United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

September 2010 

Draft 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest 

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

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

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

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment 

 

Table of Contents 

Summary ........................................................................................................................ i

Alternative 2- Proposed Action ..................................................................................... i 

Alternative 1- No Action ............................................................................................... i 

Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................. ii 

Chapter 1. Purpose and need for action ..................................................................... 3

Document Structure .................................................................................................... 3 

Background ................................................................................................................ 3 

Management Direction ................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................... 6 

Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 6 

Decision Framework ................................................................................................... 6 

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................... 7 

Issues ......................................................................................................................... 7 

Chapter 2. Alternatives ................................................................................................. 9

Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 9 

Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 12 

Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 12 

Chapter 3. Affected environment and environmental consequences ..................... 15

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................... 16 

Silviculture ................................................................................................................ 39 

Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 62 

Range/Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................... 116 

Botany .................................................................................................................... 122 

Soils/Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 131 

Heritage .................................................................................................................. 153 

Lands and Minerals................................................................................................. 158 

Recreation .............................................................................................................. 159 

Scenery .................................................................................................................. 162 

Economics .............................................................................................................. 168 

Chapter 4. Literature Cited ....................................................................................... 172

Chapter 5. List of Preparers ..................................................................................... 185

Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................. 189

Chapter 7. Appendices ............................................................................................. 192
Environmental Assessment Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

iv

Table of Tables

Table 1: National Forest Management Area Acreage/Percent within the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn ......................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Comparison of Vegetative Treatments (acres) ...................................................... 12

Table 3: Effects to Significant Issues by Alternative ............................................................ 13

Table 4: Fire Behavior Outputs Based on Existing Conditions ........................................... 17

Table 5: Fire Regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005) ............................. 18

Table 6: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Rating Descriptions (Hann et al., 2003) 19

Table 7: Fire History Occurrence and the Size of the Fires from 1950-2008 ................... 21

Table 8: Area of Each Large Fire Falling Within the Project Perimeter ............................ 22

Table 9: Total Area and Percentage of the Project Area for the Current Fire Hazard .... 28

Table 10: Alternative 1 Fire Behavior Outputs (BehavePlus 4.0) ...................................... 31

Table 11: Alternative 2 Fire Behavior Outuputs (BehavePlus 4.0) ..................................... 33

Table 12: Alternative 1, 2, 3, Fire Behavior Outputs (BehavePlus 4.0) ............................ 35

Table 13: Cover Type in HCMB .............................................................................................. 39

Table 14: Structural Stages by Cover Type in HCMB ......................................................... 40

Table 15: Current MPB Risk Rating ........................................................................................ 41

Table 16: Structural Stage Objective Percentages for Ponderosa Pine Across 

Management Areas 5.1 and 5.4. .............................................................................................. 41

Table 17: Existing Condition: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.1 Management 

Area............................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 18: Existing Condition: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.4 Management 

Area............................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 20: Alternative #1: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.1 Management area .. 46

Table 21: Alternative #1: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.4 Management area .. 47

Table 22: Effect of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 2 ................................. 51

Table 23: Effect of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 2 Percentages in 

Commercial Harvest Stands Only ............................................................................................ 52

Table 24: Alternative 2: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.1 Management Area ..... 53

Table 25: Alternative 2: Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in 5.4 Management Area .. 53

Table 26: Effects of Commercial Harvest on MPB Risk ...................................................... 56

Table 27: Effects of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 3 Percentages in 

Commercial Harvest Stands Only ............................................................................................ 56

Table 28: Alternative 3; Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in 5.4 Management Area .. 57

Table 29: Structural Stage Acreages and Percentages of Project Area by Alternative .. 58

Table 30: Comparison of Commercial Harvest for all Alternatives for the HCMB ........... 61

Table 31: MIS List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis ............................................... 67

Table 32: Current Screening cover in the HCMB Project Area on Forest Service Land 70

Table 33: SOLC List and Rationale for Project Level Analysis. ......................................... 82

