency, nor does it provide

information on the location of any protected acreage in the project area, as Standard

3108b mandates.  In light of the mandate of Standard 3108, USFS must provide more

evidence of compliance.  Merely adjusting the treated acres between scoping and DEIS

stages does not ensure USFS has actually protected these nests and surrounding acreage

under Standard 3108...The Nautilus Project must be brought into compliance with the

mandates of...Standard 3108 with adequate assurances that neither commercial nor

non‐commercial treatments will take place in known or suspected nest stands.

Response 4‐16: In the interest of reducing paper consumption, the entire wildlife analysis was not

included in the Nautilus DEIS.  Instead, a summary of the effects of each alternative on

each species was presented in the DEIS and the full analysis was offered to anyone who

requested (DEIS, page 104).   

The Nautilus Project Wildlife Biological Evalution (BE) includes the full analysis of the

project on the northern goshawk on pages 36‐42.  This analysis describes the three

historical goshawk territories occurring within the Nautilus project area and one new

potential territory (BE, pages 37 and 38).  Standard 3108 requires setting aside at least

180 acres of nesting habitat within 1⁄2 mile of the nest.  For each historical territory, the

identified nest area is listed and their sizes range from 188 acres to 250.  As stated in the

BE, an identified nest area won’t be established for the potential nest until it is verified

that it is a goshawk nest (and not that of another raptor).   

Further compliance with Standard 3108 is described in the goshawk analysis on page 41

of the BE: “No commercial treatments are proposed within goshawk nest areas. Pre‐

commercial thinning (PCT) and prescribed burning have been prescribed within all three

known goshawk nest areas in the Nautilus project. PCT treatments would result in a

reduction in understory density and would reduce the risk of fire from reaching the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐17

overstory and would help to enhance the stands value for goshawks by allowing the

current overstory to grow denser. It would also reduce the risk of beetle infestation.

Prescribed burning of the understory would benefit most of this area for goshawk prey

species, thus goshawk.”  Standard 3108 does not prohibit treatment in goshawk nest

areas, but states that “vegetation management activities within nest areas shall be

limited to those that maintain or enhance the stand’s value for goshawk” (Forest Plan,

page II‐35).

In the determination for northern goshawk, the BE states “Both alternatives in this

project follow Forest Plan Standards including goshawk Standards 3108 and 3111. The

action alternative moves Forest‐wide conditions toward the structural stage 4C

objective. Therefore, assuming that structural stage objectives are met Forest‐wide,

there would be adequate habitat for maintaining northern goshawk populations across

the Forest” (BE, page 42).

Comment 4‐17: The Nautilus Project fails to adequately protect or adhere to the Forest Plan Standards

for bald eagles....Standard 3103b “prohibits new disturbances not existing at the time of

bald eagle nest initiation that may detrimentally influence nest success within one mile

of bald eagle nests during the nesting season...The DEIS only makes clear there are no

nests or winter roosts within one‐half mile of the project area.  Nor does the DEIS include

any site‐specific analysis justifying a reduction in distance for new disturbances...To

comply with Standard 3103c, USFS must determine on the record there are no winter

roosts within one mile of the project area, and if there are, activities must be restricted

according to the Standard.  Finally, Standard 3101d requires the avoidance of “timber

harvest activities” in stands “when in use” by bald eagles “on a transitory basis.”...The

DEIS does not clarify that transitory bald eagles will be given this protection by USFS or

logging companies or other conducting activities associated with the Nautilus Project.  In

order to avoid a violation of the Forest Plan, USFS must clarify and correct this error.

Response 4‐17: As noted in Response 4‐16, the fully analysis of impacts to bald eagles appears in the

Nautilus Wildlife BE, which is available upon request.

Page 24 of the BE states: “There is only one known active nest and one known winter

roost site in the Black Hills. Neither site is within one mile of the Project Area, nor are

concentrations of wintering eagles (winter roost sites) likely to occur anywhere within

the Project Area. Bald eagles, during migration, are common and can occur sporadically

throughout the Project Area and temporary roost sites during migration are determined

more by the availability of carrion than any other factor.”   

The analysis of the effects of Alternative B on page 25 of the BE says: “No nesting or

roosting sites occur within one mile of the Project Area, therefore, no impacts to

breeding or roosting habitat are anticipated.  Migrating or wintering birds are likely to

avoid the Nautilus Project Area during timber harvest or prescribed burn activities.

Potential roosting habitat would continue to exist in structural stages 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5.

Open water and availability of carrion during the winter months are the primary limiting

factors for the species in the Project Area.

Appendix C of the DEIS lists design criteria applicable to the Nautilus Project.  On page C‐
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐18

6, a criterion states that “any newly discovered raptor nests...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”.  The language in the design criteria will be

clarified in the FEIS to include protection of transitory eagles as well to ensure

compliance with Standard 3101d.

Comment 4‐18: The Nautilus Project fails to adequately protect Species of Local Concern.  The Nautilus

Project purports to comply with Objective 221...but fails to provide adequate information

to the public to justify such conclusions.  The DEIS fails to adequately assess how the

Nautilus Project contributes to habitat fragmentation.

Response 4‐18: Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are analyzed in the Nautilus Wildlife Report, which is

available upon request and is summarized in the DEIS.   

Objective 221 is in place to “conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and

species of local concern” (Forest Plan, page I‐9).  As stated in Response 4‐14, Objectives

are long‐term goals and not project‐specific management requirements.  At several

points in the analysis of SOLC, it is found that Alternative B “meets the intent” of

Objective 221 (Wildlife Report, pages 61‐85).

Habitat fragmentation is also discussed at several points throughout the Wildlife Report

in regards to SOLC.  In particular, for the black‐and‐white warbler, for which habitat

fragmentation is a primary concern, the Wildlife Report states on page 65 that

“proposed treatments under the action alternative would have mostly beneficial

impacts by decreasing pine cover, increasing water available to aspen, birch and bur oak

habitat and encouraging the growth and expansion of aspen and riparian habitats”.

Another species susceptible to habitat fragmentation is the meadow jumping mouse.  

The analysis on page 78 of the Wildlife Report finds that “The direct and indirect effects

of the action alternative combined with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable

future actions would result in maintaining or enhancing of riparian habitat that could

lead to increasing meadow jumping mouse populations within the Project Area.”

Comment 4‐19: The Project will result in less mature old‐growth and/or near‐old‐growth, a necessary

habitat for broad‐winged hawks, with only the suggestion that Objective 221 will be

complied with by maintaining SS 5, which only constitutes a small fraction of the project

area from the outset.  But USFS admits the action alternative will decrease SS 4C, the

next closes thing to SS 5 these species actually need.  There are no express guarantees

occupied nest trees will not be cut.  This does not show compliance with Standard

3204....To move toward Objective 221 and satisfy the agency’s own viability analyses

under the Phase II Amendment, habitat cannot be destroyed, as will occur under this

Project.

Response 4‐19: Alternative B would result in 1,250 acres of structural stage 5 (old growth).  This is the

same acreage that would result from Alternative A, the no action alternative.  So, taking

action under Alternative B would not lead to a reduction in SS 5 habitat.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐19

Alternative B would result in a reduction in SS 4C acres.  Management Area (MA) specific

objectives for MAs 5.1 and 5.4 (Objectives 5.1‐204 and 5.4‐204) define the Forest‐wide

structural stage objectives for those planning areas.  These objectives are not intended

to be met in each individual project area or in one planning cycle, but each project

should move the forest toward the objectives over time.  The objective for both MA 5.1

and 5.4 for SS 4C is 5% of the forest (Forest Plan, pages III‐67 and III‐92).  Currently,

22.7% of MA 5.1 and 33% of MA 5.4 in Nautilus is in SS 4C (DEIS, pages 50 and 51).  

Alternative B would reduce those percentages to 4.6% and 13.5% respectively (DEIS,

pages 50 and 51).  Viability of wildlife populations was evaluated in the Phase II

Amendment and it is assumed that habitat will be provided for if Forest Plan standards

are met and if management actions move toward structural stage objectives (Phase II

FEIS, pages III‐144 through III‐314).

Protection for raptor nests, including broad‐winged hawks, is provided for by design

criteria listed in Appendix C of the Nautilus DEIS (see Response 4‐17).

Comment 4‐20: The sharp‐shinned hawk, another SOLC, relies on SS 3B and 3C....the action alternative

would decrease SS 3C, used by sharp‐shinned hawks, to less than 2% in the project area.

Response 4‐20: Alternative B would reduce SS 3C to less than 2% for both MA 5.1 and 5.4 in the project

area.  Presently, there is an overabundance of SS 3C (per Forest‐wide structural stage

objectives) in both of those MAs.   

The Nautilus Wildlife Report acknowledges that nesting habitat in ponderosa pine

stands would be reduced slightly under Alternative B, but also notes that foraging

habitat would increase, spruce habitat would remain stable and that individual nests

would be protected by Standard 3204, which is reinforced by the design criteria referred

to in Response 4‐17 (Wildlife Report, page 73).

Comment 4‐21:Northern saw‐whet owls, also SOLC, prefer SS 4C and SS 5 for breeding and nesting.  SS

4C would decrease drastically under the action alternative, admittedly decreasing

preferred habitat.  Northern saw‐whet owls will also be negatively impacted by the loss

of snags.  Objective 221 will not be met...

Response 4‐21: See Response 4‐19 for a discussion of SS 4C and SS 5.

In the analysis of impacts to the northern saw‐whet owl on page 69 of the Wildlife

Report, it says “All snags except those deemed safety hazards would be maintained,

thereby assuring a long‐term supply of snags.”  In support of this statement, a design

criterion is in place stating “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 trials, firelines,

and log landings” (DEIS, Appendix C, page C‐5).  This ensures compliance with Forest

Plan Standard 2301a.  Additional analysis on page 69 of the Wildlife Report states: “Snag

retention standards would mitigate effects of timber harvest and assure a supply of

snags. Management Area structural stage objectives are expected to meet the intent of

Objective 221 by conserving habitat for this species, though it may take some time to

reach the desired amounts of some structural stages. Known nests would be protected
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐20

through Standard 3204.”

Comment 4‐22: For pygmy nuthatch, another SOLC, the action alternative would decrease preferred

habitat and further negatively impact the bird through loss of snags.  The species prefers

old, undisturbed forests.  Again, SS 4C would decrease drastically under the action

alternative.  Again, we reiterate our concerns about USFS’ supposed Forest Plan

compliance noted above.

Response 4‐22: See Response 4‐21.

   

Analysis in the Wildlife Report on page 71 states: “Alternative B would contribute to

meeting the Forest‐wide structural stage objectives and thus reduce structural stage 4C

and increase structural stage 4A nesting habitat for all MAs. All structural stage 5 habitat

would be retained. Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be met

during this project regardless of alternative, including snag standards 2301a and 2305.  

The action alternative also meets the intent of Objective 221. Assuming that structural

stage objectives are met Forest‐wide, and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are met

at the project level, the pygmy nuthatch would continue to persist on the Forest.”

Comment 4‐23:We reiterate our concerns about loss off SS 4C and other appropriately‐sized trees that

somehow have been included in other structural stages, as well as the loss of snags and

general compliance regarding the northern flying squirrel and the myotis SOLC.

Response 4‐23: Per Forest Plan structural stage objectives, SS 4C is currently overabundant on the

forest.  See Response 4‐21.

Snags are protected through Forest Plan Standards and related project‐specific design

criteria.  See Response 4‐21.

For the northern flying squirrel, the Wildlife Report (page 80) states: “Alternative B

would decrease preferred structural stage 4B and 4C habitat and increase preferred

structural stage 4A habitat. All structural stage 5 habitat would be retained. No

treatments are proposed in preferred spruce habitat under the action alternative.

Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be met during this project,

including snag standards 2301a and 2305 and the action alternative would meet the

intent of Objective 221. Assuming that structural stage and vegetative diversity

objectives are met Forest‐wide, and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are met at the

project level, the northern flying squirrel would continue to persist on the Forest.”

For the northern myotis (and other bat SOLC), the Wildlife Report (page 77) states:

“Under Alternative B, there is a potential loss of roost trees due to management

activities. This alternative will follow Forest Plan standards including Bat and Snag

Standards 2301, 3102, and 3207 and are consistent with the intent of Forest plan

Objective 221. All four species of bats are likely to persist on the Forest because caves

and mines would be managed to avoid disturbance and maintain conditions and riparian

areas would be maintained or enhanced.”

The commenter does not provide any qualified analysis refuting the findings of the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐21

Nautilus Wildlife Report.

Comment 4‐24:Regarding the SOLC snail species, we also find inadequate protections for “unknown”

colonies.  To avoid destroying such colonies, the project area must be examined before

management activities occur.  In addition, minimizing adverse effects on snails from

herbicides and prescribed burns does not provide enough assurance the habitat of these

SOLC will be “conserved or enhanced” in accordance with Objective 221 and applicable

Standards.  More definite protections must be provided to avoid destroying whole

colonies of snails.

Response 4‐24: Project specific design criteria relating all activities, listed on page C‐6 of the DEIS state:

“Any newly discovered...snail colonies...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.”

Additional design criteria related to timber harvest on page C‐10 of the DEIS state:

“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.”

   

Design criteria related to the transportation system on page C‐13 of the DEIS state: “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.”

Comment 4‐25: The DEIS fails to adequately assess and provide for necessary snag habitat.  Objective

211 directs USFS to “provide an average of 3 hard snags greater than 9‐inch dbh and 25

feet high per acre, well‐dispersed across the forest, 25 percent of which are greater than

14‐inch dbh.”...The Nautilus DEIS barely discusses the impacts the project will have on

snag retention.  USFS acknowledges that “snags have been reduced within harvest units

due to safety concerns for loggers and development of roads, skid trails, and other

activities,” and that the “Nautilus Project would have additive impacts if some snags are

removed for safety reasons.”  Otherwise, the DEIS merely notes “incidental loss of snags”

repeatedly in its summary of effects to varioius species.  This does not constitute a hard

look at the impacts of snag reductions, nor does it demonstrate compliance with

Objective 211.  The DEIS does not offer adequate compliance with Objective 211, or

Standards 2301, 2304, or 2305, as they relate to snag retention and density.  USFS must

take a harder look at snag density and population viability implications that actually

take into account the facts regarding species’ needs and what is occurring on the ground

and will occur as a result of implementation of the Nautilus Project regarding snags.

Response 4‐25:  See Response 4‐21 regarding protection of existing snags.

Retention of snag habitat is discussed more fully in the Nautilus Wildlife Report and

Nautilus Wildlife BE, both of which are located in the project file and available upon
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐22

request.  On page 28 of the Wildlife Report, in the analysis of cumulative impacts to

wildlife habitat, it states “Wildfires, drought, and beetle activity have all increased the

overall number of snags in and around the Project Area.”   

   

At several points in the Nautilus Wildlife BE and Report, it is found that Alternative B

would comply with Forest Plan Standards 2301 and 2305 and Objective 211 for snag

retention and density.  As is stated repeatedly in these documents, snags would be cut

for safety reasons only and new snags would be provided for through wildfires, existing

pine beetle infestations, and movement toward Forest‐wide structural stage objectives.  

The Nautilus Project does not include any provisions for firewood cutting, so Standard

2304 does not apply.

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (page III‐13) states that snags “will be provided  by the

diversity of structural stages in the structural stage objectives...the number of snags‐per‐

acre across the landscape is presently being met and is likely to be met in the future...”  

Therefore, because the Nautilus Project adheres to Forest Plan Standards and moves

the Forest toward the structural stage objectives, sufficient snag habitat would be

provided.

Comment 4‐26:Despite the fact that MIS and SOLC depend on 15‐inch dbh or larger snags for survival,

USFS only aspires to retain snags greater than 9‐inch dbh, with one quarter of those

greater than 14‐inch dbh.  Published science already reveals that snags greater than 15

inches dbh average only 0.7 per acre (Spierling and Knight 2005).  This is entirely

insufficient to support viable populations of pygmy nuthatches, Lewis’s woodpeckers,

and Black Hills fringe‐tailed myotis, as well as other non‐MIS, SS, or SOLC, which require

snags of 15‐inch dbh or greater.  Many other species require snags of smaller diameters,

but such snag densities also have no guarantee of occurrence or retention across the

project area.

Response 4‐26: This comment is directed at Forest Plan Objective 211 and is not specific to the Nautilus

Project.  The issue of snag density and diameter was analyzed under the Phase II

Amendment FEIS, which was upheld on appeal and was not challenged in court.  

Therefore, the amended Forest Plan, including Objective 211, is valid.

Comment 4‐27: The DEIS fails to adequately assess and provide for necessary old‐growth habitat....If

USFS has appropriately designated the structural stages, SS 5 currently only totals

between 3.2 and 5.4% of the project area.  Nonetheless, USFS intends to...reduce SS 4C

by roughly 60 to 80%, depending on Management Area.

Response 4‐27: The Nautilus Project provides for 1,250 acres of SS 5 habitat in both alternatives (no

action and action).  No SS 5 would be treated under the action alternative (Alternative

B).   Depending on management area, the percent of ponderosa pine in the Nautilus

project area is currently slightly above or slightly below the Forest‐wide objective (5%).  

This objective is not intended to be met at the project level, but by not reducing the

amount of SS 5 in the project area, the Nautilus Project is contributing to achievement

of the Forest‐wide objective.

See Response 4‐19 for a discussion of SS 4C.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐23

Comment 4‐28: Even more frustrating, the trees USFS considers as old‐growth habitat are not of the size

the old‐growth dependent‐species actually prefer.  By USFS’ own admission, goshawks

and other species select for trees 15 inches in diameter or more.  Yet structural stage 4,

much of it classified as goshawk habitat (and thus old‐growth) by USFS, includes trees as

small as seven inches in diameter at breath height (dbh).  This means that by default, the

only real, existing old‐growth habitat (by USFS’ questionable designations) can be found

in SS 5.  Meeting objectives for old‐growth across the BHNF and especially in the project

area will be severely delayed well beyond 60 years by the Nautilus Project, because the

next closest thing to actual old‐growth, SS 4C, will be drastically decreased under all

action alternatives.

Response 4‐28: Structural stage 4 forest is not considered old growth, as the commenter asserts.  By

Forest Plan definition, SS 4 is “mature” and SS 5 is “late succession” (often referred to as

old growth).  Late succession stands are typified by trees that are 16 inches in diameter

(or larger) and at least 160 years old.  Smaller trees may be present, but the larger size

classes are predominant.  Mature stands contain trees that are greater than 9 inches in

diameter and not yet 160 years old.  Density in mature stands can vary, with less dense

stands (less than 40% canopy cover) classified as SS 4A, intermediate stands (greater

than 40% canopy cover but less than 70%) classified as SS 4B, and the most dense stands

(canopy cover greater than 70%) classified as SS 4C.

Designation of a stand as goshawk habitat does not automatically classify that stand as

old growth.  The Phase II Amendment Biological Evaluation (page C‐BE‐233) states that

goshawks prefer “mature and old stands with canopy closure greater than 50 percent.  

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5...likely best meet these conditions in the

Black Hills...Structural stage 4B may also provide some additional nesting habitat.  When

identifying nest areas for known goshawk territories, wildlife biologists select habitat

that is preferably  SS 4C or SS 5 and include SS 4B as necessary.  Any given SS 4B and SS

4C stand could contain several trees 15 inches or greater in diameter.

Data from the most recent Forest‐wide Monitoring Report (displayed in Table 3‐9 on

page 65 of the Nautilus DEIS) shows that in management areas 5.1 and 5.4, there are

currently 45,654 and 46,638 acres of SS 4C respectively.  For both MAs, the current

acreage in SS 4C is at least twice as much (10% in 5.1 and 13% in 5.4) as the Forest‐wide

objective (5%).  Forest‐wide, there exists an abundance of SS 4C that could develop into

SS 5 over time.

Comment 4‐29:USFS must recalculate old‐growth habitat based on actual existing tree size, not

Management Area goals or prescriptions that include trees as small as 7 inches dbh.  

USFS must take a hard look at impacts to old‐growth habitat, taking into account the

actual probability of stand‐replacing fires and beetle infestation and the efficacy of

logging to prevent both events.  USFS must provide the public with a more clearly stated

line of logic supporting its conclusion that cutting down over 93 million board feet will

contribute to BHNF old‐growth objectives.  USFS should also provide an understory map

of the project area.

Response 4‐29: Old growth habitat is verified on the ground based on the observations of the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐24

silviculturist and wildlife biologist.  It is conceivable that old growth stands may contain

smaller trees in the understory, but it is generally dominated by larger (greater than 16

inches dbh) trees (often called “yellow barks”).   

   

The issue of the efficacy of logging to reduce fire hazard and mountain pine beetle risk is

addressed above in Responses 4‐4 and 4‐9.

   

Commercial harvest in the Nautilus project area moves the Forest toward the Forest‐

wide structural stage objectives, which were analyzed in the Phase II Amendment FEIS.  

The analysis in Phase II concludes that movement toward these objectives will provide

for the desired range of structural stages Forest‐wide.   

It is unclear from the comments why an understory map of the project area is

necessary.  Information on understory vegetation is documented in the stand exams

and such a map could be created, but the value of presenting such a map in the FEIS is

unclear.  The stand exam data is available upon request.

Comment 4‐30: The Nautilus Project unnecessarily increases noxious weed infestations.  “Noxious weed

infestations are expected to increase under this alternative,” USFS admits when

discussing the only action alternative, Alternative B.  “With the level of treatment

proposed and probable resulting ground disturbance” the agency says, “weeds are likely

to appear in new areas” to the detriment of native vegetation.  The agency can easily

limit such infestations by reducing the number of acres “treated” and subject to soil

disturbance, reducing the number of miles of road work associated with the project, and

reducing the amount of equipment movement in and out of the project area by

implementing no or less intense and less extensive “treatments”.

Response 4‐30: The Nautilus DEIS fully acknowledges that noxious weed infestations are likely to

increase as a result of Alternative B.  Consequently, additional Knudson‐Vandenburg Act

funding (for post‐timber sale management activities) to treat noxious weed infestations,

both existing and resulting from the Nautilus Project, would become available if

Alternative B is selected and commercial timber sales are sold.

As with any project of this type and magnitude, there are costs and benefits to be

weighed.  The decision maker (the district ranger) will make the determination if the

benefits of the project outweight the costs.

Design criteria intended to minimize the spread of noxious weeds are listed on pages C‐

4 and C‐12 of the Nautilus DEIS.

Comment 4‐31:USFS can and should save itself the time and money required for seeding and mitigation

measures and treatment.  Such measures will be required under Standards and

Guidelines 4301, 4302, 4304, 4306, and 4308 in order to comply with the Forest Plan.  

Table 3‐40 on page 130 of the DEIS makes clear there will be great expense involved in

both treatment and monitoring of noxious weed infestations under Alternative B,

taxpayer money that could be better used for projects that genuinely support native

wildlife habitat and vegetation, as oppose to massive logging projects that will eliminate

native wildlife habitat and vegetation, such as the Nautilus Project proposes.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐25

Response 4‐31: See Response 4‐30 regarding costs/benefits of conducting timber management projects.   

Comment 4‐32: “Travel management plays a role in the spread of noxious weeds,” USFS acknowledges.  

Roads, trails, off‐road vehicles, and even snowmobiles admittedly spread weed seeds.  

“Proposed actions may increase the likelihood of off‐road motorized travel due to

expansion of the road system and removal of vegetation allowing access to new areas,”

the agency says.  USFS should capitalize on this foresight and proactively limit such road

expansion and vegetation removal, since it is limited budget‐wise regarding treatment

and monitoring of noxious weeds as well as enforcement of road closures and off‐road

vehicle use.  Rather than resign itself to the inevitability of noxious weed spread, USFS

should take the opportunity to prevent the spread by eliminating all or at least most of

the road work and vegetation removal proposed.

Response 4‐32: See Response 4‐30.

Comment 4‐33: The Nautilus Project would authorize 161 miles of road work in an already overly‐roaded

areas of the Forest.  Despite the over‐abundance of raods int eh project area, and the

BHNF’s mind‐bogglingly higher actual rout density than any other National Forest

System unit in Region 2, the DEIS proposes an incredible 161 miles of road work through

the Nautilus Project.  The project area already “has a well established road system” with

209 miles of road in the project area.  Route densities will increase under Alternative B

for nearly every watershed listed in Table 3‐55 on page 155 of the DEIS.  USFS

acknowledges that “motorized vehicles have damaged roads and riparian areas when

conditions are wet or in cases where streams were crossed,” and further seems to resign

itself to the fact that “increased use by all‐terrain vehicles (ATVs) can be expected...and

are likely to continue to degrade wildlife habitat both directly and due to habitat

fragmentation.” “The use of some open roads....has also contributed to the

establishement of noxious weeds, and the erosion and degradation of riparian areas due

to increasing sedimentation and changes in stream morphology.”

Response 4‐33: It is important to point out that out of the proposed 161 miles of road work under

Alternative B, 147 miles would occur on roads that already exist and are already part of

the National Forest System.  These roads are not being added to the network or created

from scratch.  Most of these routes are well traveled, well established travelways that

have existed for decades.  Reconstruction or pre‐use maintenance of these routes

would mitigate negative effects to watersheds and result in an decrease in the number

of connected disturbed areas (CDA) in the project area (DEIS, pages 148‐150).  Use of

these roads under the Nautilus Project would allow for maintenance funding that would

not be otherwise available.   

Illegal use of routes by ATVs and other motorized vehicles falls under the authority of

the Forest‐wide Travel Management Plan, which will go into effect with the release of

the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).  This issue is outside the scope of the Nautilus

Project.

Comment 4‐34: Still, the Nautilus Project actually proposes to convert six miles of “non‐system” roads

(i.e., illegal ATV user‐made) into system roads, without any assurances the roads have

any sort of ecologically‐sound engineering qualities that support such conversion.  
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐26

Instead of eliminating these destructive routes, USFS instead basically pats unlawful

Forest users on the back and thanks them for providing environmentally degrading

routes.  Although “most new roads would be closed after project completion,” USFS

implies ATV damage “can be expected” to continue indefinitely, despite such “closures.”

Response 4‐34: As stated in the DEIS on page 34, converted roads would be “improved as necessary to

meet Forest Service specifications” and would “adhere to Forest Plan standards and

guidelines, WCPs, and project‐specific design criteria”.   

Some of these converted routes are user‐created, but others are old Forest System

roads that were removed from the system following past harvest activities.  This will be

clarified in the FEIS.  Use of these routes, which already exist on the ground, is

ecologically preferable to creating a brand new route in the vicinity of the existing

routes.  Improvement of these routes to prepare them for use would mitigate negative

ecological impacts that my currently be occurring (such as sedimentation at road‐stream

crossings due to lack of maintenance).

Short of around the clock surveillance at road closures, some level of illegal use will

always occur, whether these converted routes are added to the system and

subsequently closed or not.  The closure method used will depend on site specific

conditions and will be chosen based on the most effective option available.

Comment 4‐35: The DEIS does not show how these newly constructed, reconstructed, and converted

routes relate to the recently issued Travel Management Plan and corresponding

questions about total route miles, route density, soundscape impacts, enforcement and

monitoring concerns, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife disturbance and mortality

concerns (in particular to SOLC snails species and meadow jumping mouse, as noted

above).

Response 4‐35: None of the newly constructed routes or converted routes are part of the open road

system in the Travel Management Plan.  All of the reconstructed roads in the project

area are already a part of the Forest System and would be included in the Travel

Management Plan in some way, either as a road or trail.  Page 181 of the Nautilus DEIS

states “some routes identified as roads in the current system will be transformed to

trails based on this decision (ed. referring to the Travel Management Plan ROD)...The

new travel management decision will have a positive effect in the Nautilus project area

by reducing the number of routes that are available for visitors to drive on.  This results

in fewer unclassified stream crossings and results in less impact to sensitive wildlife,

botanical and heritage resources.”

The Travel Management Plan FEIS analyzed the impacts of the open road system.  Since

the Nautilus Project does not add any open routes to that system, the analysis within

the Travel Management Plan FEIS is still valid and no further analysis will be presented

in the Nautilus FEIS.  The impacts of the routes added for the purpose of the Nautilus

Project (8 miles of new construction and 6 miles of conversion, all of which will be

closed to motorized travel following use), were analyzed in the Nautilus DEIS.

Comment 4‐36: Furthermore, USFS proposed many of these miles of roads in the water influence zone,

despite Standard 1301 of the Forest Plan, which “allows only those actions that maintain
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐27

or impove long‐term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition” in the WIZ (DEIS,

page 149).  USFS has not shown the reconstructed and newly constructed miles of roads

in the WIZ in the Nautilus Project area maintain the health or condition, but admits they

will potentially increase sedimentation (DEIS, page 149).  The Nautilus Project would also

“result in 10 new stream crossings,” but again USFS fails to demonstrate how these

crossingswill maintain the health or condition of these streams.  A stream crossing, by

definition, implicates the water influence zone and by agency admission, will “destroy

the riparian area in the immediate area.” (DEIS, page 159)

Response 4‐36: The Nautilus DEIS states, on page 149, that “road construction, reconstruction, and

maintenance within the WIZ and at road‐stream crossings have the potential to increase

sedimentation.  However, the proposed action incorporates WCPs and BMPs and will

help ensure that streambed and bank stability is maintained and will minimize

additional sedimentation...Alternative B is expected to lead to a slight increase in

sedimentation but is not likely to lead to a significant impact on the aquatic ecosystem.”   

Also on page 149, “Thirty‐two of the 44 CDAs will be eliminated...Within Class III

watersheds, the number of CDAs will be reduced from 41 to 11 (approximately 73%

eliminated), improving the watershed as a whole and helping it move toward a

Condition Class II.”

The analysis of cumulative effects to water quality on page 152 of the DEIS states:  

“Alternative B is not expected to lead to a substantial increase  in sediment yield to

streams or significant impact to water quality, as management activities would be

implemented in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, WCPs and

BMPs.  Sediment yield would minimally increase in the short‐term under Alternative B,

but would decrease in the long‐term primarily resulting from the elimination of the

majority of CDA in the project area.  Class III watersheds would be improved over the

long term...”

The DEIS does acknowledge that stream crossings would destroy the riparian area in the

immediate area.  On page 159 of the DEIS, this immediate area is described as “less than

20 feet).  The analysis states “These six road‐stream crossings would comprise a very

small area compared to the riparian areas of these streams.  The direct and indirect

effects of Alternative B would result in minimal impact to riparian areas from the new

road‐stream crossings.”

Design criteria on pages C‐12 and C‐13 of the DEIS address stream crossings:

“Engineering staff would consult with a forest hydrologist and fisheries 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”,  and “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.”

Comment 4‐37:  USFS must take a true hard look at the impacts these roads will have on quiet

recreation, illegal route use, habitat fragmentation, erosion and water quality, wildlife

disturbance and direct mortality (especially local science regarding elk susceptibility to
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐28

vehicle collisions and avoidance of roads), relation to and compliance with the TMP,

achievement of route density goals, and a comparison of local route density to that

regionally and nationally across the National Forest System, and must more thoughfully

address compliance concerns with Standard 1301 and remove routes that do not

“maintain or improve long‐term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.”  USFS

should also provide a fen inventory, maps showing the location of wetlands, and maps

showing perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream locations so the public can more

effectively comment on the proposed project.”

Response 4‐37: The impacts of the road activities proposed in Alternative B of the Nautilus Project are

analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.  Impacts of the Travel Management Plan are analyzed

in the Travel Management Plan FEIS (USDA‐Forest Service 2010).  Relation to and

compliance of the Nautilus Project with the Travel Management Plan was discussed in

Response 4‐35.

Elk are not a federally listed Threatened or Endangered species, an R2 Sensitive Species,

a Management Indicator Species or a Species of Local Concern.  Therefore, analysis

specific to elk is not required by the Forest Plan and is not presented in the Nautilus

DEIS.

   

Comparison of road density in the Black Hills National Forest to that regionally and

nationally is not required by the Forest Plan, nor is it made clear in the comments why

this analysis would be beneficial to the Nautilus Project.   

Discussion of how the Nautilus Project complies with Standard 1301 is presented in the

Nautilus DEIS in the Hydrology and Soils section (beginning on page 135) and is

addressed in Response 4‐36 above.

No known fens exist in the project area.  Maps of wetlands and streams are available

upon request.

Comment 4‐38: The Nautilus Project proposes a year’s worth of annual timber output from just 25,350

treated acres of the 1.2 million acres of BHNF lands in violation of NFMA and MUSYA.  

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is the maximum amount of timber that can be harvested

over a decade....An “ASQ is simply a ceiling on the level of timber that can be sold over a  

10‐year period taking into account other multiple‐use values and compliance with the

mandatory environmental protection standards and guidelines” (Appeal Decision, #97‐

13‐00‐0126, Oct. 15, 1999, page 12)....Alternative B will produce over 93 million board

feet from just 25,350 acres of the 1.2 million acre BHNF (DEIS, Table 2‐1, page 29).  The

total ASQ per decade for the BHNF is 838 million board feet.  That means the 25,350

“treated” acres in the Nautilus Project area will cut down over 11% of the decade’s

ceiling on timber.  The annual rate of timber harvest in recent years and upcoming years

across the entire Forest is projected to be between 187,000 ccf to 198,000 ccf (Five Year

Timber Sale Schedule 2009‐2013).  The goal for the Nautilus Project alone is 187,316 ccf,

nearly the maximum output allowed by the Forest Plan.  It does not make sense how

USFS could offer this level of harvest and not quickly exceed the ceiling of 838 million

board feet for the decade.  As it relates to the Nautilus Project, 93 million board feet

harvested from just over 2% of the entire BHNF hardly seem sustainable, given the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐29

concerns raised in the comments about the sustainability of the ASQ from the start.  

Under NFMA, USFS must “limit the sale of timber...to a quantity equal to or less than a

quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained‐

yield basis” (16 U.S.C. 1611(a))...The Nautilus Project must be withdrawn or adjusted to

demonstrate compliance with sustainability mandates and a consideration of a

reasonable range of alternatives regarding timber volume removed...NEPA requires a

more thorough “hard look” at the sustainability of this level of timber harvest from such

a relatively small number of acres compared to the entire BHNF.  USFS should also

provide plain language explaining how all of the ASQ quantifications relate to one

another.

Response 4‐38: The Nautilus Project analyzes the effects of and authorizes the harvest of 187,316 ccf of

timber.  This does not gurantee that all of that volume will be harvested, nor will all of it

be harvested in a single year.  The most recent Five Year Plan for timber harvest on the

BHNF shows the Northern Hills Ranger District target to range between 54,000‐57,000

ccf for 2011‐2015. Individual timber sales resulting from the Nautilus Project would

occur across that five year period, along with timber sales from other projects on the

district, and possibly further in the future.    

Comment 4‐39: The Nautilus Project proposed timber harvest of trees that have not yet achieved

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) in violation of NFMA.  As USFS

acknowledges, “NFMA generally prohibits the harvest of stands before they reach their

maximum growth rate” (DEIS, page 38, citing 16 U.S.C. 1604(m)).  USFS asserts it can cut

down vast numbers of trees before they have reached CMAI growth in the Nautilus

Project area pursuant to the exception found in 16 U.S.C. 1604(m)(2) (see DEIS, page 38),

which contemplates “consideration given to other multiple uses of the forest, including,

but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range” (16 U.S.C. 1604(m)(2)).  The

exception of (m)(2) also requires public participation.  USFS claims 16 U.S.C. 1604(i)

“allows harvest to occur prior to CMAI ‘if it isi reasonable to expect that overall multiple

use objectives would be better attained’” (DEIS, Appendix B, B‐6).  However, 16 U.S.C.

1604(i) does not contain this language.  This language is found in a regulation

promulgated by USFS (see 36 CFR 219.16).  However, earlier in the DEIS the agency

claims authority for its deviations from the statutory pre‐CMAI prohibition solely from 16

U.S.C. 1604(m)(2) (DEIS, page 38).

Response 4‐39: The regulation cited in Appendix B of the DEIS was done so in error and is corrected in

the FEIS.  Thank you for informing us of this oversight.

Comment 4‐40:Regardless, the (m)(2) exception does not justify the agency’s destruction of stands

before they have reached their maximum growth rate.  The DEIS does not connect it

“exceptions” for commercial thinning, pre‐commercial thinning, group selection,

individual tree selection, shaded fuel breaks, mechanical and manual fuel reduction,

removal of small pine from meadows, aspen stands, and oak stands, and vista thinning

to any of the justification mentioned in (m)(2).  Even if (m)(2) does not limit the

“consideration given to other multiple uses of the forest” to listed uses, USFS must make

some attempt to reasonably connect its “exceptions” to those intended by Congress in

enacting (m)(2).  USFS’ claims of consistency with (m)(2) by harvesting stands before

they have reached their maximum growth rate find no basis other than the agency
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐30

rattling off the types of “harvest treatments” it will use on an unspecified number of pre‐

CMAI trees.  Nor does USFS explain its compliance with Guideline 2411.  Instead, USFS

simply says it deviations from the statutory prohibition are consistent with “exceptions”.

Response 4‐40:  A full analysis and disclosure of the CMAI requirement is located in Appendix B of the

Nautilus DEIS.  Included in Appendix B is justification for removing pine from meadows

(pages B‐3 and B‐4), an explanation for the use of uneven‐aged harvest (page B‐5), and a

stand by stand listing of proposed even‐aged harvest and whether each stand meets

CMAI or how it qualified for the multiple use justification (pages B‐6 through B‐15).  

These findings were prepared by a certified silviculturist.  No findings refuting the

information in Appendix B is provided by the commenter.

Guideline 2411 is met through the findings in Appendix B.

Comment 4‐41:We have already discussed the faulty premises on which USFS bases most of its proposed

Nautilus Project actions (i.e., wildfire risk reduction and combating mountain pine beetle

infestation), so justification under 1604 (m)(1) based on “imminent” risks from fire or

insects do no repair the agency’s flawed CMAI discussion and compliance.  USFS must

conduct, with appropriate statutorily‐compliant public participation, a reassessment of

(i.e., a true hard look at) the need for pre‐CMAI harvests in light of the futility of

combating mountain pine beetles through logging and the low probability of wildlfire

actually occurring in a treated area, and a clearly articulated indication on the record of

how USFS has shown compliance with the congressional intent of (m)(2) (not a mere

recitation of the types of harvests it will use in pre‐CMAI stands).

Response 4‐41: Discussion of the efficacy of the Nautilus Project as it relates to reducing fire hazard and

mountain pine beetle risk appears above in Responses 4‐4 and 4‐9.

The public participation requirement under CEQ 1506.6 is met through the DEIS

comment period under which these comments were submitted, release of the Notice of

Availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register and publication of a legal notice in the

Rapid City Journal.  Evidence of these actions is located in the project file and available

upon request.

Discussion of how the Nautilus Project meets the intent of the exceptions in (m)(2) are

located in Appendix B, as discussed above in Response 4‐40.

Comment 4‐42:USFS must adequately respond to public comments, consider the best available science,

and take a hard look at opposing science in the final statement itself.  Many

commenters, including us, will ask USFS to acknowledge, review, respond to, and discuss

the science and professional opinions that contradict USFS’ justifications for logging to

combat mountain pine beetles and reduce wildfire risk, and other scientific concerns.  

Rather than merely reciting, “The comment does no cite specific alternative literature,”

as though the failure to list a particular article or author lets the agency off the hook for

actually responding thoughtfully to the commenter’s request that USFS assess

countering science, USFS must actually provide a legitimate response...As an agency

tasked with considering “best available science”, it is disingenuous for USFS to shirk its

duty simply because a commenter has not name “specific alternative literature” when
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐31

asking for a more thorough acknowledgement of scientific controversy or

uncertainty....USFS should not arbitrarily decide that comments seeking further

discussion incorporating consideration of opposing viewpoints warrant no effort on the

agency’s part to examine the available science absent specific study being placed in its

hands.  USFS has more ready access to scientific journals than the average concerned

citizen might, and to feign ignorance or shrug off a request for a deeper examination of

a contentious issue fails to satisfy the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 1503.4) requiring response

to public comments.

Case law precedent requires USFS to respond to requests for discussion and

consideration of opposing science.  In a situation where USFS argued it had no obligation

to address opposing science because plaintiffs did not identify such science “by name,”

the court ruled the agency must nonetheless “provide a reasoned discussion of major

scientific objections to the proposed action,” disclosing and analyzing such scientific

opinions (League of Wilderness Defenders v. U.S. Forest Serv., Civ. No. 04‐448‐HA (D. Or.

2004)).  The “failure to disclose respected scientific evidence running contrary” to a

decision violates NEPA’s “hard look” requirement (League of Wilderness Defenders v.

Marquis‐Brong, Civ. No. 02‐75‐HA (D. Or. 2003)).  A final EIS that “fails to disclose and

discuss responsible opposing scientific viewpoints in the final statement itself” violates

NEPA (Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 349 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)).  

References to discussions located in analysis files only accessible through Freedom of

Information Act requests do not provide the public the chance to actually assess the

agency’s responses to potentially opposing science.  Nor will USFS meet its duty to

respond to other public comments by simply brushing them aside with a trite “does not

cite specific alternative literature” reply.  “Conflicting data or opinions...may not simpy

be ignored.  There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response” (Friends of the

Clearwater v. Lohn, Civ. No. 04‐384‐C‐EJL (D. Idaho 2005). Hiding any such responses

away in an analysis or project file not readily available to the public, and not in the final

statement itself, violates NEPA.  “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental

information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and

before actions are taken” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)).  The responsible opposing science

presented in these comments must be addressed in the final statement itself, as must all

comments, whether or not a specific piece of literature is cited.  We remind USFS of its

duty to “insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussion

and analyses in environmental impact statements “ (40 CFR 1502.24).  Furthermore,

analysis “information must be of high quality.  Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency

comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)).  

Merely citing to agency employee‐generated research literature, even when peer

reviewed, risks failing to consider the best available science, failing to respond to

responsible opposing science, and failing to adhere to “professional” and “scientific

integrity”.   