Table 34: R2 Sensitive Species with Potential Habitat in the HCMB Project Area. ...... 104

Table 35: BCR 17 Species and Relationship to HCMB Project Area. ............................. 105

Table 36: Current Livestock Management by Allotment. ................................................... 117

Table 37: Financial Analysis Results by Alternative, for Mechanical Vegetation 

Treatments Only. ...................................................................................................................... 170

Table 38: Total Costs of Fuels Treatments ......................................................................... 171
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment 

 

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Typical Stand Structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) ......... 20 

Figure 2: Fire History Occurrence from 1950-2008 ...................................................... 22 

Figure 3: At-Risk Communities (ARC) and Structures .................................................. 24 

Figure 4: Burn Intensities in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires .................................. 26 

Figure 5: Fire Hazard Ratings for the Project Area ....................................................... 28 

Appendices

Appendix A – Maps 

Appendix B – Design Criteria 

Appendix C – Monitoring Plan 

Appendix D – Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation 

Appendix E – Past, Present, Future Activities 

Appendix F – Silviculture Findings 

Appendix G – Treatment by Location 

Appendix H – Follow-Up Activities 
Environmental Assessment Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

vi

This page intentionally left blank
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment 

 i

SUMMARY 

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

reduce fuels and improve conditions of Ponderosa Pine stands within the Jasper 

and Roger’s Shack fire areas. 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Area is located in Custer County and 

Pennington County, South Dakota and is entirely within the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District of the Black Hills National Forest. In general, this project is located 

approximately 10 miles west of Custer, SD and 18 miles east of Newcastle, WY 

(see map 1). The project includes burning as well as mechanical thinning and 

would occur in 3 distinct parcels (see map 2). The project includes 16,986 acres 

of prescribed burning and 3922 acres of mechanical thinning. All proposed 

activities would occur on National Forest lands. There are several arterial roads 

which access the project area including NFSR (National Forest System Road) 

282, 283, 284, 668, 221, 273, 277 and US Hwy 16. 

The purpose for action in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area is to 

reduce long term fire hazard and improve health and vigor of forested stands in 

the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. The 2000 Jasper Fire (83,500 ac.) and 

2001 Rogers Shack Fire (11,900 ac.) created extensive areas of dead and dying 

stands. In addition, mountain pine beetle infestations are occurring within a 

number of forested stands of ponderosa pine. In light of these conditions within 

the project area there is a need to reduce existing fuel loadings and to improve 

the health and vigor of existing forested stands. 

Alternative 2- Proposed Action 

This alternative was developed to meet the Purpose and Need for action. This 

alternative represents the agency’s recommendations prior to public scoping. 

This alternative proposes commercial and non-commercial vegetative treatments 

including prescribed fire. A total of 18,409 acres would be treated within this 

alternative with some areas receiving multiple treatments. 

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the 

following alternatives: 

Alternative 1- No Action 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires the study of the No Action 

Alternative as a basis for comparing effects of the proposed action and other 

alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no implementation of any 

elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would take place 

within the project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively 

respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues identified during 

scoping. For example, there would be no effort to modify existing vegetation or 

related fuels conditions in the project areas; current active timber sales, fire 
Environmental Assessment Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

ii

suppression efforts, noxious weed treatments and regular system road 

maintenance would continue on National Forest lands. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative was developed to address the key issues identified during 

scoping: 1) Maintaining the established post Jasper Fire, Colorado State 

University Study Plots; 2) Increase Ponderosa Pine stand diversity to provide for 

a broader range of big game habitat conditions. A total of 16,883 acres would be 

treated within this alternative with some areas receiving multiple treatments. 

Decision Framework 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn purpose and need provides the focus and 

scope of the proposal as related to National and Forest-level policy and direction. 

Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official, District Ranger, reviews 

the proposed action, the issues identified during scoping, and the environmental 

effects of implementing each of the alternatives. This review forms the basis for 

making the following determinations: 

• Whether or not to undertake mechanical vegetation treatments related to 

fuels and silviculture 

• Whether or not to undertake prescribed burning treatments 

• Which actions are appropriate and under what conditions actions would 

take place 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 1 

3 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Document Structure ______________________________ 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal 

and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would generally be 

expected to result from the implementation of the proposed action and 

alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: 

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

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

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

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

• Chapter 2: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s 

proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues 

raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes 

required mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table 

of the expected environmental consequences associated with each 

alternative. 

• Chapter3: This section describes the expected environmental effects of 

implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is 

organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is 

described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that 

provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives 

that follow. 

• Chapter 4: This section lists all literature cited in support of this analysis. 

• Chapter 5: This section provides a list of preparers 

• Chapter 6: This section provides a list of agencies consulted during the 

development of the environmental assessment. 

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

analyses presented in the environmental assessment. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area 

resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District Office in Custer, SD. 

Background _____________________________________ 

In August and September of 2000 the Jasper Fire burned approximately 83,511 

acres, 79,404 of which were on National Forest System Lands; the largest fire in 

the recorded history of the Black Hills. The fire was started as a result of arson 

on August 24th. A variety of conditions including climatic, fuels, and tree 

densities contributed to fire spread and intensities that overpowered suppression 

efforts. On the afternoon of August 26, 2000, the fire grew at an average rate of 
Chapter 1 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

4 

more than 100 acres per minute. The fire was officially contained on September 

8, 2000. 

In July and August of 2001 the Rogers Shack fire burned approximately 11,879 

acres, 11,539 of which were on National Forest Lands. The Rogers Shack Fire 

was caused by lightning and was managed with several other lightning caused 

fires in the area as part of the Elk Mountain Complex. The Elk Mountain 

Complex became the second largest fire acreage in the recorded history of the 

Black Hills. 

The Jasper and Rogers Shack fires experienced stand replacing fire behavior 

with much of the area experiencing high to moderate intensity wildfire. The high 

intensity fire areas resulted in nearly 100% mortality in the overstory and the 

consumption of nearly all the fine fuels. The result was a stand that is completely 

“black”. Moderate intensity fire resulted in areas where much of the overstory 

was killed however some of the fine fuels remained giving the stand a “brown” 

appearance. Those areas of high to moderate wildfire intensity have resulted in 

elevated fuel loadings as a result of the dead trees falling to the ground. 

Starting in the late 1990’s beetle epidemics were becoming more common, and 

over the past 10 years there have been extensive areas of tree mortality across 

the forest, many that are contributing to landscape level changes in the forest. 

Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosa) is showing increased activity in 

the pine stands within the analysis area. Patches of dead trees ranging from two 

or three to several large patches of dozens of infected trees can be seen in areas 

where there is still a heavy concentration of trees. The most noticeable area of 

infestation is along the Antelope Ridge Road (FSR 283) around the intersection 

of the Surveyor’s Hill Road (FSR 668) and less than a mile to the east of this 

intersection along the Mud Springs Road (FSR 282). 

Management Direction ____________________________ 

The 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan(Forest Plan), as 

amended (the Record of Decision for the Phase II Forest Plan amendment was 

signed on October 31, 2005 and this direction became effective on February 28, 

2006) provides direction for the management of the forest. The Forest Plan 

contains management Goals and Objectives, Management Area direction, and 

identifies desired future conditions for the forest. Resource specialists reviewed 

the current condition of the project area and compared these conditions with the 

desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan, as well as other applicable goals 

and objectives. Opportunities for improvement were identified. 

Management areas spatially define where differing kinds of resource and use 

opportunities are available to the public and where different management 

practices may be carried out. The project area contains three management area 

(MA) designations: MA 5.1; Resource Production Emphasis, MA 5.4; Big Game 

Winter Range Emphasis, MA 3.7; Late Successional Forest Landscapes. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 1 

5 

Management Area 5.1, Resource Production: lands are managed primarily for 

wood products, water yield, and forage production while also providing other 

commercial products, visual quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety of other 

goods and services. 