Response 4‐42: Where the commenter has presented opposing science in their comments, USFS has

considered that science and responded accordingly (see Responses 4‐4 and 4‐9).  Where

commenters have presented opposing viewpoints without science to back up their

claims, the USFS has responded by pointing out where in the document the USFS’

conclusions are supported.  Citations for the science used to reach those conclusions are

located within the document.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐32

It is unreasonable to expect that all information used during the development and

analysis of an EIS will be included within the document itself.   Doing so would result in

documents that include several volumes and would be extremely inefficient to print and

distribute. CEQ guidance states that the agency should “prepare analytic rather than

encyclopedic environmental impact statements” and “emphasize the portions of the

environmental impact statement athat are useful to decisionmakers and the public and

reduce emphasis on background materials” (40 CFR 1500.4).  In response to this

guidance, much of the information and documentation used to develop an EIS is kept in

the project file and is available to the public upon request.  The agency has no obligation

to place all of this information in the EIS.

Opposing science is considered on an ongoing basis.  Several past projects with similar

purpose and need statements (including Telegraph, Rattlesnake and Norbeck) were

recently completed (within the last year) in the Black Hills.  A thorough consideration of

opposing science was conducted for those projects.  Documentation of such

consideration during the development of the Nautilus Project and is incorporated into

the Nautilus project file.  This information is available upon request.   

Letter 5:  Colin Paterson, The Norbeck Society

Comment 5‐1: Justification of the use of HFRA.  For this project, the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) is

invoking the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA).  The HFRA becomes applicable if,

according to HFRA Section 102 (a)(4), in part the project is:  

“Federal land on which windthrow or blowdown, ice storm damage, the existence of an

epidemic of disease or insects, or the presence of such an epidemic on immediately

adjacent land and the imminent risk it will spread, poses a significant threat to an

ecosystem component, or forest or rangeland resource, on the Federal land or adjacent

non‐Federal land”

To demonstrate compliance with this part of the HFRA, the DEIS on page 21 references a

report (Allen 2010) by Kurt Allen of the USFS.  Within the report is a definition of

epidemic given as:

“Epidemic:  Several groups of four or more beetle killed trees on 20 to 320 acres over 2 to

3 consecutive years.”

The source of this definition comes from another report (Schmid et al 2007).  In this

report a number of definitions for epidemic are discussed.  It would appear that the

chosen definition for epidemic is one of many and is evolving as well.

In the Nautilus mountain pine beetle (MPB) report (Allen 2010), the following table

summarizing data from the Nautilus area and comments are presented:

Year Total Trees Attacked Attacked Trees per Acre

2007 Dead 118 1.3
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐33

2008 Dead 155 1.7

Green Infested 649 7.2

All Attacks

2007‐2009

922 10.2

“The numbers in the table above indicate an average across the entire project area.  

There are some areas that had little or no beetle activity at this time and others where

beetle caused mortality was extremely high......Generally speaking, the western part of

the project area is where the most intense beetle activity is occurring right now (in and

around the Experimental Forest), with the northern part (around Brownsville) being

moderate and the eastern part (in and around the town of Nemo) the lowest at this

time.”

Later in the conclusion of the report:

“The mountain pine beetle is at epidemic levels across parts of the Nautilus project area

and is likely to continue to increase across the entire project area in the next few years.  

Stand conditions in this area are very susceptible to sustaining high levels of beetle‐

caused mortality, as most stands are densely stocked with trees that are in diameter

classes that the beetles prefer.  The beetles are capable of infesting any surrounding

stands that have suitable diameter material, because of the high level of beetle pressure

in the area.  Overall, the western end of the project area has the most beetle activity at

the current time, the northern part is starting to pick up groups of infested trees and the

eastern end has low levels of tree mortality at the present.”

The report seems to indicate that an epidemic is not widespread, but could increase and

continue.  It is interesting to contrast this with a similar reporti

for the Black Hills (Allen

2004).  From the 2004 report:

“Table 5. Number of MPB attacked trees along 2.25 miles (18 acres) of transect lines in

the Nemo Area, Northern Hills Ranger District, and the ratio of attack frequency between

years.”

Year   Total Trees Attacked Attacked Trees per

Acre  

2001 Dead   84 4.7  

2002 Dead   127 7.1  

Green Infested   139 7.7  

All Attacks  

2001‐2003  

350 19.4  

“Table 5 displays the results from the Nemo area. It appears that the population is

static in this area.”

It would appear, based on Attacked Trees per Acre, that the infestation in the Nemo area

was worse in the 2004 report than the 2010 report (above).  Yet, an epidemic in the

Nemo/Nautilus area was not indicated to be present or predicted for the future at that

time in 2004.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐34

The initial Nautilus Proposed Action was dated November 2009 and published in the

Federal Register November 24, 2009.  The Proposed Action did cite the HFRA.  The report

(Allen 2010) on which the justification for the HFRA is based is dated January 2010, some

months after the Proposed Action was prepared.  The data for the Allen 2010 report was

sampled in November 2009.  At the time the Proposed Action was prepared, how did the

BHNF know that the HFRA provisions would be supported when the data for the scientific

justification had not yet been collected?  It would appear that the BHNF uses “best

available science” even when it is not yet available, or developed.  

The Telegraph Project of 2009 was a project similar to the Nautilus Project and also part

of the Northern Hills Ranger District.  The Telegraph Project (DEIS February 2009) did not

use HFRA though it had a much worse bug problem than Nautilus.

While we agree with the decision to treat areas of Nautilus for insect and fire hazard, we

disagree with invoking HFRA.  The HFRA act seems to be as much or more about limiting

public involvement in the NEPA process than expediting the project proposed actions.

Response 5‐1: The Allen report from 2003 was a broadscale analysis of the mountain pine beetle

situation in the Black Hills that evaluated pine beetle activity at several sites across the

Black Hills.  The transects conducted in the Nemo area covered a total of 18 acres (Allen

2003).  The 2010 forest health evaluation conducted by Allen focused exclusively on the

Nautilus project area, with a total of 90 acres covered by the transects.  The transects in

2010 also covered a broader area of the Nautilus project area, rather than just the area

near Nemo (as in 2003).  In addition, the 2010 transects showed a much higher level of

green trees attacked compared to dead trees from the previous two years (649 green

trees in 2010 with 155 and 118 dead from 2008 and 2007 compared to 350 green trees

in 2003 with 127 and 84 dead from  2002 and 2001).  These numbers suggest that the

infestation is increasing in the Nautilus area.

It is true that the Nautilus Project was identified as a potential HFRA project as early as

November 2009 when the scoping letter was released.  At that time Kurt Allen, the

forest entomologist, had been notified of the project and was working on the forest

health evaluation cited above.  Based on the information existing at the time, the

project area was a good candidate for HFRA because of the presence of mountain pine

beetles within and adjacent to the project.  The final report from Allen was received in

January 2010, confirming pine beetles were at epidemic levels and confirming that use

of HFRA was appropriate.  At that time, work on the Nautilus DEIS was just beginning

and was not completed until June 2010.  If the Allen report had not supported the use of

HFRA, the Nautilus DEIS would have been completed under the normal NEPA

procedures.  Identification of Nautilus as an HFRA project in the scoping letter did not

irreversibly commit the Forest Service to the use of HFRA, it merely notified the public

of the possibility of using that authority.

   

It is also true that the Telegraph Project would have been a good candidate for HFRA

based on the high levels of mountain pine beetle activity there but the decision to use

HFRA was not made at that time.  The Telegraph project area include large areas of

management areas 3.7 and 4.1, which have a non‐motorized and limited motorized
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐35

emphasis respectively, creating issues regarding road construction and its impacts on

non‐motorized recreation, which became the primary issue with the Telegraph Project.  

The presence of large populations of beetles within Telegraph, particularly near Custer

Peak, immediately adjacent to the Nautilus project area, was one deciding factor in

seeking the use of HFRA authorities for Nautilus.

Comment 5‐2: No Issues or Additional Alternatives.  For the NEPA process the inclusion of alternatives is

an important aspect to the environmental impact statement.  According to 40 CFR

Section 1502.14 (a) agencies shall:

“Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for

alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for

their having been eliminated”

When HFRA is used, Section 104(c) of the HFRA addresses how alternatives may be

considered:

“ CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (d), in the environmental assessment

or  environmental impact statement prepared under subsection (b), the Secretary shall

study, develop, and  describe— (A) the proposed agency action; (B) the alternative of no

action; and (C) an additional action alternative, if the additional alternative— (i) is

proposed during scoping or the collaborative process under subsection (f); and (ii) meets

the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the

Council on Environmental Quality. (2) MULTIPLE ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES.—If more

than 1 additional alternative is proposed under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall—

(A) select which additional alternative to consider, which is a choice that is in the sole

discretion of the Secretary; and (B) provide a written record describing the reasons for

the selection.”

The DEIS should have identified at least one other additional alternative.  Instead the

BHNF only offered (a) the no action alternative and (2) the proposed action.

Response 5‐2: HFRA does not require the analysis of more than one action alternative.  As stated in

HFRA: “the Secretary shall study, develop, and describe....an additional action

alternative, if the additional alternative...meets the purpose and need of the project”.  

The Nautilus interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered a total of 13 additional action

alternatives that were proposed during scoping.  Justification for why none of these

alternatives were ultimately carried forward for detailed analysis is presented on pages

38‐42 of the DEIS.

Also, USFS NEPA procedures at 36 CFR 220.5e state “the EIS shall document the

examination of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.  An alternative should

meet the purpose and need and address one or more significant issues related to the

proposed action.  Since an alternative may be developed to address more than one

significant issue, no specific number of alternatives is required or perscribed.”
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐36

Comment 5‐3: Significant Issues.  Also of concern is that despite 43 submissions of comments, only two

relatively minor points were deemed as “significant issues.”  The lack of “significant

issues” was used to justify not developing any other alternatives.  The BHNF in explaining

the issue identification process, stated the following on page 25 of the DEIS:

“An issue is defined as “a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute over a proposed

action based on environmental effects”. Significant and non‐significant issues are

determined by considering five factors:  

1) Is the issue beyond the scope of the proposed action?  

2) Is the issue irrelevant to the decision being made?  

3) Is the issue already decided by law, regulation, the Forest Plan or other higher

authority?

4) Is the issue conjectural in nature and not supported by scientific evidence?  

5) Is the magnitude, extent, speed, or direction of effects relating to the issue

limited?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, then the issue is non‐significant. If the

answer to all of these questions is “no”, then the issue is significant.”

We requested the source of 5 factors referenced above.  The BHNF sent us a PDF file

which appears to be slides from a presentation on NEPA (hereafter NEPA Slideshow).  

The source of the 5 factors is on page 6 of the PDF and the source of the above definition

of issue is on page 4 of the PDF.  In the NEPA Slideshow is an additional clarification of

the issue definition:

"NOTE CHANGE IN DEFINITION TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, NOT JUST EFFECTS.

Note that "discussion" has been deleted from definition since it generally is not

controversy; however, Webster’s does have the word discussion so it is possible for a

"discussion" to be elevated to an Issue if so desired by the Responsible Official."

Though we requested the regulatory source of the above 5 factors, no specific regulatory

reference or source was given.  The DEIS gives no attribution for the issue definition and

5 factors.  The above issue definition and 5 factors that are found in the NEPA Slideshow

appear to be someone’s recommendation or interpretation, but cannot be a substitute

for the actual NEPA regulations.   

Response 5‐3: The definition of an “issue” and the five factors for determining signifigance come from

training course materials for 1900‐01, a class taken by the majority of planners and

resource specialists in the Forest Service as a tutorial on how to conduct the NEPA

process.   

The regulations do not provide specific guidance on how to identify issues, stating only

“Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which

have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the discussion of these

issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant

effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage elsewhere”

(CEQ Regulations, Section 1501.7(a)(3)).  Each comment received during scoping was
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐37

responded to with explanation for whether it was considered significant or not.  This

documentation is located in the project file and is available upon request.

Comment 5‐4: Comments.  We also requested the public comments to the project scoping document

and the agency response to them.  We were sent PDF’s for which comments were

grouped by topic, such that similar comments from various people were combined.   

One of the most common responses used by the BHNF to peoples comments is "This is

not an issue because it does not contain a dispute or disagreement about the

environmental effects of the proposed action."  Compare this response to the issue

definition given in the DEIS (above).  The word “debate” is left out and the emphasis is on

environmental effects rather than a proposed action.  This “interpretation” of an

“interpretation” significantly narrows the meaning.  Many comments requested different

treatments, more of a certain treatment, or objected to a treatment.  Examples are

Treatments (page 1 & 2), Hardwoods (page 5), Meadows (page 7), and Objectives of

Prescribed Fire (page 8).  These should have been given greater consideration.

  

Other comments were labeled “non‐significant issues” because they were “conjectural”,

“beyond scope”, or “limited intensity.”  Examples of comments classified as “conjectural”

that do not appear to be are Greater Variety (page 17), Validity of Treatments (page 22),

and Water and Soil Impacts (page 23).  A number of comments relating to roads were

deemed “beyond scope”, whereas roads have been and will continue to be a significant

element of the project and project area.  For those comments dismissed because of

“limited intensity”, it is not clear why they are given such little consideration.

NEPA 1500.2 states, in part, that “Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: (d)

“Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the

human environment.”  With regard to identification of issues the BHNF is not giving

consideration to public comments, but instead are placing reliance on their

interpretation of a NEPA Slideshow, instead of NEPA regulations, in order to trivialize or

exclude public comment.

Response 5‐4: Comments are considered a non‐significant issue if they do not provide support for their

claims.  Many comments received during scoping disagreed with certain treatments in

the proposed actions, but failed to clearly explain why a different treatment would be

preferable.

“Conjectural” statements were those that were deemed to make claims without the

support of scientific research or other factual evidence.  Roads are an integral part of

the project, but travel management falls under the authority of the Forest‐wide Travel

Management Plan, making any comments pertaining to travel management beyond the

scope of the Nautilus Project.  Comments were labeled as having “limited intensity” if

incorporating them into an alternative would not have made resulted in a significant

difference in effects, essentially resulting in two alternatives that would have very

similar effects.

Public involvement is encouraged but NEPA regulations at 1500.4 also mandates

“discussing only briefly issues other than significant ones” and “using the scoping
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐38

process, not only to identify significant environmental issues deserving of study, but also

to deemphasize insignificant issues, narrowing the scope of the environmental impact

statement process accordingly”.

   

The NEPA regulations are silent on how exactly to determine whether issues are

significant or not, deferring to the agency conducting the analysis to make that

determination.  The “NEPA Slideshow” is a training tool used by the Forest Service, and

other federal agencies, to train NEPA practitioners.

Comment 5‐5: Rejected Alternatives.  On pages 38 to 42 of the DEIS is a brief discussion of suggested

alternatives that were not considered.  On page 42 of the DEIS the Aronnax Alternative is

discussed.  Uneven treatments are not considered because the commenters did not

provide scientific evidence of the treatment effectiveness and seemed to imply that the

Forest Plan favored even aged treatments.

The Forest Plan lists both even aged treatments and uneven aged treatments as being

acceptable.  Appendix D of the DEIS describes the research project taking place on the

Black Hills Experimental Forest.  That research involves “Evaluating fuel, vegetation and

disturbance dynamics using the irregular uneven‐aged silvicultural system within

different forest structure stages on the Black Hills Experimental Forest”.  If uneven

treatments lack credibility, why would the BHNF waste time and money on studying

these treatments?  And why would uneven‐aged treatments be liberally prescribed in the

Norbeck Wildlife Project in the Black Hills very recently?  In addition, the proposed action

includes uneven aged treatments, despite the apparent reluctance of the BHNF to use

them (page 42 DEIS).  

The Norbeck Society submitted comments on the proposed project and made a number

of suggestions for alternative treatments.  Some of these treatments were the uneven

treatments suggested by the Aronnax Alternative.  Some of the Norbeck Society

suggestions are shared by the comments covered on page 17 of the Comment PDF.  It is

difficult to evaluate the BHNF summary of alternatives not considered in the DEIS or of

the comments in the Comment PDF, because we do not know to what degree actual

comments are taken out of context.

For the Aronnax Alternative and at least some of the comments in the Comment PDF, the

BHNF requires the commenter provide scientific evidence.  In order for their comments to

be seriously considered, a citizen should not have to provide scientific evidence to

support their comments on a scoping proposal, especially when the scoping proposal

itself does not provide scientific evidence supporting its proposal.

Response 5‐5: The Nautilus DEIS does not suggest that uneven‐aged treatments “lack credibility”.  

Alternative B includes 704 acres of uneven‐aged treatments (individual tree selection

and group selection) outside of the Experimental Forest and an additional 3,394 acres

within the Experimental Forest (DEIS, page 29).  However, in the interest of best

achieving the purpose and need, particularly reducing mountain pine beetle risk and fire

hazard, even‐aged treatments were deemed more appropriate in many stands as they

reduce stand density to a higher degree.  Treatments are prescribed to a particular

stand based on conditions in that stand, which are often the result of past management.  
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐39

It is not always appropriate silviculturally to apply an uneven‐aged treatment.   

The use of uneven‐aged treatments in the Experimental Forest study is proposed

specifically to analyze their effectiveness for managing ponderosa pine stands.  The

premise of the Experimental Forest is to evaluate treatments that are not currently

standard so we can gain a better understanding of how the forest responds to such

treatments.

The Norbeck Wildlife Project has a different purpose and need than Nautilus and is

located in a management area with a different focus than those in the Nautilus project

area.  The focus of the Norbeck Project is management of wildlife habitat rather than

reduction of mountain pine beetle risk.  While timber harvest is allowed in the Norbeck

Wildlife Preserve, it is not the emphasis of that management area.  Therefore, uneven‐

aged treatments were deemed to be more appropriate for achieving the goals of the

management area and the purpose and need of the project.

The treatments included in the proposed action that was part of the scoping letter are

based on the best available science.   To warrant the analysis of an additional action

alternative as the result of scoping, there must be compelling evidence that that

alternative would achieve the purpose and need and possibly do so more efficiently or

effectively than the proposed action.

Comment 5‐6: Other projects.  For the EIS of the Telegraph Project referenced above, 4 significant

issues were identified (1) roads, (2) vegetative and structural diversity, (3) efficacy of

proposed treatments, and (4) scenery.  These issues were used to develop other

alternatives.  Many comments for Nautilus were on these same issues, but this time the

BHNF did not judge them to be significant.   

In July 2009 the Record of Decision for the Telegraph Project chose, not the Proposed

Alternative, but Alternative C with modifications.  In the ROD, the District Ranger stated

“Alternative C was developed to be responsive to significant issues raised by the public

during the scoping period regarding the potential effects of the proposed action on

scenery, habitat for the American marten, opportunities for non‐motorized and more

primitive recreation experiences, the retention of and management for forested stands

in a late successional stage, and vegetative diversity within the project area. Map 1

(attached) displays the planned vegetative and fuels treatments while Map 2 shows the

associated road construction or maintenance activities for the Selected Action.”

Hence this demonstrates the importance and significance of public comments.  In this

case it led to another alternative that was ultimately selected over the initial proposal.

Response 5‐6: The Telegraph Project is different from Nautilus in several ways.  One of the main

concerns brought up during scoping for Telegraph was the number of new roads that

were proposed (78 miles), especially those that were proposed within management

area 4.1 (Limited Motorized Use).  Also, the Telegraph proposed action included large

blocks of overstory removal treatments adjacent to U.S. Highway 85, which raised

concerns regarding scenic integrity.  Each project area is different in some way, so issues
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐40

that may be significant in one won’t necessarily be considered signficant in another.

Comment 5‐7:   Phantom Issues.  For the original proposed action there were 34,178 acres of primary

treatments, including the 3,394 acres of Experimental Forest treatments.  For the DEIS

the total of treatments was reduced to 27,854, a reduction of almost 20%.  The

explanation on page 28 is “Based on the issues identified during scoping, the IDT

determined that a separate action alternative would not differ appreciably from the

proposed action so instead modified the proposed action to address the issues.” and

“These changes were made primarily to address new information and to address issues

such as logging feasibility, high scenic integrity areas, presence of sensitive plant habitat,

soils, recently harvested stands, goshawk nest areas, old growth, concerns for growth

potential, and presence of heritage resources.”  

These are very curious statements.  As we saw earlier the BHNF had gone to great

lengths to say there were no “significant issues” from public comments.  Now they are

saying that they changed much of their proposal to address “issues” and many of the

“issues” they cite were the same concerns from public comments that were judged to be

“non‐significant issues”.

Response 5‐7: Changes are made to the proposed action not only based on public comment, but also

on further review of the proposed treatments by Forest Service specialists.  For

example, the proposed action included 742 acres of potential “old growth” treatments

without any specifics as to what those would entail.  After further review by the wildlife

biologist, it was determined that no treatment would be most appropriate at this time

to maintain those stands as old growth.  The DEIS on page 28 does not state that these

changes were made based on significant issues.

The claim that there were not significant issues identified during scoping is incorrect.  

Page 26 of the DEIS discusses two significant issues that were identified, but neither led

to the development of a separate action alternative.  It was determined that these

issues could be resolved by clarifying certain aspects of the proposed action in the DEIS.

Comment 5‐8: BHNF open house at Nemo Community Hall.  The Norbeck Society request for the BHNF

designee to make a presentation giving an overview of the Nautilus project at the open

house in Nemo was denied.

In conclusion, the BHNF is in violation of NEPA 40 CFR Sections 1502.14 and 1500.2 for

not considering all reasonable alternatives and not encouraging or considering public

involvement.  The BHNF needs to redo the DEIS, taking into consideration public

comments and develop other alternatives, in accordance with NEPA regulations.

Response 5‐8: Members of the Nautilus interdisciplinary team conducted an open house meeting in

Nemo on December 2, 2009.  Several members of the team were present with maps of

the project area and proposed treatments to answer questions from the public.  The

format of the meeting was intended to make the IDT members accessible to the public

and able to answer specific questions more freely rather than making a formal

presentation where some individuals may not feel free to ask questions.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐41

CFR 1502.14 requires the agency to “explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable

alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly

discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated”.  Thirteen additional action

alternatives were considered and an explanation for why they were not carried forward

for detailed analysis appears on pages 38‐42 of the DEIS.   

CFR 1500.2 was met through the scoping process, which included the release of the

scoping letter and the public meeting in Nemo.  There is no regulation requiring the

implementation of an alternative suggested by the public even though the agency

deems that alternative to not meet the purpose and need for the project.

Comment 5‐9: Management Treatments.  Whether managed for timber production, for wildlife, or

other emphasis, the problems of mountain pine beetle are not unique to any specific

area.  In the Northern Hills District, the worst infestations have occurred in the 5.1

Resource Production Management Areas.  To minimize future insect infestations and fire

risk the BHNF needs to depart from a continuation of past practices.  The BHNF should

encourage treatments that (1) provide diversity of wildlife (2) uses both even and uneven

treatments (3) prescribed burning (more meadows, etc.).

In excess of 21,000 acres are proposed for commercial treatments by Commercial Thin

(CT), Overstory Removal (OSR), Seed cuts (SC), Product‐other‐than‐log (POL), and Pre‐

commercial Thin (PCT).  Particularly in the MA5.4 area, but also in the MA5.1 area, we

would like to see less use of the Commercial Thin, Overstory Removal, and Pre‐

commercial Thin treatments – all part of an even‐aged silvicultural system ‐‐and more of

other treatments as described here:  

Uneven treatments.   

In regards to susceptibility to Mountain Pine Beetle infestations, the USDA Forest Service

“Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2, Revised May 2009ii” states:

“In second‐growth ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills and Rocky Mountains, highly

susceptible stands are generally those that are densely stocked (i.e., for average stand

diameter of 10‐12 inches, >150 square feet basal area per acre), have an average

diameter >10 inches, and are even‐aged and single‐storied.”

According to “Ecology, Silviculture, and Management of Black Hills Ponderosa Pine” by  

Wayne D. Shepperd and Michael A. Battagliaiii: “Using the shelterwood system for

managing Black Hills ponderosa pine provides a reliable and quick means to reestablish

an even‐aged forest. There has been a long, successful history of shelterwood use in the

Black Hills. Shelterwood management provides the seedbed treatment, growth

environment, and seed source necessary to successfully reestablish ponderosa pine. ...”

Response 5‐9: The “Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 2” states, as quoted by the commenter, that high

susceptible stands have a basal area over 150 square feet per acre.  The even‐aged

treatments in the Nautilus Project are intended to reduce the basal area to less than 80

square feet per acre, and as low as 40‐50 square feet in highly susceptible stands, based

on the recommendation of the forest entomologist (Allen 2010).  The leaflet also states

that thinning is an appropriate tool for long‐term mountain pine beetle prevention.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐42

The “shelterwood system” referred to by Shepperd and Battaglia is in fact an even‐aged

system.  “Shelterwood” treatments are those that leave a seed source behind to allow

for regeneration of the stand.  A seed cut is an example of this treatment in the Nautilus

Project.

Comment 5‐10:  Unfortunately, the actions outlined in this project are driven by industry pressure and

not by the ecology of the forest or the needs of the people who depend on this forest for

a myriad of products and services. In the Nautilus Project Silvicultural report (page 21),

Amy Haas states that “Stand structure within the project area generally would be even‐

aged with the majority of the trees having an age range of 20 years from other trees....  

Much of the intermediate and suppressed pine would be removed in treatment areas to

raise crown heights and reduce ladder fuels for crown fire hazard reduction.” She also

says, “Within the project area, stand structure generally would change from a closed

canopy structure to an open canopy structure. More than 6,500 acres would move from

the more closed 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C structural stages to the open structures of 3A and 4A.

This is designed to reduce mountain pine beetle hazard and to accomplish the fire hazard

reduction within the WUI. This was done also to achieve the Forest Plan objective 10‐01

to manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate‐to‐low fire hazard in the WUI and reduce fire

hazard within proximity of structures”.   

In order to further the cause for this massive logging project, the Northern Hills District

fails to mention that this more ‘open’ forest will only last a decade or two and that then

the ‘adequate regeneration’ that they have planned and enhanced by the practice of

scarification will come into play;  Again, from the Nautilus Project DEIS, Appendix C –

Design Criteria and Monitoring (Page ‐7):  “ 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

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”.    One can surmise that this regeneration will

take place at a rate of between 140‐50,000 stems per acres given the past performance

of these very acres (Nautilus Project Vegetation Table), especially when purposeful

scarification by tractor tire takes place as described above.

Response 5‐10: When conducting treatments such as seed cuts and overstory removals, which remove a

majority of the overstory vegetation, it is required that a certain level of regeneration is

achieved.  On the Black Hills, this typically occurs naturally (i.e., without the need for

planting).  Pre‐commercial thinning is proposed as a potential secondary treatment for

the majority of stands with seed cut or overstory removal as the primary treatment to

allow for the reduction of regeneration if necessary.

Comment 5‐11: The uneven treatments listed below would remove a substantial amount of timber and

fuel, and more importantly could have potential for maintaining structural diversity and

wildlife habitat.  Because these treatments effectively provide for a diversity of wildlife

habitat, a key part of the Project Purpose and Need, they should be a significant

component of the project.  These treatments should also be part of wildfire hazard

reduction plans as welliv

.  However, the proposed action only specifies 704 acres of these
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐43

uneven treatments.  The use of uneven treatments should be proposed for at least 20%

of the Nautilus area, or 7,000 acres

Individual Selection.  This uneven treatment is planned for only 489 acres, or

1.4% of the Nautilus area.  

   

Group Selection.  This uneven treatment is planned for only 215 acres or 0.6% of

the Nautilus area.

Group Retention.  Mixes small clumps of dense ponderosa pine with large

openings.  This treatment provides forage and browse production while

retaining a small amount of vertical structure in the site.

A studyv on silvicultural treatments to prevent bark beetle infestations found “Forested

landscapes that contain little heterogeneity promote the creation of large contiguous

areas susceptible to similar insect outbreaks”.  This also indicates that uneven

treatments should be part of bark beetle prevention project.  

Again, from the USDA Forest Service “Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2, Revised May

2009”:   

“Forest landscapes comprised of diverse tree species, ages, and size classes may be less

susceptible to widespread levels of mountain pine beetle‐caused tree mortality.

Restoration efforts emphasizing diversity, especially at landscape scales, are viable

management strategies. Such efforts will require an understanding of host‐site

relationships, and may entail manipulation of stand density and species composition

through silvicultural means.”

We sadly note that the basic proportions of the cover types in the area will remain

unchanged by the proposed action. Should the Proposed Action be implemented, the

contiguous landscape of homogenous, dense and even‐ aged ponderosa pine within the

management area will remain.  This is very different from the historic mosaics of varied

densities and cover types found across the Black Hills.vi

  This is also very different from

what would be required to truly address the stated Purpose and Need for the project

from a long term perspective.  This project proposal does not ultimately mitigate the

risks of insect infestation and wildfire; it is primarily a continuation of past practices and

can be predicted to result in the continuation of our present problems.   

Response 5‐11: The commenter’s conclusion that at least 20% of the Nautilus project area should have

uneven‐aged treatments does not have a clear rationale.  It is true that such treatments

provide structural diversity, but not clear how the specific number of 7,000 acres was

reached.  The silviculturist and wildlife biologist worked together to identify the stands

that were best suited for uneven‐aged treatments.  In many stands in the Black Hills,

past treatments have set the stand up for a specific follow‐up treatment (e.g. a seed cut

to be followed by an overstory removal).  In those stands, the silviculturally appropriate

treatment was prescribed.

Structural diversity is provided for through movement toward the Forest‐wide structural
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐44

stage objectives.  Managing stands to achieve the structural stage objectives provides

for a variety of size classes and stocking densities.

Cover types are difficult to alter on a landscape scale.  Wherever possible in the Nautilus

area, stands were targeted for meadow or hardwood enchancement.  The distribution

of cover types doesn’t reflect the actual amount of non‐pine species on the ground,

particularly for aspen.  Provisions are included in the silvicultural prescriptions to

remove pine from all aspen pockets 1⁄4 acre or larger that are within a pine stand (DEIS,

page 30).  There are many such aspen inclusions in the project area, but because

ponderosa pine is the dominant cover type in those stands, the acres of aspen are not

accounted for when calculating cover type.

The treatments proposed in Alternative B would reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle

infestation significantly, from 72% of stands at high risk currently to 14% at high risk

following treatment (DEIS, page 43).  Likewise, the area at high or very high fire hazard

would be reduced from 89% to 28% (DEIS, page 43).  These determinations are based on

analysis in the Phase II Amendment FEIS, which was upheld on appeal and was not

challenged in court.    

Comment 5‐12: Cover treatments.  We also requested the following cover treatments that help to meet

the project purpose and need:

Meadow enhancement. There are currently 274 meadows of grass. The proposal would

have 251 acres of meadows enhanced.  The Norbeck Society recommends the proposal

establish additional open meadows and non‐treed areas where appropriate.

Aspen/birch.  Currently there are 333 acres of aspen.  The proposal would have 764

acres of mostly aspen and birch being enhanced, but would result in a relatively small

amount of additional acres.  Aspen are important to a number of species including

fringed myotis, ruffed grouse and beaver.  We would like to see more stands of aspen or

birch, at least 2,000 acres.  Doing so would help to move toward the Forest Plan goal for

aspen cover.  

Oak.  Currently there are 12 acres of aspen.  Oak are important to a number of species

including Lewis’s woodpecker and black and white warbler.  We would like to see more

stands of oak, at least 500 acres.  Doing so would help to move toward the Forest Plan

goal for oak cover.

Spruce.  Currently there are 640 acres of spruce.  Spruce stands are important to a

number of species including American marten, brown creeper, and Cooper’s hawk.  

Where appropriate, we would like to see more stands of spruce.

Old Growth.  Of the 1,250 acres of structural stage 5, only 105 acres are classified as

tree size “very large”.  The total number of SS4 acres rated as very large tree size is 2,517

and the proposed actions would reduce that to 1,566 acres.  These large trees sites have

the potential to become SS5, a structure stage well below the Forest Plan target of 5%

on both the Nautilus project area and forest wide.  We recommend retaining
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐45

substantially more of the very large trees so as to meet Forest plan goals and provide for

greater habitat diversity.

Prescribed Burn.  The Norbeck Society supports the planned use of prescribed fire.  As

proposed, only 710 acres are slated to be the primary treatment.  We would like to see

many more acres initially treated by prescribed fire, in place of some of the commercial

treatments.  We encourage the proposed prescribed fire treatments over the life of the

project, but believe 1,000 acres per year should be a minimum.  We understand and

appreciate the need to be cautious with prescribed burning.  The difficulty of keeping up

with desired Rx levels points to a need to strive for less regeneration of Ponderosa pine in

other management treatments.

Additional treatments to consider.

Single large trees felled close to ground perpendicular to slope.  Long term

biodegrading creates important nutrients and specialized microhabitats for small plants

and animals and make an area more diverse and supportive to larger plants and

animals.  It can also make important contributions to erosion control and slowing of

water flow in heavy rains or snow melt.

Patch cuts or clear cuts.  To create tree‐less open areas or in preparation for prescribed

burns in areas with hardwood potential.

Understory removal.  A vegetative treatment that removes all ponderosa pine trees

under 9” DBH in dense, mature sites in order to promote the growth vigor of larger

overstory pine, and to reduce the potential for crown fire by the removal of ladder fuels.  

Creates open‐canopied stands of pine that provide forage for white‐tailed deer and elk.  

At present, this type of habitat is severely lacking in the project area.

Others: Free Selection, Fuel breaks, and Variable Density Thinning.

Response 5‐12: Opportunities for additional meadow acres were sought after by the wildlife biologist

during preparation of the proposed action.  Areas targeted for meadow enhancement

are typically existing meadows that are experiencing pine encroachment or historical

meadows that have been converted to pine sites over time.  Creation of “new”

meadows by clearcutting pine is generally avoided as true meadows are characterized

by more than just lack of trees; soil types and herbacious species composition are also

important.

See Response 5‐11 regarding aspen acres.

Creation of new areas of oak is difficult when it is in such low abundance in the area to

begin with.   

Forest Plan Objective 239‐LVD calls for managing for 20,000 acres of spruce across the

Forest.  The current acreage of spruce is approximately twice that amount.  Spruce is

not targeted for treatment unless necessary to meet other objectives.  In the Nautilus

Project, no acres of spruce are proposed for treatment.  Promoting the expansion of
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐46

spruce stands would be counter to Forest Plan direction.

The Forest‐wide objective for structural stage 4C in management areas 5.1 and 5.4 is

5%.  Currently, there is an abundance of SS 4C both Forest‐wide and in the project area.  

Reduction of SS 4C acres in Nautilus moves the Forest toward the Forest Plan objective.

The treatments proposed in Alternative B would not have a significant effect on the

percentage of very large trees Forest‐wide in MAs 5.1 and 5.4, which would remain at

9% and 12% respectively (DEIS, page 66).   

Utilization of prescribed burning as the primary management tool is difficult due to the

fuel loading on many sites.  In many cases, some level of fuel reduction is necessary

before a prescribed burn can be safely conducted.  While it would be preferable to

conduct 1,000 acres of burning per year, weather conditions often make this difficult.  

The window of opportunity to safely administer a burn is typically just a few weeks in

the spring and fall.

Pre‐commercial thinning is essentially the same as the described “understory removal”

treatment.  Coarse woody debris standards in the Forest Plan provide for woody

material on the forest floor to provide for nutrient cycling, microhabitats and erosion

control.  Patch clear cuts are not proposed in Nautilus, but removal of pine from aspen

inclusions is (as described in Response 5‐11).

Comment 5‐13: Ponderosa Pine Regeneration How do current practices lead to out of control

regeneration and lead to same fire bug risk problems?  What are possible solutions?  

In reading the DEIS for the Nautilus Project (June 2010) in the Northern Hills District of

the Black Hills National Forest, the Norbeck Society is disappointed to find that rather

than using this opportunity to find ways to mitigate the consequences of a forest that is

overrun with an unnatural and destructive stocking of Ponderosa pine trees, the

Interdisciplinary Team for the Nautilus Project is merely bowing to the pressures of

industry and making plans that will assuredly set the scene for the next bug and fire

emergency.   

Not only does the Northern Hills Ranger District fail to address ways in which they might

curb the excessive number of pines which threaten lives, livelihoods, and private

property as well as the proper functioning of important ecosystems, it seeks ways to

maximize regeneration of Ponderosa pine for future commercial harvest.  BHNF neglects

to outline a plan to create a truly healthy forest, one that will be relatively resistant to

beetle infestations and catastrophic wildfire in the future.  

It is evident from both the Scoping Document and now from the DEIS for the Nautilus

Project that a major effort made by the forest service is that of ensuring and enhancing

regeneration.  Oddly, after analyzing many stands that currently contain up to 50,000

stems of Ponderosa pine per acre and then declaring these acres as at very high risk for

wildfire and bug infestation, BHNF states in Appendix C – Design Criteria and Monitoring

(Page ‐7) that, “ 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 operation, provided there are no
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐47

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”.  We are certain that there should be grave concerns regarding the strong

possibility of weed infestation because “Approximately 3,055 acres of weeds currently in

the project area” (DEIS, P. 128), and potential damage to streams because “eight out

[of] the nine Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7th level watersheds in the Nautilus project area

are identified as Class 3, the most impaired and at‐risk classification.” (DEIS, p.16).

In addition, a reference from the Nautilus Project DEIS5 states “Scarification that occurs

with logging is usually adequate to provide the mineral soil seedbed favored by

ponderosa pine. Except for extremely harsh sites, these factors combine to establish

abundant understories of several thousand seedlings per acre (Boldt and Van Deusen

1974).vii”

These actions are simply incompatible with the Purpose and Need.  Runaway

regeneration is a problem in terms of both wildfire risk and bug infestation hazard on

this forest, and the production of regeneration at an unnatural pace through the actions

described above is the cause.   We have little confidence and no evidence that BHNF can

limit regeneration rate to the stated target of ‘150‐300 trees per acre within 5 years

after treatment’. BHNF should be analyzing how they might minimize regeneration

across the project area. BHNF has developed no plan to change the density of the next

generation of pines from what exists today if they indeed wish to mitigate fire risk and

insect hazard.

Response 5‐13: Analysis in the Nautilus Project DEIS, supported by the best available science,

determines that the treatments proposed in Alternative B will reduce mountain pine

beetle risk and fire hazard by reducing stand density.  A certain level of regeneration is

desired to ensure a sustainable yield of timber, which is required by the Forest Plan, the

National Forest Management Act and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act.  Treatments

such as pre‐commercial thinning and prescribed fire are included for most of the

acreage treated commercially in the Nautilus project area to allow for reduction of

regeneration if necessary.   

   

The commenter asserts that the project “seeks ways to maximize regeneration of

Ponderosa pine for future commercial harvest”.  Comments, both during scoping and on

the DEIS, from timber interests suggest that actions proposed in Nautilus would actually

reduce growth potential on some sites.  During scoping, this argument was determined

to be non‐significant because the purpose and need of the Nautilus Project does not

include the maximization of growth potential.  See Comments 8‐3 and 16‐8 and their

associated responses.   

Noxious weeds do exist in the project area and would likely increase under the

proposed action, but implementation of commercial treatments would provide one

funding source to treat existing and new noxious weed infestations (DEIS, page 38).   

Watersheds in the project area would benefit from implementation of the proposed

watershed improvement projects, in particular the reduction of connected disturbed

areas (DEIS, page 34).
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐48

Comment 5‐14: Soil Issues.  Also related to above Management Treatments.  Intensive harvesting of

ponderosa pine in the Black Hills has occurred for a long time.  There is a potential that

timber harvesting practices could lead to loss of soil nutrients and other potential

problems.  Previous studies have shown that there is significant nutrient loss associated

with whole tree yarding where substantial amounts of woody residue removal takes

placeviii ix

.

On page 145 of the DEIS, nutrient removal issues are discussed with a recognition of

meeting Forest Plan Standard 1102.  This requirement is discussed in greater detail in the

2010 Nautilus Soils Report Draft.  We encourage that treatments ensure the future

presence of healthy levels of soil nutrients.  We also encourage the measuring and future

monitoring of soil nutrient levels.

Response 5‐14: Forest Plan Standard 1102 would be met through implementation of the Watershed

Conservation Practices (WCP), from which the Standard was derived.  As stated on page

C‐3, the WCP would apply to all management activities.

Comment 5‐15: Sanitation Treatments.  On page 35 of the Nautilus DEIS states “Sanitation treatments

are considered to be preventative and are most effective prior to the start of an

epidemic.”  On page 36 of the DEIS it is stated “Consultation with a Forest Service

entomologist indicated that sanitation harvest methods should be pursued when a

population has reached incipient epidemic levels (Allen 2010).“  In regards to sanitation

harvests, the USDA Forest Service “Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2, Revised May 2009”

states:

“...salvage (sanitation) logging of infested trees, while a large outbreak is

underway, is generally not effective for reducing subsequent levels of mountain

pine beetle‐caused tree mortality. Additionally, beetle‐infested trees and

resultant snags and woody debris are important for many species of wildlife,

nutrient recycling and tree regeneration.”

Response 5‐15: The sanitation harvest provision as described in the Nautilus DEIS would not target just

infested trees.  As stated on page 36, “In addition to removal of infested trees, thinning

treatments to increase resilience of the stand and to decrease the likelihood of a

sustained outbreak would be implemented.  Proposed treatments would likely involve

cutting green beetle‐infested trees and thinning stand to residual basal areas below 80.”  

Implementation of the sanitation harvest provision would require a site specific review

by Forest Service specialists to determine the most effective method of treatment.

Comment 5‐16: The BHNF is in violation of NEPA 40 CFR Sections 1502.14 and 1500.2 for not considering

all reasonable alternatives and not encouraging or considering public involvement.  The

BHNF needs to redo the DEIS, taking into consideration public comments, especially

those contained herein, and develop other alternatives, in accordance with NEPA

regulations.

Response 5‐16: See Response 5‐8.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐49

Letter 6:  Norma Kraemer

Comment 6‐1: I live adjacent to the area and what you do there will directly impact the use and safety

of my land.  Along with other neighbors we visited the so‐called "public meeting" at the

Nemo Hall.  It consisted of large maps laid across tables and a few Forest Service

personnel standing around to supposedly answer questions.  There was no formal

presentation or question and answer session to address concerns of those who took the

time to come.