Management Area 5.4, Big Game Winter Range: lands are managed to provide 

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

habitat, habitat for other species, and a variety of multiple uses. 

Management Area 3.7, Late Successional Forest Landscape: lands are 

managed to feature stands of trees that contain late successional forest structure 

across a landscape. 

Table 1: National Forest Management Area Acreage/Percent within the Hell 

Canyon Maintenance Burn 

Management 

Area 

Emphasis Acres Percentage of 

Project Area 

5.1 Resource Production 1028 6% 

5.4 Big Game Winter Range 17085 93% 

3.7 Late Successional Forest 

Landscape 

242 1% 

 Total (NFS lands) 18355 100% 

Goals within the Forest Plan, as amended by Phase II, were used to develop the 

proposal for the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project. This project addresses 

different goals to various extents, but would focus on Goal 10 and Goal 11. Goal 

10 states, “Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce 

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

and disease management and firefighting capability.” Goal 11 states, “Enhance 

or maintain the natural rate of recovery after significant fire and other natural 

events while maintaining a mosaic of fuel-loading conditions to facilitate future 

fire suppression activities. 

Objectives associated with these goals that pertain to this project include: 

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

wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures to 

current National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standards except in 

Management Area (MA) 1.1 Black Elk Wilderness, MA 2.2 Research Natural 

Areas, MA 3.1 Botanical Areas, MA 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, and MA 

5.4A Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Manage the remainder of the Forest for 50 

percent moderate-to-low fire hazard except in MA 1.1 Black Elk Wilderness, MA 

2.2 Research Natural Areas, MA 3.1 Botanical Areas, MA 3.7 Late-Successional 

Forest Landscapes, MA 4.2B Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway, and MA 5.4A 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 
Chapter 1 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

6 

10-04. Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate with risks (fire 

occurrence), hazard (fuel flammability), and land and resource values common to 

the area, using the criteria in Forest-wide Guideline 4110. 

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

management objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine 

stands that are in medium or high risk for infestation.

11-02. Achieve a fuel-loading mosaic within 3 to 5 years and reassess as 

conditions change over time. 

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ 

The purpose for action in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area is to 

reduce long term fire hazard and improve health and vigor of forested stands in 

the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. The 2000 Jasper Fire (83,500 ac.) and 

2001 Rogers Shack Fire (11,900 ac.) created extensive areas of dead and dying 

stands. In addition, mountain pine beetle infestations are occurring within a 

number of forested stands of ponderosa pine. In light of these conditions within 

the project area there is a need to reduce existing fuel loadings and to improve 

the health and vigor of existing forested stands. 

 

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Black Hills 

National Forest, Forest Plan, and moves the project area toward desired 

conditions described in that plan (USDA Forest Service, 2006). 

Proposed Action _________________________________ 

Following is a brief summary of the proposed action developed by the ID Team 

and documented in this EA. All alternatives are presented in more detail in 

Chapter 2. 

The proposed action results from a thorough analysis of the existing conditions 

and was developed to address the Purpose and Need for Action. Specific actions 

include vegetation treatments, using both mechanical means to treat stands and 

prescribed fire to reduce fuels. As part of the mechanical treatments, 1,645 

acres will be treated commercially and 2,532 acres will be treated noncommercially. In addition, 16,986 acres will be treated with prescribed fire. No 

new roads are proposed as a part of this or any of the alternatives. 

Decision Framework ______________________________ 

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official (District Ranger) will review the 

proposed action, the issues identified during scoping, the other alternatives, the 

environmental consequences of implementing each alternative, and public 

comments received on the Draft EA. After careful consideration of this 

information, the District Ranger will decide the following: 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 1 

7 

• Whether or not to undertake vegetation treatments related to fuels and 

silviculture 

• Whether or not to undertake prescribed burning treatments 

• Determining which actions are appropriate and under what conditions 

actions would take place 

Public Involvement _______________________________ 

The original proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on 

December 3, 2007. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies 

for comment during scoping December 19, 2008. A scoping letter was sent to 

approximately 150 individuals, groups and agencies. Federal, State, Local, and 

Tribal governments and interested parties provided input during scoping efforts. 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) personnel joined members of the 

Interdisciplinary Team on a field review of the project area in April, 2009. 