Response 6‐1:  See Response 5‐8.

Comment 6‐2: I met with several neighbors and we spent an entire Saturday examining what

documents had been presented we could obtain on the Internet. We formulated our own

suggested plan based on our intimate knowledge of the area and desire to make the

area a more sustainable area for the future. To read your response in the over padded

book you mailed out that "no significant local comment was made" to be insulting.  After

we had our formal meeting we broke up sections of the plan and different members

constructed tables and graphs to illustrate our points because we felt our insights would

"help" your plan.  You only presented one "alternate plan."  Your job is to not just cut

and paste references from other documents into a bibliography so that it looks like you

were busy.  You needed to come up with several real "alternate plans."

Response 6‐2:   Input from the public is valuable but not all input represents a significant issue.  In many

cases, concerns with a proposed action are addressed through project‐specific design

criteria, modifications to the proposed action or compliance with Forest Plan direction.   

Several alternatives were suggested through public input during the scoping process.  

NEPA does not require the analysis of alternatives that would not achieve the purpose

and need of the project.  All comments received and alternatives suggested during

scoping were considered.  A total of 13 separate action alternatives were considered,

but ultimately were not carried forward for detailed analysis because they would not

achieve the purpose and need (DEIS, pages 38‐42).  

Comment 6‐3: You fail to grasp the fact that you are not running a tree farm.  Your proposed actions

will perpetuate the overabundance of ponderosa pine at the expense of other species

and the open spaces that are needed for fire safety and wildlife habitat.  Your current

"solution" will just encourage pine beetles to enjoy life for decades to come and give

wildland firefighters job security.  Your invoking the "Healthy Forest Restoration Act" to

sidestep your doing an adequate job of listening to the public, who is the actual owner of

the lands affected, is more of the continuing mismanagement of the Black Hills National

Forest.

The Norbeck Society has made formal comments that you should pay attention to.  Their

collective minds have a much better idea of what is going on that your Forest Service

employees.   

 

Response 6‐3: Comment noted.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐50

Letter 7:  Jean‐Claire Hamblin

Comment 7‐1: The Norbeck Society has made formal comments that you should pay attention to.  Their

collective minds have a much better idea of what is going on that your Forest Service

employees.   

 

Response 7‐1:   Comment noted.

Letter 8:  Carson Engelskirger, Black Hills Forest Resource Association

Comment 8‐1: We would like to commend the US Forest Service for recognizing the current mountain

pine beetle epidemic that is sprawling across the Black Hills. Removing susceptibility of

infestation to stands on the Black Hills National Forest needs to be the first priority.  In

his recent research The Influence of Partial Cutting on Mountain Pine Beetle‐caused Tree

Mortality in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands, Schmid states the following:

“If forest managers are to achieve long‐term multiple objectives, managers need

to assume that minimization of MPB‐caused mortality is the primary objective in

stands where incipient epidemic MPB populations arise and should temporarily

relegate other objectives to secondary status until the immediate threat from

epidemic MPB populations has been eliminated.  While this approach may be

contrary to the principle of multiple use and many objectives within the BHNF

Plan, it is essential to achieving many of the Plan’s long‐term multiple objectives.  

Allowing MPB populations to expand beyond the incipient stage will prevent

achievement of most other management objectives.”

Setting mountain pine beetles as the driving force behind the Purpose and Need, and

thus the Nautilus project, highlights the importance for more projects that address this

epidemic.  People who live, work and recreate here are sick of mountain pine beetles.  

Though we cannot speak for the general public, it is evident that there is strong support

such a project.

Response 8‐1: Comment noted.

Comment 8‐2: We also support the use of HFRA Authorities.  The Black Hills National Forest is a

textbook case for using such a tool and we commend the US Forest Service for its use on

the Nautilus Project.  We are also glad to see HFRA being used for addressing mountain

pine beetles.  Too often HFRA authorities are underutilized, and we agree and support

the direction the US Forest Service went with this project.

Response 8‐2: Comment noted.

Comment 8‐3: Our primary concern on this project is the intensity of commercial thinning proposed.  

With 72% of the project area at high risk for infestation from mountain pine beetle, we

recognize the need to reduce stand susceptibility which is primarily accomplished

through commercial thinning. In areas that are currently infested, we support

treatments that leave a 40 residual BA.  However, in areas that are at high risk, but have

no adjacent or immediate threat of infestation, we recommend a 60 residual BA for
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐51

stands.  Essentially, by treating more stands to 60 BA, we are able to extend our

resources and capacity to effectively treat more acres, without understocking stands and

reducing future productivity. Our push for this project is taking a landscape approach in

reducing mountain pine beetle infestation.

Treating to a 40 BA, while sometimes necessary in reaching desired structural stages or

addressing current infestations, significantly reduces timber output, creates stands that

are undesirable for many types of wildlife, and come across as aesthetically unappealing.

Typically in the Black Hills, thinned stands need about 20 years to double their basal

area.  If a stand is thinned to a 40 BA, then in 20 years it will only be at 80 BA, and

probably not in need of thinning.  Thus the stand is then on a 40‐year rotation.  

Conversely, thinning a stand to 60 BA, while still providing resistance to mountain pine

beetle, will be at 120 BA in 20 years and able to be commercially thinned.

Response 8‐3: Commercial thins to 40 BA were prescribed based on the Forest Health Evaluation

prepared for the Nautilus Project by the forest entomologist.    

Research by Schmid and Mata (2005) shows that stands below 80 are less susceptible to

beetle infestation than those at 120 BA.  By thinning to 40 BA in some stands, their long

term resilience to pine beetles is greater.  As the commenter notes, these stands would

take approximately 20 years to achieve 80 BA whereas if they were thinned to 60 BA,

they would reach 120 BA within 20 years and would again be at risk for beetle

infestation.

Comment 8‐4: If seed cuts are desired, we recommend leaving the residual overstory at stocking levels

of 10 BA.  Leaving 30 BA for a seed tree cut provides more than adequate seed source,

but also damages a larger portion of the advanced regeneration when it is to be

removed.   

We also recommend leaving larger residual trees in the seed cuts.  This makes them look

significantly better in comparison to many smaller trees left in a seed cut that are prone

to damage. 

Response 8‐4: Comment noted.

Comment 8‐5: When thinning through individual tree selection, we would also advocate for a 60‐80

residual BA unless at immediate risk for infestation.  We would like to see the FEIS

express the desired stocking levels resulting from individual tree selection in the Nautilus

project.

Response 8‐5: Residual stocking levels for individual tree selections will vary from stand to stand based

on stand specific conditions.  Also, because of the nature of the treatment, the residual

basal area will vary within the stand.  In general, the average residual basal area a given

stand following uneven aged management would be 50‐60.

Comment 8‐6: We would like to express our concerns over how precommercial thinning is done.  In past

field trips that the Black Hills Forest Resource Association has had with other districts, it

has become evident that  lopping and scattering and TSI thinning slash creates a large
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐52

fuel build up, that when RX burned, causes significant mortality to the residual trees on a

site.  We have observed this over several places on the forest.  There is a large portion of

precommercial thinning proposed for the Nautilus project.  We would recommend that a

roller chipper such as a Fecon head be used to masticate thinning slash reduce some of

the larger fuels on site.  This will increase efficiency and decrease fuel loads and costs

associated with precommercial thinning.  Use of mastication will also limit the extent of

ips infestation in precommercial thinning slash.  We would also ask the US Forest Service

to consider moving some of the precommercial treatments into commercial thinnings.  In

analyzing GIS data, it appears that several stands could be considered for this upgrade.

Response 8‐6: A discussion on activity fuels appears on pages 36‐37 of the Nautilus DEIS.  For non‐

commercial (i.e., pre‐commercial) treatments:  “Where funding and terrain allow, this is

usually accomplished with a masticator/chipper...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.”

Comment 8‐7: We would like to thank the Northern Hills Ranger District for including burn objectives on

page 32.  This is helpful and gives insight to the single largest treatment proposed on the

Nautilus project.  We are OK with up to 10,000 acres being burned over ten years, but

would like to see most of the burning done in stands that have had prior mechanical

treatments that did not utilize the lop and scatter method.  Our main concern for RX

burning is damage and/or mortality to the residual stands.   

On page 29 where it identifies the acres of prescribed burning, we feel that column

should represent the 10,000 acres instead of 25,350 acres, which is more a scope of

analysis.

Response 8‐7: Page 33 of the DEIS states “Where there is a specified objective to treatin trees smaller

than 3 inches to 5 inches, surface fuel loadings would be such that the fireline intensity

would achieve objectives provided by the 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 the silviculturist.”

The table on page 29 lists 25,350 acres because that is the maximum amount of area

where prescribed burning could occur under Alternative B.  Although it is expected that

only 10,000 acres will actually be burned within that area, the exact location of those

10,000 acres is difficult to specify at this time.  Consequently , the decision was made to

analyze for the maximum possible effect, providing the fuels specialist leeway to choose

the best sites on which to conduct prescribed burns in the future.  Although it is not

anticipated that 25,350 acres will be burned, analyzing for prescribed burning on all of

those acres leaves options open for future management.

Comment 8‐8: We are glad to see language supporting a sanitation clause included in the DEIS

materials.  This will undoubtedly give the US Forest Service greater flexibility in

addressing infestations before they are able to get away from managers.  This is a good

inclusion and we strongly support it.  We would also recommend that timber sale
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐53

boundaries be maximized to allow tools like the sanitation provision to be used to its

fullest.

Response 8‐8: Comment noted.

Comment 8‐9: Page 51 states “Additional Forest‐wide objectives call for providing 10% of structural

stage 4 with an average tree size of “very large” where the average size pine is greater

than 16 inches DBH...”  The Forest Plan makes no reference in Table 3‐4 to a specific size

such as 16”.  Please clarify in FEIS where this is cited from or omit size references.

Response 8‐9: Objectives 5.1‐204 and 5.4‐206 in the Forest Plan, which provide the Forest‐wide

structural stage objectives for management areas 5.1 and 5.4 respectively, state “10% of

the structural stage 4 ponderosa pine acreage in the management area will have an

average tree size of ‘very large’”.   

The Phase II Amendment FEIS on page II‐3 states “very large trees are defined as a stand

with an average stand quadratic mean diameter of 16 or more inches”.  This language

will be clarified in the Nautilus FEIS.

Letter 9:  Erika Schoen

Comment 9‐1: I am writing with regard to the Nautilus Project Draft EIS. In general I support the

position and comments submitted by the Norbeck Society. Specifically, I encourage you

to consider action alternatives that maintain mixed age forest management. Larger

pines should be kept for scenic purposes and to provide greater diversity in the managed

forest. I understand the need for managing our forest resources for many benefits, but I

am concerned about the extent of old growth logging and associated impacts, such

erosion and reduced water quality resulting from construction of logging roads. I believe

that one EIS action alternative is not adequate to decide on the best management plan

for this area.

Response 9‐1: A variety of age and size classes in ponderosa pine is provided for by the Forest‐wide

structural stage objectives.   

No old growth logging is proposed in the Nautilus Project.  All acres of structural stage 5

are deferred from treatment.

Analysis of impacts to water quality are analyzed in the DEIS.  This analysis is found on

pages 135‐168.

A total of thirteen additional action alternatives were considered but ultimately not

carried forward for detailed analysis.  These alternative are described, along with

rationale for not analyzing them in depth, on pages 38‐42 of the DEIS.

Comment 9‐2: Please protect visual quality, non‐motorized recreation and wildlife habitat by

maximizing the retention of individual large old yellow bark pine trees and retaining  

stands of the oldest pine trees.  The Forest Plan defines late succession stands  

(structural stage 5‐ SS 5) as stands characterized by trees at least 16 inch diameter at
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐54

breast height and with pine trees older than 160 years. This area has too little

designated old growth (SS 5).  You are planning to cut too many pines stands with trees

older than 130 years old, and will be converting too many older  pine stands to younger

stands, thus reducing  potential old growth trees and stands. This will  negatively effect

wildlife, but also negatively impact visuals and back‐country recreation values and

create a landscape that will look heavily modified by man.

Response 9‐2: A total of 1,250 acres of structural stage 5 was identified in the Nautilus project area and

all of that acreage was deferred from treatment under Alternative B.  Currently, SS 4C is

overabundant according to the Forest‐wide structural stage objectives for management

areas 5.1 and 5.4.  Harvest of SS 4C stands moves the Forest toward the structural stage

objectives.

Impacts of the Nautilus Project on recreation, wildlife and scenery are analyzed on

pages 79‐114 (Wildlife), 178‐186 (Recreation), and 186‐199 (Scenery).

Comment 9‐3: Please reduce the amount of overstory removal ‐‐ do not to convert so many stands

dominated by large yellow barks  into stands composed of small immature "black bark"

pine trees or saplings. Please create a moratorium on cutting of the oldest and largest  

individual trees and  retain more stands of older pines and more dense stands of older

pines.  Please consider more use of "uneven age"  logging ‐ thus creating more diversity

of tree age in some of the stands you cut.

 . 

Response 9‐3: Overstory removal treatments are typically not proposed on stands comprised of old,

“yellow bark” pines.  An overstory removal is a follow up treatment that is conducted in

a stand that was harvested with a seed cut at some point in the past.  The seed cut

treatment removed most of the large trees but left some behind to act as a seed source

to regenerate the stand.  Once that regeneration is well established, the overstory

removal treatment removes the remaining large trees from the stand, allowing the

regeneration to develop.  Overstory removals are silviculturally appropriate treatments

in stands that have already been harvested, and set up for an overstory removal, in the

past.

The Forest‐wide structural stage objectives provide for a variety of size and age classes

in ponderosa pine stands.  Uneven‐aged logging was proposed in areas of Nautilus

where it was found to be silviculturally appropriate.

Comment 9‐4: Please reduce road construction and reconstruction. Please increase road

decommissioning and closure. Please identify all campgrounds, trails and trail heads in

the area, even unofficial trails and campsites and protect visual quality along roads,  

trails or other recreation sites .

Response 9‐4: The amount of road construction and reconstruction proposed is necessary to carry out

the actions proposed in Alternative B.  The amount of construction was reduced slightly

between scoping and release of the DEIS based on further field reconnaisance.

All Forest Service‐administered campground, trails and trailheads are described in the

Recreation section of the Nautilus DEIS on pages 179‐180.   
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐55

Design criteria specifc to recreation or scenery are listed on pages C‐4, C‐5, C‐7, C‐9, C‐

and C‐10 of the Nautilus DEIS.

Comment 9‐5: Given the Forest Service's stated desire to reduce risk of beetles and fire, increased

conversion from pine to aspen is warranted. Aspen has a low fire risk and no pine bark

beetle risk.  However large old growth pines should not be removed from mixed

aspen/pine stands.

Response 9‐5: Alternative B would include a total of 764 acres of hardwood enhancement to maintain

established hardwood stands.  In addition, in pine stands proposed for a commercial

thin, any pockets of aspen 1⁄4 acre or larger would be maintained by removing pine from

within and around the inclusion.  The exact acreage this treatment would be applied to

is unknown at this time.  The wildlife biologist and silviculturist sought out all known

hardwood stands for enhancement and included them in Alternative B; it is not feasible

to create new hardwood stands where none currently exist.

Comment 9‐6: I recreate in the forest and I value natural appearing landscapes with old trees. Please

protect these values.

    

Response 9‐6: Comment noted.   

Letter 10:  Donna Watson (Note ‐  Most of this comment was a form letter identical to Letter 9.  

Therefore, only the comments that differ from those in Letter 9 are addressed here.  The remainder of

the letter reiterates Comments 9‐2 through 9‐6 above.)

Comment 10‐1: I would certainly like to see the draft include additional alternatives. Only one action

alternative is not adequate and not consistent with NEPA, it's implementing regulations

and related case law.

Response 10‐1: There is no regulation or law mandating a certain number of action alternatives to be

fully analyzed in an EIS.  NEPA requires that the agency consider a reasonable range of

alternatives.  Alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis are

part of this range.  The Nautilus DEIS describes 13 action alternatives on pages 38‐42

and provides rationale for why they were not fully analyzed.

Comment 10‐2: I would very much like to see specific provisions made for wildlife and wildlife migratory

patterns, particularly those of mountain lions, based on sound scientific data.

Response 10‐2: The impacts of Alternative B on wildlife are described on pages 79‐114 of the Nautilus

DEIS.  Design criteria developed to minimize impacts to specific wildlife are included on

pages C‐6, C‐9, C‐10, C‐11, and C‐13.

Mountain lions are not a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a Region 2

sensitive species, a management indicator species, or a species of local concern.  

Therefore, impacts specific to mountain lions are not analyzed in the Nautilus DEIS.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐56

Letter 11:  Les Heiserman (Note: This is another form letter, repeating the comments made in Letters 9

and 10.  See Comments 9‐2 through 9‐6 and Comment 10‐1 and all associated Responses above.)

Letter 12:  Nancy Hilding (Note: The first letter received from Ms. Hilding is identical to the form letter

discussed above.  See Comments 9‐2 through 9‐6 and Comment 10‐1 and all associated Responses.)

Letter 13:  Nancy Hilding, Prairie Hills Audubon Society

Comment 13‐1: We incorporate by reference, our scoping comments and our attachments to our scoping

comments on the Nautilus Project. Nancy Hilding and/or Prairie Hills Audubon sent in 7

letters on Dec 21, 2009 and another letter in the early morning of Dec 22, 2009.  We

believe we sent in substantive and extensive socping comments. Your responses to our

concerns are totally inadequate and we now resubmit the scoping comments as

comments on the DEIS via incorporation by reference. Please insure you answer all the

questions/concerns we raised in scoping ‐many of which you failed to answer in the DEIS,

by resubmitting them as comments on the DEIS, perhaps we can get them answered.

Response 13‐1: Comments received on the proposed action were addressed at that time.   A database

documenting all comments received, responses and determination of significance is

located in the Nautilus project file and is available upon request.

Comment 13‐2:We also find your review of the significant issues in the DEIS on pages 25‐26 ‐ when

combined with lack of response to issues we raised, to be insulting ‐ you say "the

majority of concerns raised during the scoping period were relatively minor issues that

could be addressed through the application of the Forest Plan Standards and

guidelines"" (page 25 of the Nautilus DEIS). We don't have copies of the set of scoping

comments, but we don't think that describes most of our concerns.  You then explain a

filter you use to disqualify comments as significant and thus only find 2 significant issues.  

We spend time to write substantive scoping comments about legitimate concerns and

we want more specifics, more detailed justifications on why you did not respond to our

or others scoping comments or consider more significant and why you did not create

another alternative.

Response 13‐2: See Response 13‐1.

Comment 13‐3:We incorporate by reference the 1997 Biodiversity Associates et. al, Appeal of the Record

of Decision on the 1997 Revision of Black Hills National  Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (Revised BHNF LRMP) submitted on Sept 30th, 1997 of which Prairie

Hills Audubon Society was a party. We specifically reassert within this appeal, the

arguments of the 1997 Biodiversity Associates et. al, Appeal, with respect to,

recreational activities, road densities,  dispersed recreation, ROS inventories and  

management, and visual quality inventories and management.  This includes but it not

limited to the text of pages 163‐204 and pages 268‐325 of that Appeal. We incorporate

by reference the section on pages 252‐266 about failure to adequately respond to

commentsWe incorporate by reference and reassert the arguments of Michael Melius's

intervention on that Appeal. We incorporate by reference the Green Party's Appeal

arguments about Wild and Scenic Rivers. We incorporate by reference the exhibits to the

appeal that document the arguments and facts.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐57

Response 13‐3: Appeals of the 1997 Forest Plan Revision have been decided and are outside the scope

of the Nautilus Project.

Comment 13‐4:We incorporate by reference both our PHAS appeals and Biodiversity

Associates/Biodiversity Conservation Alliance et al. appeals of the Phase I and Phase II

amendments to the Revised BHNF LRMP.   We incorporate by reference our appeals

(PHAS, Friends of the Norbeck and BCA et al.) appeals of the recent Travel Management

Plan.  We incorporate by reference the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance et al. appeal of

Citadel Project  and PHAS et al. appeal of Telegraph Project.  In these appeals we draw

special attention to the arguments that the Phase 2 amendments are illegal.   We

incorporate by reference our recent appeals of the Rattlesnake Project on the Bearlodge

district. We argue in these that the 1982 planning rule (not the 2000 rule) applies and

also provide the arguments against use of the interpretation amendments to the

transition rule (2009 transition version).

Response 13‐4: Appeals of the Phase I and Phase II Amendments, the Travel Management Plan, the

Citadel Project, the Telegraph Project and the Rattlesnake Project have either already

been decided or are currently being decided separately.  These appeals are outside the

scope of the Nautilus Project.

The 2000 planning rule is legally in effect until a new rule is established.

Comment 13‐5: Some Forest Service Manual/handbooks citations in our 1997 LRMP Revision, Phase 1

and Phase 2 Appeals may have changed in 13 years and some of the facts have changed.  

Also some amendments have partially corrected some of the problems raised in 1997

appeal, However the Travel Management Plan, the Phase 1 and 2 Amendments, fails to

correct many of the problems raised in these appeals. Also many FS actions and

decisions in the past 13 years have made things worse with regards to these issues.  The

Citadel, and Telegraph appeals argue convincingly how the Phase 2 amendment is illegal

and fails to protect resources when applied to projects.

Response 13‐5: The Phase II Amendment was upheld on appeal and was not challenged in court.  Any

comments pertaining to the legality of Phase II are outside the scope of the Nautilus

Project.

Comment 13‐6:We believe and argue that the Travel Management Plan is a major LRMP amendment

disguised as a project. We are basically arguing that the Nautilus DEIS is tiering to these

failed BHNF planning decision documents and is thus relying on an illegal and flawed  

LRMP.

Response 13‐6: The Forest Plan as amended was upheld on appeal and was not challenged in court.  The

Travel Management Plan is undergoing the appeals process at this time.  The legality of

these documents is outside the scope of the Nautilus Project.  Should the Travel

Management Plan decision be rescinded as a result of the appeals process, the existing

travel management situation would continue.  Such a situation would not fundamentally

change the purpose and need or the effects of the proposed activities in the Nautilus

Project.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐58

Comment 13‐7:While there is a map of structural stages (SS) on the BHNF web site there is no such map

in the hard copy DEIS as printed and distributed. Please clarify whether this web site SS

map is for the existing structural stages or after alternative B is finished. We assume the

web site map is for the current SS.  Please include in the FEIS a "before and after" map of

the structural stages (SS) for the project. Please also include a map of the under‐story

vegetation.  Please clearly identify all "mixed stands", where there is an upper canopy for

adult pine and a lower canopy for adult aspen/birch within the same stand.  Please

include a "cover‐type' map.

Response 13‐7: The structural stage map on the Nautilus web page displays the current conditions.  To

more clearly display the effects of Alternative B, pre and post‐treatment maps of

structural stage distribution will be included in the FEIS.  A cover type map will also be

included.  Understory vegetation is more difficult to clearly display because of the

variety of species present in the understory and the high number of individual stands in

the project area; the resulting map is extremely cluttered and difficult to read.  The

information used to make such a map is available in table format upon request but does

not lend itself to display in map format.

Comment 13‐8: Please include water influence zone map(s)‐a map that maps all streams showing where

all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral stream sections are.  Please include a map of

all ponds, wetlands and include a map of fens . Please include a map of all springs and

water improvements. If you have not inventoried for fens, please do so. Please include on

the map of all stream crossings by roads or log landings near water influence zone.

Please include on this map any places where the roads run with water during significant

rains and points where sediment/turbid water is delivered from the roads to the streams

‐ i.e. please identify the problem road sections from a water quality standpoint.

Please include a map of all planned log landings and maps of where log landing and

slash piles are prohibited. Please include a topographic map. Please include a map of the

boundaries of the recent timber sales mentioned in the DEIS, which map shall include

identification of all stands treated within the last 15 or 20 years. Please include a map

identifying any areas not logged in recent history. Please include a map showing the

numbers assigned to all stands.

  

Please provide a map of the pest surveys mentioned on page 21 of the DEIS. Please also

provide a map from earlier dates so as to see the progression, if any.  If you have maps

of weed infestations please include those and if you have maps of areas assigned to

goshawks, include that map.

We need such maps to be able to interpret this DEIS properly.

Response 13‐8: The information requested is located in the project file and is available upon request.

Comment 13‐9:  Please provide a chart for the percentages of structural stages for the total project not

just the two Management areas.  (see page 50‐51 of DEIS). Please include data on the

structural stages for the experimental forest (MA 5.3A).
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐59

Response 13‐9: The project‐wide structural stage distribution, including all cover types and

management areas, appears below.  Note that Forest Plan structural stage objectives

refer only to ponderosa pine in specific management areas.

    SS 1   115 acres (0.3%)

    SS 2 1,495 acres (4.2%)

    SS 3A 841 acres (2.4%)

    SS 3B 1,601 acres (4.5%)

    SS 3C 2,833 acres (7.9%)

    SS 4A 6,156 acres (17.2%)

    SS 4B 12,146 acres (34%)

    SS 4C 9,285 acres (30%)

    SS 5   1,250 acres (3.5%)

Structural stage distribution for MA 5.3A was not displayed in the DEIS because the

Forest Plan does not include objectives for that MA.  The current structural stage

distribution in MA 5.3A is:

      

SS 1   9 acres (0.3%)

    SS 2 66 acres (2%)

    SS 3A 110 acres (3.3%)

    SS 3B 181 acres (5.5%)

    SS 3C 422 acres (12.7%)

    SS 4A 171 acres (5.2%)

    SS 4B 1,363 acres (41%)

    SS 4C 996 acres (30%)

    SS 5   0 acres

This also represents the Forest‐wide distribution of MA 5.3A because the entire

management area is located within the Nautilus project area.

Comment 13‐10:  On page 12 of DEIS you discuss the Mountain Pine Beetle. You indicate negative  

visual effects from red needles in trees.  These beetle impacts are temporary and the

long term visual impacts are the creation of a meadow or less dense pine stand or cover

type conversion. Timber sales bring stumps, slash, slash piles, scarified earth, weeds,

roads and less trees, while beetle kills brings red needles and snags. I grew up in New

England, where the trees are bare for about half a year and there is beauty in viewing

the branches and structure of leafless trees and the forest below such trees. Please be

fair in your evaluation of transitioning visual effects on the landscape of all man made

and natural changes.  Please discuss not only the short term visual effects but the long

term visual effects.  

Response 13‐10:  Effects related to scenery are discussed on pages 186‐199 of the DEIS.

Comment 13‐11:  On page 12 of DEIS you explain the reason for Beetles as "Southwestern South Dakota  

is recently removed from a prolonged drought and beetle infestations are currently

widespread". However in your fire sections when reviewing the dramatic increase in fires

since 1980 you fail to discuss the effect of that drought on fire frequency/severity. Please
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐60

discuss the effects on past fire and future fire of the drought and reprieve from drought

in your fire section on page 13.

    

Response 13‐11:  The discussion on pages 12‐13 of the DEIS is meant to be a brief overview of the

factors affecting current conditions in the project area.  A more complete discussion of

existing conditions related to fire is located on pages 69‐72 of the DEIS.

Comment 13‐12:  On page 14‐15 of the DEIS you provide a list of BHNF Land and Resource Management  

Plan goals which include Goals 1‐4 and 7 and 10. But on page 16‐18 you only review in

detail Goal 1, 2 and 10. Please discuss why you did not include  Goals 3,4 and 7 in this

more substantive review on page 16‐18.  Please provide equal discussion for these other

goals especially goal # 4.

Response 13‐12:  The inclusion of Goals 3, 4 and 7 on page 15 is a typographical error.  As noted on that  

page “other Forest Plan goals and objectives not mentioned below also provide

guidance and are achieved to varying degrees degrees.”  Goals 1, 2 and 10 were chosen

as focal points because of their direct relation to the purpose and need for the Nautilus

Project.

Comment 13‐13:  On page 17 you quote objective 10‐01, This Goal says "Manage for 50‐70 percent  

moderate‐to‐low fire hazard in the wildland‐urban interface and reduce fire hazard

within proximity of structures to current NFPA stands except in ŠŠ"

The objective 10‐01 does not specific the fire hazard to be limited to that of crown fires.  

The BHNF estimates of fire risk ‐ such as displayed in the maps in this DEIS, is always just

for risk of crown fires, which is a function of Structural stage/cover type ‐‐ i.e its just a

map of structural stages/cover types with new colors assigned.  

Please clearly explain how many of your standards, guidelines, goals, rules, objectives

refer to a fire hazard that is a general in nature versus a fire hazard that is narrowly

qualified as just being about crown fire risk.  The BHNF management choice during

projects is almost always about action designed to reduce the risk of "crown fires", but

ironically your directives are sometimes about reducing risk of all fires.  Please be very

clear about whether you are reducing risk of ALL TYPES OF FIRE, or just SOME TYPES OF

FIRE and which policy requires you to reduce risk of ALL TYPES OF FIRE and which just the

risk of CROWN FIRES.

In this section and through out the rest of the DEIS document, please be clear to

differentiate whether you are addressing CROWN FIRE risk or risk of all types of fire.

Response 13‐13:  The term “fire hazard” as used in the Forest Plan is defined on page 13 of Appendix B  

of the Phase II Amendment FEIS.  It states: “The fire hazard rating used variables that

calculate ratings for a torching index and a crowning index.  These variables are used in

FVS growth and yield software calculating a fire hazard”.  In Table B‐5 on page 14 of

Appendix B, fire hazard values are tied to ponderosa pine structural stages.  This table

was used to analyze the existing fire hazard in the Nautilus project area and to analyze

the effects of Alternative B on reducing fire hazard.  The terms “fire hazard” in the

Forest Plan and the Nautilus DEIS refer to the same thing.  When the Nautilus DEIS
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐61

discusses reducing fire hazard, it is referring to movement toward Forest Plan goal 10‐

01.

Comment 13‐14:  On page 19 you say, "Forest stands of varying shapes, sizes, and age classes provide a

variety of habitats for associated plant and animal species and also have high scenic

quality."  (emphasis added) .We request you delete this statement about "high scenic

quality". This statement ‐ that varying the shapes, sizes and age classes of stands

provides for "high scenic quality" ‐‐‐ is self serving excuse to cut trees and has never been

proven true by the Forest Service. We challenge that this is based in best science. Scenic

quality is subjective and scenic impacts need to be reviewed in specific locations and

can't be so broadly generalized/simplified. For example stands of large old yellow barks

can provide some very scenic values/qualities that a 3c stand just simply can't.  Large

yellow barks towering over a mixed stand of aspen/birch can provide higher visuals than

the view created after you cut out the old yellow barks from the aspen stand. Visual

quality is not this simple or convenient.

Response 13‐14:  Comment noted.

Comment 13‐15:  Does the HFRA require collaboration with Native American Tribes? If so‐‐  was there  

collaboration with the Tribes who have not yet settled with the USA about their claims to

the Black Hills?

Response 13‐15:  HFRA does not require collaboration with Native American tribes; however, National  

Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation with potentially affected tribes is

conducted for every NEPA project  conducted on the district.  The tribes consulted have

not voiced any concerns over the Nautilus Project.

Comment 13‐16:  We don't think the primary purpose is to reduce Mountain pine beetle risk and many  

of the type of timber cuttings chosen ‐ such as the many overstory removal cuts,  can't be

justified as mountain pine bark beetle driven.  Furthermore there is much scientific

debate about the efficacy of vegetative treatments to reduce mountain pine beetles,

including what basal area reductions are effective if any are. We have heard of much

more aggressive basal area reductions being needed in other places in the Black Hills.

Please discuss the scientific debate and experience in the Black Hills.

Further more on pages 21‐22 you list other pieces of the" purpose and need" ‐ i.e. fire

threat, watershed conditions, forest research and diversity of wildlife habitat.

Response 13‐16: See Response 4‐4.

Comment 13‐17: The Purpose and Need is too narrow and thus violates NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

Response 13‐17:  The commenter offers no evidence to support this statement.  The purpose and need  

includes four separate elements including reducing mountain pine beetle risk, reducing

fire hazard, improving watershed conditions and providing for a diversity of wildlife

habitat.

Comment 13‐18:  On page 22 you mention that three counties require a half mile buffer around all

structures.  Does federal law and rule allow for the WUI to be the area around any single
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐62

building of any type, anywhere within the forest ‐‐  if the counties want that?  Please

review the policies on this.

Response 13‐18:  The WUI buffer defined by Lawrence, Meade and Pennington Counties is the same as  

that used to define WUI in the Forest Plan.  HFRA also recognizes the buffer defined by

the Community Wildlife Protection Plans (CWPP).  The CWPPs define the WUI around

identified values at risk.

Comment 13‐19:  Where do you get the filter for significant vs insignificant issues that you review on  

page 25‐26 of the DEIS? Please give a citation for this filter. We object to it ‐‐ it does not

seem consistent with the case law we know about  for NEPA.   We believe that this filter

is illegal.

Please provide a list of all comment types ‐ we assume you have some breakdown or

summary of scoping issues by type/topic and the number of people who raised each

issue or issue category. Please provide a list of the people who sent in scoping

comments.

Response 13‐19:  The filter used is from a program developed by the Forest Service and used by other  

federal agencies to train NEPA practitioners.  There is no law or regulation defining how

issues should or should not be filtered to determine significance.

The database documenting all scoping comments and how they were categorized is

located in the project file and is available through FOIA.

Comment 13‐20:  One action alternative is insufficient and providing only one violates NEPA, the CEQ  

regulation that implement NEPA and numerous court decisions. Please provide

additional alternatives.

Please provide an alternative that addresses the contrary scientific view (science that

disagrees with the science you chose to believe in) that will be raised in Richard Artley's

comments and the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and were raised in our scoping

comments.  Please provide an alternative, that provide for more retention of individual

large old yellow bark pine trees, more retention of stands dominated by older pines over

130 years of age.  Please provide for an alternative that maximized interior forest and

minimizes fragmentation.  Please provide for an alternative that minimizes road

impacts.  Please provide for an alternative that increases type conversion from pine to

aspen/birch and oaks. Please provide for an alternative that maximizes protection of

water quality and water bodies.   Please provide for an alternative that maximizes visual

quality protection and inventories and protects "defacto" non‐motorized trails in the

area.

Response 13‐20:  NEPA and CEQ do not define a minimum number of alternatives that must be fully  

analyzed.  A reasonable range of alternatives is required.  The Nautilus Project

considered a total of 13 additional action alternatives in addition to Alternative B.  A

description of these alterantives and the rationale for not analyzing them fully appears

on pages 38‐42 of the DEIS.  This satisfies the range of reasonable alternatives required

by the regulations.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐63

Richard Artley did not submit comments on the Nautilus DEIS.  Biodiversity Conservation

Alliance’s comments are addressed under Letter 4 above.   

All alternatives suggested by the commenter, with the exception of one maximizing

protection of water quality and water bodies, were already addressed in the DEIS on

pages 38‐42.  An alternative that narrowly focused on water quality would achieve the

purpose and need element of improving watershed conditions, but would not move to

reduce mountain pine beetle risk or fire hazard, or to affect structural diversity for

wildlife habitat.  Such a narrowly defined alternative would not meet the overall

purpose and need of the project.  Watershed improvement projects (DEIS, page 34)

were developed and included in Alternative B to address hydrology concerns in the area

and to comply with Forest Plan requirements for management of Class III watersheds.

Comment 13‐21:  The recreation section fails to provide enough details about existing trails, picnic and  

camping sites and trail heads. Please map them.  Please provide an ROS inventory.

Response 13‐21:  Maps of recreation facilities are available at Forest Service offices.  It is not clear from  

the comments why maps of such facilities would benefit the Nautilus document.

As stated in Table 3‐59 on page 179 of the Nautilus DEIS, the ROS for the entire project

area is “roaded natural”.

Comment 13‐22:  The DEIS should review the SIO set by Joby Timm's computer during the 1997 LRMP  

revision.

These values are set using improper sensitivity levels and the levels of relative beauty are

calculated by a computer.  Your SIO are based in junk, you are tiering to junk and all

SIO's need to be ground truthed at the Project level.  Please do new inventory of the SIO

via this project.

Further more your guidelines to protect scenery are inadequate and your review of the

visual effects of fire and beetles on the landscape is biased and too short term. More

protection from the impacts of slash and overstory removals is needed.

Response 13‐22:  SIO are more appropriately defined at the Forest level to ensure that the same  

procedure is used Forest‐wide, rather than differing procedures being used on individual

projects.  Redefining SIO is outside the scoped of the Nautilus Project.

The scenery analysis was completed by a professional landscape architect.  

Comment 13‐23:  The Socio‐economics section begins on page 205 of the DEIS. Like all other DEIS for  

timber sales in the BHNF, it considers the socio‐economic analysis area to be the counties

where the project is located.

Due to the unresolved nature of the Lakota/Sioux treaty claims to the Black Hills, the FS

should always consider the Tribes, who claim the Black Hills to be part of the affected

population during socio‐economic review and thus the actions taken to manage the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐64

Black Hills should always have an environmental justice component.  While the Supreme

Court has only given the Sioux a choice of monetary settlement, the Tribes have refused

to settle. Ownership of the Black Hills is a huge and very important issue to Sioux/Lakota.  

This DEIS section on ‐‐  Socio‐Economics‐‐  is not about Supreme Court decisons, but

about social impacts.  Thus the perception of tribal people ‐ their deeply held values and

cultural pride ‐ should be included when you discuss social impacts. When in a social

review ‐‐ the belief of people takes precedence over the Supreme Court property

settlement. Thus the selling of timber that some Tribes believe belongs to them, not the

USA, should be disclosed as an environmental justice issue.  Please discuss this issue.

The recreating public and the recreation/tourism industry for the Black Hills occurs in

more than just three counties.  The Forest Service is not required to meet all multiple use

objectives on each acre of Forest and thus needs of some user groups can be met in

subsets of the forest that are not in Counties that the users live in.  The timber mills and

contractors for the timber sale may come from other counties and their profits and taxes

may effect other counties/areas.  Please discuss this issue

Please discuss why the area studied in the Socio Economic and Environmental Justice

section should not be larger, to include the entire Black Hills area and also the

reservations of tribes with unresolved legal and moral issues over ownership of the Black

Hills.

Response 13‐23:  Consultation is conducted with the tribes.  No concerns have been voiced regarding  

the Nautilus Project.  The issues of Lakota treaty claims is outside the scope of the

Nautilus Project.

Social effects could conceivably occur to individuals from other states or other nations

who visit or work in the Black Hills for only a short time.  The scope of the analysis has to

be set at such a level that allows for a meaningful discussion of the issues.  If the scope

is too narrow, then larger effects could go unnoticed.   If the scope is too wide, then

effects are washed out.  The analysis in Nautilus was focused on the three counties

within the project area because they would experience the highest direct impacts of the

project.

Comment 13‐24:  The DEIS at page 213 explains that the Forest will lose 15.1 million dollars on this  

timber sale.

The economics section should include a review of the regional and national timber

market and the price of timber sold via the bids received by the Black Hills National

Forest.  It should address the question of whether the price for selling logs is relatively

high or low right now and whether it would profit the government more to sell the

timber now or at a later date, when sell price might be higher/lower.  Please discuss

these issues.

Response 13‐24:  The economic analysis is for comparative purposes only, based on current costs and  

timber values.  Non‐monetary costs and benefits, analyzed elsewhere in the Nautilus

DEIS, are considered along with the monetary costs and benefits before a final decision

is made.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐65

Comment 13‐25:  This analysis assumes that fire or beetle events result in a loss of aesthetics ( that  

exceeds the loss of aesthetics from a timber sale) and that this loss of aesthetics

adversely impacts tourism.  We don't think the FS has proved this point and anyway such

an aesthetic loss/benefit calculation must be seen long term visual impacts lasting

beyond a few years, especially when we are speculating about fires/beetle events that

may or may not happen in the long term future and we have no idea of the time frames

of these speculative events. Today's  blacked fire kill or  todays beetle killed red trees is

tomorrows green meadow or aspen or oak stand.   Such fire/beetle impacted areas can

progress to great beauty in several years after the killing event and thus today's adverse

impacts on tourism can be tomorrows benefit.

Response 13‐25: Comment noted.

Comment 13‐26:  We are not sure from reading this section as to whether required consultation with  

Tribes has occurred. We are told you sent them letters. Please clarify all the tribal

consultation requirements  with respect to heritage resources and  how  and when these  

requirements have been complied with.

Response 13‐26:  Tribal consultation has occurred.  Tribes received the scoping letter announcing the  

proposed action and a letter announcing availability of the DEIS.  Formal Section 106

consultation has also taken place regarding significance of cultural sites.  Documentation

of consultation efforts is located in the project file.

Comment 13‐27: We believe the ongoing logging of old trees and stands of old trees, which is occurring  

forest wide to be creating cumulatively a loss of structural stage 5 trees and this is an

irretrievable commitment of resources.  We also believe that very little of the forest

qualifies for high end ROS (semi‐primitive and primitive ROS class) and any loss of areas

that qualify for such high end ROS is irretrievable, however we can't tell from the DEIS if

any such special areas exist in the Project area, as the ROS  criteria of evidence of

humans and social setting criteria are not discussed.   We are not however aware of such

areas being in this location. We request a proper ROS inventory (pursuant to the "ROS

User's Guide be done for the project area.

Response 13‐27:  No stands of structural stage 5 are proposed for harvest under the Nautilus Project.   

See Response 13‐21 regarding ROS.

Comment 13‐28: The Forest Service should discuss the ASQ, which was settled on in 1997 and whether  

the cumulative impact of fires, beetles and the BHs timber program has substantially

changed circumstances and what ASQ can be supported ‐ i.e. is there less commercial

grade pine on the Black Hills and  has this lowered what the ASQ should now be. DEIS

should also review all the cutting of timber younger than the "culmination of mean

annual increment" in the Black Hills since 1997. Has the Forest been cutting lots of pine

below the CMAI and has this also effected the ASQ the BHNF can support for long term

sustainability of both the timber resource and other resources associated with pine

stands.  Can the cut of Nautilus combined with other cuts support sustained community

uses in an environmentally acceptable manner (LRMP goal 3)?.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐66

Response 13‐28: Analysis of ASQ is a Forest‐level issue and is beyond the scope of the Nautilus Project.