Using the comments from the public and other agencies the interdisciplinary 

team (IDT) developed a list of issues to address. 

Issues __________________________________________ 

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly 

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

identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already 

decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) 

irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from 

detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered 

by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues 

and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the 

project record. 

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping: 

Key Issue 1: Effects to the established post Jasper Fire, Colorado State 

University (CSU) study plots 

• Five study plots (three of which are within the project area) were 

established following the 2000 Jasper Fire for the purpose of post fire 

research. There was internal and external concern that any vegetative 

treatment, both prescribed fire and mechanical, within the established 

CSU plots would compromise the integrity of these plots and therefore 

forego opportunities for further post-fire research. 

Key Issue 2: Effects to big game habitat 
Chapter 1 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

8 

Increase ponderosa pine stand diversity to provide for a broader range of big 

game habitat and increased cover 

• There was internal and external concern for the need to provide 

management techniques which would emphasize a vegetative mosaic, 

with natural and created openings, diverse sizes and ages of tree stands, 

and more cover. This diversity would create the habitat needed to 

effectively provide big game with forage, solitude and cover. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 2 

9 

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hell 

Canyon Maintenance Burn project. It includes a description of each alternative 

considered. It includes a description of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), one 

alternative to the Proposed Action (Alternative 3), as well as the No Action 

Alternative (Alternative 1). In addition there is a comparison of alternatives 

section which provides a clear basis for choices between options for the decision 

maker and the public. There is also a brief overview of alternatives that the ID 

Team considered but eliminated from further development and analysis. 

Alternatives _____________________________________ 

The Forest Service developed three alternatives; No Action/Alternative 1, 

Proposed Action/Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. The alternatives considered in 

detail by the IDT are discussed below. This section provides a summary of 

activities proposed to occur during implementation of any action alternative. The 

amount (acres, miles) of any particular activity in an alternative is approximate, 

based on inventory and survey estimates. Exact figures may vary slightly during 

preparation of a timber sale, prescribed burn, or other project based upon various 

site factors such as topography, non-uniform site structure, fuels, etc. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the No 

Action Alternative as a basis for comparing the effects of no action to effects from 

the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative assumes no implementation of 

any element of the action alternatives within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project area. Current management plans would continue to guide management 

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

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

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

within the project area. 

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action 

This alternative was developed to meet the Purpose and Need for action. This 

alternative represents the agency’s recommendations prior to public scoping. 

Prescribed Fire proposed as part of this alternative includes: 

• Prescribed Fire- 16,986 acres: Management-ignited fire used for reducing 

woody material fuel loading in order to modify potential fire behavior which 

can reduce risks to life and property associated with wildfire. The 

objective of using prescribed fire in this project is to consume a portion of 

the dead/down fuels as well as limb and thin a portion of the green trees in 

support of decreasing overall fire behavior. This treatment contributes to 
Chapter 2 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

10 

creating a mosaic of burned and unburned areas which results in an 

appearance of a naturally-burned landscape. Ignition may include but is 

not limited to both hand and aerial ignition. 

Commercial treatments proposed as part of this alternative include: 

• Commercial Thinning – 1241 Acres: Thinning of immature ponderosa 

pine stands generally 9-12” in diameter. Objective is to reduce tree stem 

basal area in stands to improve health, tree vigor, and future growth 

capacity of the stand and to reduce susceptibility to tree mortality 

associated with mountain pine beetles. Commercial thinning would 

reduce the basal area (BA) to 50ft2/ac (337 ac.) or 60ft2/ac (904 ac.) 

depending upon existing and desired condition of the stands and their 

proximity to private land. 