Comment 13‐29:  More type conversion to aspen, birch and hardwood is needed.  However this  

objective should not be achieved by removing large yellow bark pines from existing

aspen stands.  The forest Service should find the small aspen stands and cut pine away

from the edges of the small aspen stands ‐ creating something like a ring or  doughnut

effect ‐ the aspen can spread out into the new opening created.  Stands of mixed aspen

and pine provide a birding resource as you have species that use both habitats in the

same area (greater richness of species).  Mixed stands also provide a visual resource.

Response 13‐29:  Pages 30‐31 of the Nautilus DEIS describes how pockets of aspen within pine stands  

would be maintained through pine removal.  Type conversion would not occur in these

areas because pine would remain as the dominant species in the stand, but the pockets

of aspen would be maintained and have the opportunity to expand.

Comment 13‐30:  We want less overstory removal and a moratorium on cutting of individual old yellow  

bark trees and the older pine stand.

We want less road reconstruction and construction and more road obliteration and

closure.

We want better assurances for the protection of the water influence zones water quality.

We want better assurances for the handling of slash and log landings.

Response 13‐30:  Comment noted.

Letter 14:  Nancy Hilding

Comment 14‐1: In the Nautilus FEIS please include a discussion of mountain lions as a species of local

concern. Please include elks as a species of local concern.

Please discuss the habitat needs of both and how the project will effect such.

Please be sure to review all scientific literature especially that generated locally. Please

be sure to discuss the effect of roads on their habitat security.

Response 14‐1: Species of local concern are not identified at the project level.  This issue is outside the

scope of the Nautilus Project.

Comment 14‐2:As one management area is about big game winter range, please pay special attention

to needs of elk.

Response 14‐2: Alternative B would be consistent with Forest Plan direction for management area 5.4.

Comment 14‐3: Please improve the discussion of impacts on Oak habitat.

Response 14‐3: Analysis of impacts to hardwood communities appears on pages 98 through 104 of the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐67

Nautilus DEIS.  It is not clear from the comments how or why the discussion should be

improved.

Letter 15:  Paul Pierson, Neiman Timber Compnay

Comment 15‐1:Neiman Timber Company would again like to thank you for the opportunity to review  

and comment on the Nautilus Project.  We would like to recognize the US Forest Service’s

(USFS) efforts to try to get ahead of the mountain pine beetle problems that are

plaguing the Black Hills. We also agree with the appropriate use of the 2003 Healthy

Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) with this project.  It is extremely important that the Black

Hills National Forest (BHNF) increase its level of treatments to reduce the stocking levels

of trees greater than 8 inches that are at high risk for wildfires and insect and disease

threats, and the length of time to implement the decision.

Response 15‐1:  Comment noted.

Comment 15‐2:Neiman Timber Company agrees with the primary purpose and need for action being ‘to

reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation’.  We also agree that reducing the

risk of high intensity wildfires is an important purpose and need for action in the Nautilus

Project.  It is apparent from viewing the current  risk levels for both, which far exceed the

Forest Plan’s objectives, that this project area needs to be treated to significantly reduce

the existing risks.

We agree with the USFS that providing for diversity of wildlife habitat as part of the

Purpose of and Need for Action.  About one third of the project is in MA 5.4 which is

supposed to be managed to provide high quality winter and transitional habitat.  

Response 15‐2: Comment noted.

Comment 15‐3: Reducing stands to a 40 BA stocking level in high beetle outbreak areas such as the

western part of the project is warranted to stop the current outbreak.  We are

concerned, however, about targeting a 40 BA in other areas of the project.

Our concern is that in most cases there is not a significant difference in insect or fire risk

between a stand thinned to a 40 BA instead of a 60 BA.  Industry is limited by volume

treated and not acreage treated.  Treating stands unnecessarily to a 40 BA instead of a

60 BA uses up valuable capacity that industry has that should be used to treat more

acreage.

Response 15‐3: Thinning to 40 BA was proposed based on recommendations made by the forest

entomologist.  Reductions to this level may not result in a signficant difference in pine

beetle risk in the short‐term, but the reduction risk could potentially be longer lasting.

Although commercial thin to 40 BA is listed as the primary treatment for many stands in

the project area, because of structural diversity within individual stands, that treatment

wouldn’t always be applied to the entire stand.  For example, 60% of a stand may

receive the 40 BA thin, but the rest may be treated through individual tree selection or

hardwood enhancement, based on individual stand characteristics.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐68

Comment 15‐4: We recommend that the Forest Service vary thinning densities over the project area to

create a diversity of forest stands, which will be more resilient on a landscape level to

insects, disease, and wildfire.  We would recommend that where the USFS is planning to

commercially thin they should thin at higher basal areas around 60‐80 BA on their better

sites with no adjacent mountain pine beetle populations (ie northwest to east, slopes

and better soils) and on southeast to west slopes reduce the basal area to around 40 to

60.  These southern aspect slopes generally have lower site indexes due to drier

conditions and also have higher potential to burn hotter and faster due to summer

preheating and predominant southerly winds.  Many of these south slopes are now

overstocked and should be thinned and prescribe burned for wildfire mitigation. This

management strategy also is beneficial to elk and deer because opening up these south

slopes to the sun, especially in the 5.4, accelerates the melting of the snow which in turn

provides loafing areas and forage for big game in the winter.   

Response 15‐4: This comment largely describes what is proposed in Alternative B.  Commercial thins

varying from 40‐60 BA are proposed along with seed cuts, overstory removals, individual

tree selection, group selection, hardwood enhancement, meadow enhancement,

product other than log, and pre‐commercial thinning to create a diversity of age classes

and structures across the project area.  The wildlife biologist and silviculturist worked

together to develop treatments in MA 5.4 that would benefit big game habitat.

Comment 15‐5: It was noted that over 6000 acres have been dropped from the scoping to the draft EIS

for various reasons.  We strongly urge the Forest Service to analyze these areas for

environmental impacts of sanitation treatments within these areas now.  One of the

problems that have come up in the Telegraph Project is when MPB trees are identified on

the ground outside timber sale cutting units, it needs to go through the specialists to see

whether or not we can harvest the infected trees. This may take a few weeks to get an

answer on taking out the infested trees in one of these special concern areas.  By the

time we get an answer our logging crews are no longer in the area to go after the

infested trees.  If this analysis was done at the project level we could be more effective at

stopping these infestations from expanding.   

We would like to see these stands looked at again for treatment.  We are seeing that

areas left out of harvesting for wildlife or botanical reasons in the Telegraph project

become hot spots for mountain pine beetle.  If the wildlife or plant species requires

mature ponderosa pine in the overstory it is critical to reduce the risk of mountain pine

beetle in these stands.

Response 15‐5: Of the acreage dropped from the proposed action between scoping and release of the

DEIS, 4,899 of them were pre‐commercial thin units.  These units were originally

prescribed for a pre‐commercial thin because commercial harvest is not appropriate at

this time.  Ultimately, the units were dropped due to other concerns (e.g. logging

feasibiliy, plant or wildlife habitat, soils).   

Another 1,200 acres of treatment that appeared in the scoping proposed action were

identified as either old growth or goshawk treatments.  Upon further review, it was

determined that the best course of action at this time for both types of stands was no
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐69

treatment.  The most likely alternative would be thinning to reduce understory

vegetation; at this time the specialists felt the overstory should not be manipulated.

Comment 15‐6:We again would like to state our approval of the landscape scale treatments throughout

the project.  This is the type of large scale approach that is needed to stop the MPB and

maintain a healthy ecosystem for all to enjoy.

Response 15‐6: Comment noted.

Comment 15‐7:We appreciate the work the USFS has already accomplished on the project and applaud

the efforts for proactive management.  It is critical that we first control the population of

MPB we have and then reduce the risk in other areas second.  Overall, we believe that

this project does that.  We look forward to working with them on crafting a suitable

alternative that addresses the Need for and Purpose of objectives.   

Response 15‐7: Comment noted.

Letter 16:  Lawrence County Commissioners/Lawrence County Timber Committee

Comment 16‐1: The Lawrence County Timber Committee commends the USFS in its efforts preparing the

Nautilus Projec t DEIS.  Specifically, the Committee acknowledges the USFS’s attempt to

try to get ahead of the mountain pine beetle epidemic that is plaguing the Black Hills.  

The District’s decision to use HFRA in expediting the implementation of the planned

treatments and choosing landscape scale treatments instead of treating a large number

of small units scattered through the landscape will be very beneficial.

Response 16‐1: Comment noted.

Comment 16‐2: The Committee believes the USFS did a good job meeting the primarey Purpose and

Need for Action of this project which  was to “reduce the risk of mountain pine beetle

infestation.”  Employing forest management strategies such as landscape treatments

and sanitation harvests will significantly reduce the potential of large scale mountain

pine beetle epidemics.

We agree with the USFS that providing for diversity of wildlife habitat should be a part of

the Purpose and Need for Action.  About one third of the project is in MA 5.4 which is to

be managed to provide high quality winter and transitional habitat.

Response 16‐2: Comment noted.

Comment 16‐3: The Timber Committee appreciates that the USFS identified the differences between the

Scoping Proposed Action and the DEIS Proposed Action.  It was easy to follow and

explained well.  Although we recognize and support the USFS efforts to treat a very large

portion of the project area, we are concerned about the withdrawal of over 6,000 acres

that were proposed to be treated in the Scoping action.  We recommend that the USFS

fully evaluate these areas for mountain pine beetles.  If there are any indications of

mountain pine beetle, we woud recommend at least applying sanitation treatments.  

Assuredly, the USFS does not want to allow incipient epidemic levels to blossom into a
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐70

full blown epidemic.  We also believe that the USFS needs to reevaluate their prioritizing

narrowly defined objectives such as protecting a sensitive plan or species of local concern

for 1 to 3 years over maintaining the forest health over the larger landscape.  It makes

no sense to allow mountain pine beetle to destroy these overstocked stands when some

early intervention could stop the infestation.

Comment 16‐3: See Response 15‐5.

Comment 16‐4:We support the USFS’s landscape approach of treating most of the forested landscape

within this project.  The large reduction from 94% to 49% in high to moderate mountain

pine beetle risk should prove to be a very wise decision.

Response 16‐4: Comment noted.

Comment 16‐5:We are very supportive of this “Adaptive Forest Management” strategy.  It allows the

USFS the ability to react swiftly and precisely to small mountain pine beetle outbreaks.  It

is crucial that the USFS no allow these small outbreaks to get out of hand and reach

critical mass.  We agree with USFS entomologist (Allen 2010) that the USFS should begin

“sanitation harvest methods” when the population has reached “incipient epidemic

levels”.  “The first major sign of incipient epidemic levels occuring are “when groups of

beetle‐hit trees begin 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).”  Accordingly, we would recommend that the USFS

provide for maximum flexibility in dealing with future mpb outbreaks by allowing for

sanitation treatments, if need be, in areas not identified for treatment.

Response 16‐5: The sanitation harvest provisions for Nautilus are described on pages 35 and 36 of the

DEIS.

Comment 16‐6:We are concerned about the amount of 40 ba to 50 ba thinning.  As proposed in

Alternative B modified, almost 60% of the commercial thinning would be done between

40 and 50 square feet of basal area per acre.  It is important that the USFS not over react

and thin the forest too much.  This heavy thinning could be appropriate where the stand

contains a significant amount of POL sized trees not being cut that would contribute to

the residual basal area.  These treatments are not appropriate where the commercial ba

per acre is over 80% of the trees per acre and the trees are small sawtimber.  We are

also concerned that the majority of the acreage being heavily thinned to 40 to 50 basal

area per acre are fully regenerated (over 600 trees) with seedling to sapling

regeneration.  We question why the USFS plans to thin these stands rather than applying

an overstory removal treatment.  Thinning standards to 40 ba to 50 ba would also be

appropriate where there is heavy mountain pine beetle presence.  This situation is not

present in this project.  In fact, due to the large amount of landscape treatments

throughout this project the amount of heavy thinning appears to be unjustified from a

mountain pine beetle risk standard.  Phase 2 language in the amended BHLRMP provide

appropriate guidance on addressing thinning standards (Objective 10‐07).  This

information coincides with the current scientific thinning recommendations of 60 square

feet of basal area per acre.  We feel that any further reduction for the sake of reducing

the mountain pine beetle risk is unwarranted.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐71

Response 16‐6: See Responses 8‐3 and 15‐3.

Comment 16‐7: This heavy thinning also creates problems with the public who do not prefer the thin

appearance of stands that have undergone this type of thinning.  If the USFS is too

aggressive with the treatments, especially over a large area, we could find ourselves on

the wrong side of public confidence and acceptance.  On page 190, the USFS states that,

“Vegetation treatments that reduce the overstory tree component to 40 basal

area...create the most negative visual effects.”

This statement also needs to be clarified.  We think this statement is too general since

there is a significant difference between leaving a stand of large diameter (15 inch plus)

pine trees at 40 basal area with a heavy regeneration in the udnerstory as compared to

a stand of small commercial (9 to 11 inches diameter) trees cut to a 40 basal area.

Response 16‐7: See Response 15‐3 regarding stand diversity.  The statement on page 190 is referring to

treatments with residual BA below 40, in particular seed cuts and overstory removals.   

For the most part, large contiguous blocks of commercial thinning to 40 BA are avoided

in the Nautilus project area.  The exception is an area in the northwestern corner of the

project area, which is nearest to the expanding mountain pine beetle epidemic in the

Custer Peak area, immediately to the west.

Comment 16‐8:As mentioned in our scoping letter, heavy thinning “to this spacing significantly reduces

the growth potential of these stands into the future.  Alexander and Edminister in

Research Paper RM‐228: Management of Ponderosa Pine in Even‐Aged Stands in the

Black Hills indicates that the highest productivity for growing commercial trees for site

indexes of 60 or greater is at stocking levels of 140 basal area.  While we do not

advocate managing the entire forest at these levels dueto other forest management

objectives, we are concerned, that by thinning to 40 basal area, the future productivity

of stands particularly in MA 5.1 – which has timber production as one of its main goals –

is significantly reduced.  Alexander and Edminister research indicates that there is a 40%

reduction in the amount of wood produced between GSL 40 and 140 based on 120 year

rotation and 20 year cutting cycle.”

To improve vegetative diversity it is suggested that the USFS thin at higher basal areas

around 80 BA on the most suitable sites (i.e. northwest to east slopes and areas with

better soils) and reduce the basal area to around 40 to 60 ba on southeast to west

slopes.  These southern aspect slopes generally have lower site indexes due to drier

conditions and also have higher potential to burn hotter and faster due to summer

preheating and predominant southerly winds.  Many of these south slopes are now

overstocked and should be thinned and prescribe burned for wildfire mitigation.  This

management strategy is also beneficial to elk and deer because opening up these south

slopes to the sun, especially in the 5.4, accelerates the melting of the snow which in turn

provides loafing areas and forage for big game in the winter.

Varying the stocking levels by site index is a rational approach to increasing stocking

diversity and site productivity.  This approach also simulates what most likely occurred

historically during pre‐settlement times.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐72

Response 16‐8: See Responses 15‐3 and 15‐4.

Comment 16‐9:We would also recommend clarifying the first section of the Proposed Activities on page

23.  It is suggested the word “Thinning” be changed to “Commercial treatments”.  

Commercial thinning is only going to take place on 6635 acres.

Response 16‐9:  Comment noted.  The language in the FEIS reflects this change.

Comment 16‐10:  The USFS is proposing to seed tree cut approximately 2154 acres of the project to a 30

basal area.  Analysis of the vegetative data indicates that almost 82% (1763 acres) of

this treatment area has at least 2000 seedlings and saplings per acre.  We question why

these stands should not be subject to overstory removal or at least decreased to 10

square feet of basal area per acre.

We also question the wisdom of precommercially thinning these stands after leaving

such a heavy overstory.  It should be very evident from past practices that this residual

overstory will restock any areas that are opened up by precommercial thinning resulting

in 2 stories of regeneration.

Response 16‐10:  Pre‐commercial thinning is proposed for nearly all of the acreage to be commercially

treated to provide leeway in performing follow up treatments.  Following the

commercial harvest, each unit would be evaluated and a determination would be made

regarding what type of follow up treatment, if any, is necessary.  Analyzing these stands

for pre‐commercial thinning does not obligate the use of that treatment if site

conditions don’t warrant doing so.

Comment 16‐11:  We encourage the USFS to delineate Timber Sale boundaries in such a manner to give

them maximum flexibility in treating mountain pine beetle outbreaks that occur outside

cutting units but inside timber sale boundaries.

Response 16‐11:  Comment noted.

Comment 16‐12:  We agree with the statement that increasing tree stocking levels have decreased the

amount of water that is available for stream flow and groundwater recharge.

We would suggest that the USFS remove any reference to “climate changes” increasing

the “development of epidemic populations of mountain pine beetle in certain areas of

the Black Hills.”  This is an opinion that is not supported by any scientific evidence or

research.

Response 16‐12:  Comment noted.

Comment 16‐13:  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.  Within the Project’s 42,000 acres, there are 5700 acres of private land and
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐73

many structures.  We applaud the USFS efforts to reduce the wildfire hazard risk for the

project.  We appreciate that the USFS recognized that the 3 counties that make up this

project have viable CWPPs and that each has designed their respective fuel treatment to

meet CWPP recommendations.

Response 16‐13: Comment noted.

Comment 16‐14:  We are concerned about the amount of prescribe burning being proposed.  Many of

these stands are fully stocked with young trees that are now ready to be converted into

the next structural stage.  We understand that the USFS only plans on burning about

10,000 acres of the 25,000 plus acres proposed.  The wide range of acres allows the USFS

a considerable amount of leeway on how much prescribed burning will be eventually

implemented.  This is a concern.  We do not want the USFS to prescribe burn any stand

that has fully regenerated itself.  As we stated in our scoping comments, the USFS was

very insistent during these earlier harvests that the regeneration be protected.  So it

makes very little sense to now go in and burn these regenerated stands and kill the

regeneration.

Response 16‐14: This concern is addressed on page 33 of the Nautilus DEIS.  Stands that have been

harvested in the past to establish regeneration, or that are proposed for such a harvest

under the Nautilus Project, would not generally be included in a prescribed burn unit.  

Exceptions are listed on page 33.

Comment 16‐15:  We believe that the USFS should fully detail what the objectives of each of prescribed

burns and what silvicultural condition will trigger the prescribed burn to be

implemented.  Specifically, we would pose the question: what are the characteristics and

conditions of the stand that will result in PB?  These criteria should be in the document.  

It is important that the USFS not use prescribed burning as tree thinning management

tool because it does a poor job of individual tree thinning.  Given the choice between no

thinning and prescribed burning we request that the USFS choose no prescribe burning.  

We do not see any benefits running a fire through a stand that has over 1000 trees per

acre and setting back the regeneration cycle of the stand.  We would also request

notification of any prescribe burns planned for this project.

Response 16‐15:  See pages 32‐33 of the Nautilus DEIS.

Comment 16‐16:  We also would like to have the USFS describe in detail the objectives of each of the

prescribed burns.  Prescribed burning could have the largest impact on the ground, and

the goals and objectives, and perceived impacts should be fully disclosed.  The USFS

should also disclose to the public what the maximum mortality will be for each of the

burns.

Response 16‐16:  See pages 32‐33 of the Nautilus DEIS.  Specific objectives for each individual

prescribed burn will be fully discussed in the burn plan for that unit.  The analysis in

Chapter 3 of the Nautilus DEIS considers the impacts of burning all proposed units.  

Design criteria pertaining to mortality limits appear on page C‐10 of the DEIS.

Comment 16‐17:  We are also concerned about prescribe burning potentially weakening ponderosa pine
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐74

trees in areas where there is significant Ips beetles.  Ips beetles are known to attack fire

stressed trees.

Response 16‐17:  The potential for Ips infestation was considered and determined to be minimal under

Alternative B (Nautilus DEIS, page 68).

Comment 16‐18:  The USFS is trying to retain the current levels of aspen in the forest according to the

Forest Plan goal of doubling the amount of aspen.  In this project, the USFS is proposing

some Commercial Hardwood Enhancement treatments.  While we agree with the

treatments, we would also suggest that removing the conifers does spur these aspen

areas to regenerate.  Most of this aspen is decadent and needs some type of disturbance

to cause it to root sprout.  We would encourage the USFS to include post sale treatments

to regenerate aspen.  Cutting the aspen clones is one way to reinvigorate the root

systems.  Prescribe burning can also be used effectively to kill or injure the above ground

part of the aspen which will cause the roots to sprout.

Response 16‐18: Comment noted.

   

Comment 16‐19: As stated earlier, the Committee is very concerned about the significant loss of wood

fiber production on stands that are being slated for 40 to 50 ba commercial thinning.  

We do not believe that USFS fully describes this loss, and, in fact, actually states that

these sites will produce more volume due to the treatments.  “Proposed commercial and

pre‐commercial thinning would reduce stocking in treated stands to levels optimal

growth.”  Thinning stands to 40 to 50 basal areas is not reducing stocking to optimal

growth, and, in fact, severely reduces site productivity.

Response 16‐19: See Response 15‐3.

Comment 16‐20:  The USFS has identified almost 6300 acres for precommercial thinning exclusively and

another 18,340 acres that could be precommercially thinned following commerical

treatments.  This a significant amount of thinning.  We have reviewed some of the stand

data and the aerial photos, and it appears that some of the stands allocated for pre‐

commercial thinning may have enough commercial timber to warrant a commercial

thinning.  We would ask that the USFS field check stands to ensure that the treatment in

the document makes sense on the ground.  

Response 16‐20:  Stands were field checked to verify proposed treatments.  Factors such as terrain or

other management objectives could result in a stand with commercial timber not being

proposed for a commercial treatment.

Comment 16‐21:  The USFS is proposing that the precommercial thinning will leave between 200 and 400

trees per acre.  This translates into a tree spacing of between 12 feet to 16 feet.   We are

concerned that the USFS is precommercially thinning some areas at too young an age

class and also thinning to to wide of a spacing.  While thinning to 16 foot spacing may be

appropriate in 5 inch trees, it is not appropriate to thin seedling and small saplings to

this spacing.  Young trees need a period of time to undergo competition to initiate apical

dominance which inhibits the intitiation and growth of branches and concentrates most

of the growth on the terminal leader.  Thinning too early and too much is to going to
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐75

produce trees that are shorter and have lower canopy base height and more canopy bulk

density.  The result is a forest with higher risk to crown fires and tree mortality.  These

stands will also be more susceptible to mortality from prescribed fires due to the lower

canopy level and more ladder fuels.

The Timber Committee has been told that the reasoning behind this USFS strategy is

minimizing the thinning costs.  In general the USFS is only going to allow precommercial

thinning once and that thinning 5 foot seedlings to 200 trees per acre, or about 16 foot

spacing, is less expensive than waiting until the trees are 5 inches in diameter.  This

maybe true from a pure cost stand point, but it does not factor in the future value of this

material.  This type of thinning strategy contains no recognition of future forest products

like biofuels, biomass and post and poles that may help offset thinning costs.  There is a

tremendous amount of discussion about the values of this material as some type of

product.   

Response 16‐21:  Pre‐commercial thinning is often used as preparation for future commercial entries in

subsequent rotations.  Reduction of tree density to a range of 200‐400 seedlings

releases trees from competition that could inhibit growth in the years leading up to the

next entry.  Research suggests that thinning should begin early while trees are in the

small diameter sapling or large diameter seedling range.  As trees become large, the

costs associated with their removal also increase.

The development of lower branches and larger crowns will increase the susceptibility of

trees to torching; however, the distance between crowns will make the stand as a whole

much less susceptible to sustained crown fire.  Increased tree size will also increase

biomass fuel loadings that accumulate on the ground.

Comment 16‐22:   Thinning costs are also decreasing due to improvements in machinery.  We believe

that using machines like Fecons and other masticating equipment not only gets the trees

thinned appropriately but also reduces the wildland fire fuels.  We would highly

recommend requiring this type of equipment use around the WUIs.

Response 16‐22: Comment noted.

Comment 16‐23:  A further issue with the USFS tree stand thinning strategy is that if some of the

overstory is left, there is going to be a high probability that another generation of

seedlings will become established.  We would suggest in situations where wildland fuels

are not a major concern that precommercial thinning should take place after the

overstory is removed and that the thinning should occur when the trees are least 15 foot

tall and after apical dominance has taken place.  Research indicates that our forests are

more productive if precommercial thinning is applied twice rather once.

Response 16‐23:  Objective 211 of the Forest Plan states that “Within a management area in conifer‐

forested portions of the Forest, provide an average of 3 hard snags greater than 9‐inch

dbh and 25 fee high per acre...”  Some overstory trees are retained for wildlife habitat,

snage recruitment, or other purposes.  One pre‐commercial thinning is desirable

because of the cost associated with each entry and the ability of the pre‐commercial

thin to prepare the stand for a commercial entry.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐76

Comment 16‐24:  We appreciate the USFS efforts in developing this project.  Although we have specific

concerns with some of the treatments and project language, the project, in whole,

appears to be a significant improvement over the Telegraph Project.

Response 16‐24:  Comment noted.   

Letter 17:  Donley Townsend

Comment 17‐1: I think that a narrow strip be saved from the chain saw. The Nautilus Project schedules it

for seed cut.  It is location is in T03NR04E, Section 3.  It is approximately 25 acres, setting

between private properties.  It is a mixutre of pine and spruce, I think it would be

properly called a climax forest, consisting of over 100 pine exceeding 12 Inches in

diameter, I counted seven over 24 inches in diameter at breast height.  It is also mixed

with smaller growth with some windfalls I dought that it has seen any lumbering activity

in over a hundred years, except a small section was illegally cut by XXXX (**name

omitted**) for which he was apprehended and pain restitution.  In my travels of the

Black Hills I have not seen a better example of old growth.  In my walk through this

morning I seen no sine of Pine Bark Beetle infestation.  Please come and look at this

small stand before you schedule cutting or treatment.  If you do decide to cut I would like

your justification for doing so.  I believe to cut this rare and pristine site a crime!  Look

for yourself, I am sure that you will agree.

Response 17‐1:  This stand, 082006‐28, has been field verified by the silviculturist and reviewed by the

wildlife biologist.  Currently, the fire hazard in this stand is rated as “very high”.  The

prescribed treatment is intended to reduce fire hazard and susceptibility of the stand to

mountain pine beetle infestation.

Typically, when identifying stands of structural stage 5, it is preferable to locate multiple

stands in an area that provide a contiguous habitat for species that prefer old growth

characteristics.  In this case, the stand is relatively small (25 acres) and is surrounded by

private property, making it difficult to predict how that land may be managed into the

future.   

Comment 17‐2:Violation by the Forest Service Policies regarding wildland‐urban interface.  In 2008

Ronda O’Byrne come to our location and met with Ken and Mary Lou Hofmeister and

myself regarding the proposed cutting adjacent to our properties.  At that time Ronda

assured us that it would help with the wildland fire risk.  I guess we did not understand

her correctly.  In the winter and spring of 2010 loggers cut Units Elk Hay, not inclusive

but including Units 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.  They left the slash tops and other rubble lay

where it fell.  Chopping some of it down to waist level.  This area had a thick growth of

small pines many were run over by skidders.  The landscape has lots of red pine needles.  

This area has a southerly and westerly facing slope with several chimneys, some of the

slope exceeds 30%.  This area is now a Fuel Model 12.  We have been working to fire‐

wise our propertied, but, for not because we now have an extreme fire hazard not to our

homes.  Pleas assure all Northern Black Hills residents that this will not happen again

with the nautilus project.  Please inform me what corrective action is taken to insure that

such negligent action do not occur again.  And what steps will be taken to correct the
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐77

current extreme fire hazard.

Response 17‐2:  The treatments described were conducted in the Telegraph project area and are

outside the scope of the Nautilus Project.  It is likely that treatment of these units is not

yet complete; follow up treatments to reduce activity fuels may still be pending.  Such

treatments would reduce the fuel loading in these units.

Comment 17‐3:Why does the Forest Service not attack the Pine Bark Beetles directly, like the Park

Service does.  Instead of wholesale cutting of trees for profit.

Response 17‐3: This comment does not clearly state what Park Service management strategy is

preferable to the actions described in the Nautilus DEIS.

Letter 18:  David Miller

Comment 18‐1:My brief comment on the Nautilus Project follows. I reviewed the Nautilus DEIS in some

detail.  I also reviewed a draft of the comments being submitted by the Norbeck Society,

Colin Paterson, President. I am quite familiar with forest policy in the Black Hills National

Forest so I know well researched, balanced, thoughful comments when I see them. I am

in full support of the comments being submitted by the Norbeck Society.

Response 18‐1: See Responses to Letter 5.

Letter 19:  Mark and Mary Zimmerman

Comment 19‐1:  We have read the DEIS for the Nautilus Project and have a number of serious concerns

about what the Forest Service is planning in this area.  Included with these comments are

those that we had sent to your Interdisciplinary Team last December.

It is both disappointing and disturbing to find that the public – including us—is to be shut

out from involvement in decisions which affect the quality of our environment via HFRA.  

This project smacks of just about every stereotype of government colluding with

corporate industry while putting the people affected at a disadvantage.  Your choice of

this direction violates public trust in an agency charged with care for our public lands.

The items listed as the purpose and need (MPB infestations, fire hazard, and

improvement of watershed conditions) are cause for somber evaluation indeed.  Because

we live surrounded by forest service land, we are very directly affected by your

management actions and we are strongly motivated to be ‘for’ the best course of action

– and believe me, we have taken a long, hard look at what management actions might

have both positive and negative effects on the forest around us.   

As long‐term residents, we have an intimate knowledge of the land and its processes.  

We believe that our viewpoint is educated and valuable.  We have met with many

members of your Interdisciplinary Team and truly appreciate the time that they have

spent with us.  They have been courteous, knowledgeable, and helpful.   

Response 19‐1: Comment noted.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐78

Comment 19‐2: It appears that our issue with proposed road nau01 has been resolved with your maps

being corrected to show it on the old road template that we described.  There are still

too many roads in the Black Hills including in the Nautilus Project Area.

Response 19‐2:  Further reconnaissance of the area confirmed that road nau01 was unnecessary to

implement the proposed action.  The road network as it appears in the Nautilus DEIS

represents what is required to achieve the proposed action.

Comment 19‐3:We still take issue with the treatments proposed for area along FSR 706.1 (Good Hope

Road).  This is our only egress in case of fire.  There are long periods of time within the

silvicultural system when the stand is a high risk for fire.  20 years ago, when you did a

seedcut along our only egress, you promoted regeneration of pines...and grow, they did.  

We have been living with heavy and dangerous dog hair pine there for the past 12 years

or so.  Instead of cutting down the large, more fire‐resistant trees.   We would like you to

remove the understory without scarifying the soil and take the stand out of commercial

production.  This is an example of where industry pressure will trump your supposed

concern with private structures and people.  

  

This would also be the most visually appealing choice.  Your social‐economic report

mentions nothing about tourism in this area and emphasizes logging as the main

economic benefit of the forest.

   

The understory removal treatment would provide an open‐canopied, south facing hillside

that would provide great forage and protection for white‐tailed deer and elk.  Again,

commercial interest appears to trump wildlife habitat in MA 5.4, Big Game Winter

Range Emphasis.

   

We are still concerned about the way the vicinity of Road 706.1 will look after the project

– that it will look messy and industrial.  

Response 19‐3: Lands in Management Area 5.4 are suitable for timber production.  Changes in

suitability are not made at the project level; doing so is a Forest‐level decision.

Design criteria were developed to address scenery concerns in units adjacent to private

property and along sensitive travel corridors (DEIS, page C‐8).   

Management objectives for MA 5.4 include working toward a diversity of stand

structure and habitat across the landscape, which is achieved by working toward Forest‐

wide structural stage objectives.

Comment 19‐4: It seems that a solution has been found for making the road passable throughout

treatment, however we don’t seem to have any definite assurances about the time of

year that treatments would be conducted. We continue to ask that you communicate

with us about the timing of any treatments along FSR 706.1.

Response 19‐4: Until a decision is made and implementation begins, timing of treatments is uncertain.  

This issue can be discussed when the time draws nearer, provided Alternative B as it
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐79

stands is the selected action.

Comment 19‐5: It appears the other suggestions that we had for wildlife habitat were trumped by

commercial interests. (II. In our scoping comments)

Response 19‐5: A summary of scoping comments and issues is located in the project file and available

upon request.  The effects of the proposed activities on wildlife are disclosed in the

Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation, which are summarized in the DEIS.

Comment 19‐6:NEW:  The IDT did not talk with us about the plan to log stands adjacent to our land to

the east.  One of these stands is extremely steep and its south border is Jim Creek.  There

must be a mistake in your stand data about slope and density, riparian nature, and

perhaps other items about this stand.  Obviously, you have not visited this stand in

person.  Portions of these stands are in full view of our entire property and we would

appreciate being included in discussions about the treatments of these stands.

Response 19‐6: The stand in question was included as a seed cut in the proposed action that was sent

out for scoping in November 2009.  The prescription for this stand has not changed

between scoping and the DEIS.  The notes for the stand immediately adjacent to Jim

Creek indicate that it features steep terrain and that the stand has been field verified.  

Although a treatment will appear on the map as occuring across the entire stand, in

reality it may only be applied to portions of that stand due to site specific conditions,

such as steep, inoperable terrain.

Comment 19‐7:Why don’t botanical reports for the Nautilus Project include information about the

existence of rare and novel species of lichens and mosses?

Response 19‐7: Botanical specialist reports and biological evaluations focus on the effects of a proposed

project on threatened or endangered species, sensitive species, or species of local

concern.  At this time, no species of lichens or mosses are included on those lists, so

they are not evaluated in the reports.

Comment 19‐8: The issue with 679.1C appears to be resolved.

Response 19‐8:  Comment noted.

Comment 19‐9: Improvement of Watersheds:  While we are mostly satisfied with the Forest Service

recognition that road 706.1A should be removed from the Forest Service road system, we

would like to point out that this item has been in waiting for 20 years – since the last

time you undertook logging projects in this area and installed the road and its exotic

rock stream crossings on Jim Creek.  In spite of our approval of the decision to undo

damage that was done by USFS actions 20 years ago, we are still very concerned about

how exactly you plan to make the repairs because some actions could do more harm

than good at this point.  When members of your interdisciplinary team came out to visit

with us about the Nautilus Project, no one was able to tell us what the plan was in

regards to the ‘decommissiong’ of this road.  We are not sure if you plan to remove the

exotic rock or not, and if you do remove it, how that would be done (by hand or by

machine).  We are concerned by the general climate of weediness in the Black Hills and
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐80

worry about excessive use of ‘ripping, placement of drainage structures, and

recontouring’ and the potential of inviting invasive weed species to Jim Creek. Spot‐weed

treatments still need to be addressed along the creek.

Response 19‐9: The point that some actions could do more harm than good is a valid one and will be

considered closely.  Alternative B would remove this segment of road from the National

Forest System.  It would also authorize actions to rehabilitate this stream crossing if

deemed necessary, but if not taking action is determined to be less impactful, the

stream will be allowed to continue to rehabilitate itself.

Comment 19‐10:  There are more patches of Spotted Knapweed between our property and Green

Mountain this year than there were last year.

Response 19‐10: Comment noted.

Comment 19‐11:  “The Maze” kid‐hangout‐area is still a fire hazard and although you’ve deemed it

beyond the scope of this project, keeping cows off of the entire creek would be a good

move, still.

Response 19‐11:  Information about “The Maze” was passed on to Forest Law Enforcement.  Comment

noted regarding cattle.

Comment 19‐12:  It is disappointing to find that the Forest Service is unable to create small areas that

are untreed that might serve as a break in a crown fire about to enter our homestead

because of rules about the suitable timber base.  Likewise, habitat for ungulates cannot

be made in the MA 5.4 area because of the suitable timber base.  It seems that every

square inch is enlisted in production of lumber for the Neiman Corporation.

Response 19‐12:  Meadow enhancement treatments were proposed where possible.  A patch of cleared

timber is not the same as a meadow; the focus for meadow enhancements was existing

meadows or known locations of historical meadows.

It is unclear from the comment how ungulate habitat is not provided for or how MA 5.4

direction is not met under the Nautilus Project.   

Comment 19‐13:  HFRA is hardly justifiable for this project.  Your own entomology reports and maps

show the major infestations of Mountain Pine Beetle as being far outside of the project

area and mainly located in a different Management Area (MA 5.1, Resource Production

Emphasis) from the area that we live in (MA 5.4).

Response 19‐13: The Forest Health Evaluation completed specifically for the Nautilus project area (Allen

2010) determines that the project area contains epidemic populations of mountain pine

beetle and is at risk to increased infestation.  It is not clear what entomology reports the

commenter is referring to.  The majority of the Nautilus project area is in MA 5.1

(20,069 acres, over half of the NFS acres).

The language within HFRA authorizes its use on lands where “the existence of an

epidemic of disease or insects, or the presence of such an epidemic on immediately
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐81

adjacent land the imminent risk it will spread” exists.  The Forest Health Evaluation

(Allen 2010) determined epidemic populations of mountain pine beetle are established

in the Nautilus project area and the Project is immediately adjacent to the Custer Peak

area, which contains one of the largest infestations of pine beetles in the Northern Hills.

Comment 19‐14:  Restoration is a nice word alright, but it has nothing to do with what this project will

do to this land.  Please remember what was here historically:  ...open forest stands

dominated by large, old trees. ...There also was no significant difference between

average BA of the historical and current forests, although historical tree stocking was

dominated by larger trees than those present today.  Historical ponderosa pine forests in

the Black Hills consisted of a diverse landscape mosaic that varied from non‐forested

patches and open stands of few large trees to quite dense stands with many similar‐

sized and ‐aged trees. ...the historical Black Hills landscape apparently contained a

greater range of structural variability than ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern

US. Our results support restoration of heterogeneity in landscape structure to enhance

species habitat requirements and promote ecological resiliency. (Brown and Cook, 2006)

Response 19‐14:  Comment noted.  The Forest Plan determines that movement toward structural stage

objectives will achieve the desired heterogeneity for the Forest.

Comment 19‐15:  What you have called your Purpose and Need has been only barely and inadequately

addressed in the DEIS.  What is described and planned in the DEIS would be much more

fitting for one that had a Purpose and Need of  something like ‘contributing to the

Allowable Sale Quantity and leveraging the Suitable Land Base

Response 19‐15:  The commenter offers no suggestion or evidence for how the purpose and need would

not be met by Alternative B.

Comment 19‐16:  **Table Omitted** This is not a tributary to Jim Creek.  It is part of Bogus Jim Creek

which is a separate watershed that never runs into Jim Creek.

Response 19‐16:  Comment noted.   

Comment 19‐17:  Silvicultural report:  There is an error on page 23 of the Silvicultural report where it is

stated that there are 36,311 acres of MA 5.1 forest‐wide.  There are actually about

563,898 acres of MA 5.1 forest‐wide

Response 19‐17:  This was an error in the Draft Silviculture Report that was corrected in the DEIS text

and will be corrected in the Final Silviculture Report.

Comment 19‐18:  The DEIS repeatedly mentions action alternatives (plural) as if there is more than one

action alternative.

Response 19‐18: Comment noted.

Comment 19‐19:  Every suggestion that any party has raised has been categorically deemed

insignificant.  Some of these are issues that the same ranger district deemed significant

in the Telegraph Project in 2009.   
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐82

Response 19‐19:  Two significant issues were identified (DEIS, page 26) but did not drive the

development of an additional action alternative.   

The Telegraph Project was a separate project with a somewhat different purpose and

need and a different mix of management area direction.  A significant issue in one area

will not necessarily be so in a different area.

Comment 19‐20: Although this Nautilus Project states that significant issues that were brought up in

scoping that shaped the sole alternative, it also says that no significant issue were

brought up – a clear contradiction of logic.

Response 19‐20:  The Nautilus DEIS states on page 26 that two significant issues were brought up during

scoping.  It is also stated that neither necessitated the development of a second action

alternative; both were addressed by modifying or clarifying the proposed action.  It is

unclear where the contradiction occurs.

Comment 19‐21: Important stand data is missing or not recorded.  There is no stand by stand

assessment of trees per acre with insect damage or disease.

Response 19‐21: Stand exam data is available for every stand within the project area.  Because insect

and disease outbreaks are constantly moving, it would be nearly impossible to maintain

a stand by stand assessment of infested areas.

Comment 19‐22:  The Bibliography for the Nautilus Project DEIS includes odd citations:   

Buskala Allotment File 2210. Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District,

Spearfish, South Dakota.  Buskala is in the Telegraph Project Area.  Telegraph Project

was the project that this ranger District just finished putting together a year ago.  

Federal Register. 2008. Volume 73, Number 52. Notices. March 17, 2008.  This entry in

the Federal Register was about the Telegraph Project.

Response 19‐22:  Comment noted.  These references are removed from the FEIS.

Comment 19‐23:  Typos are frequent in the Nautilus Project DEIS.

Response 19‐23:  Comment noted.

Comment 19‐24: Data from the entomologist that was used to support the use of HFRA was not

finalized into a report until after HFRA was used for the project.

Response 19‐24:  See Response 5‐1.

Comment 19‐25:  These contradictions, errors and oversights in the Nautilus DEIS and supporting your

data really do call into question the thoroughness, accuracy and validity of the entire

enterprise.  It looks like a rushed job.  Why the big rush?
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐83

Response 19‐25:  Comment noted.

Comment 19‐26:  We would like to see the Northern Hills District redo this DEIS and consider public

comments carefully and thoroughly.  

Response 19‐26: Public comments were considered thoroughly during scoping and the DEIS comment

stage.  Comments on the DEIS are responded to here.  Comments received during

scoping were documented and compiled into a database that is available upon request.

Comment 19‐27:  You need to give a hard look at science that points towards other management

strategies and develop a full range of alternatives.

Response 19‐27:  A reasonable range of alternatives, as required by NEPA, was considered (DEIS,

Chapter 2).  The development of the Nautilus Project and the analysis within the DEIS is

based on the best available science.
Nautilus Project                                                                 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E – Response To Comments        E‐84

This page intentionally left blank.