• Overstory Removal- 308 acres: Removal of mature to over-mature overstory trees in stands which have been successfully regenerated. The 

object is to release the regeneration. 

• Shelterwood Seedcut- 96 acres: Even-aged ponderosa pine regeneration 

cutting in mature stands. The most desirable seed trees are retained at 

basal areas of 30-50 ft2/ac. Opening the canopy creates a favorable 

growing environment for pine regeneration. 

Non-commercial treatments proposed as part of this alternative include: 

• Pine Encroachment- 159 acres: Removal of pine trees from existing 

meadows to maintain meadow habitat. Only non-commercial sized trees 

shall be removed. Meadow cover-type is maintained. 

• Precommercial Thin (PCT) - 308 acres: Understory thinning of trees that 

are less than 5” dbh to a spacing of 12ft. x 12ft. Slash is lopped and 

scattered or piled and burned if within 300 feet of arterial or collector 

roads. 

• Products other than Logs (POL) thinning- 1280 acres: A non-commercial 

treatment generally following a commercial thin in stands when the target 

basal area cannot be obtained by removal of sawtimber only. Trees less 

than 1 inch dbh and up to 8.9 inches dbh would be thinned to a spacing of 

14x14 or 18x18 feet. 

• Deadfall- 785 acres: Mechanical treatment of existing slash to a height 

within 18-24 inches of the ground. May include various methods but not 

limited to lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, or mastication. 

No snags would be removed as part of this treatment. 

Alternative 2 would produce approximately 8,980 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of 

commercial sawlog volume and approximately 857 CCF of POL as a byproduct 

of the mechanical treatments. In addition, 76 miles of roads will need to be 

maintained as part of the mechanical treatments proposed in this alternative. 

Refer to Map 7 in Appendix A for a map of the treatment areas. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 2 

11 

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed to address the key issues identified during 

scoping: 1) Effects to the established post Jasper Fire, Colorado State University 

(CSU) study plots; 2) Effects to big game habitat. 

To address significant issues #1 alternative 3 eliminates all mechanical 

treatments as well as prescribed fire from 1,283 acres within the established 

CSU study plots. To address significant issue #2 it provides for more ponderosa 

pine stand diversity by implementing some additional uneven aged management 

silviculture techniques (391 acres) such as Group Selection versus even aged 

management silviculture techniques such as Commercial Thinning. In addition it 

retains more structural stage 4B pine stands which provide for additional big 

game cover. 

Prescribed Fire proposed as part of this alternative includes: 

• Prescribed Fire- 16,544 acres: This treatment would be implemented as 

described in Alternative 2. 

Commercial treatments proposed as part of this alternative include: 

• Commercial Thinning – 233 acres: This treatment would be implemented 

as described in Alternative 2. Commercial thinning to a basal area (BA) of 

50 ft2/ac versus 60 ft2/ac is 199 ac. versus 34 ac. respectively. 

• Group Selection- 391 acres: This uneven-aged treatment creates or 

maintains multiple age classes in groups and maintains the age classes in 

perpetuity through stand regulation. Groups are 2 acres or less in size 

with a width no greater than two tree heights, and are scattered 

throughout a site. Groups occupy 25-33% of the site. Some groups are 

openings designed to create the youngest age class of trees. Other 

Groups are thinning, seedcuts or overstory removals. To achieve 

regulation, the site would have 3-4 age classes, each age class occupying 

25-33% of the site. 

Non-commercial treatments proposed as part of this alternative include: 

• Pine Encroachment- 114 acres: This treatment would be implemented as 

described in Alternative 2. 

• POL thinning- 624 acres: This treatment would be implemented as 

described in Alternative 2. 

• Deadfall- 128 acres: This treatment would be implemented as described in 

Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would produce approximately 4,594 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of 

commercial sawlog volume and approximately 556 CCF of POL as a byproduct 

of the mechanical treatments. In addition, 20 miles of roads will need to be 
Chapter 2 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

12 

maintained as part of the mechanical treatments proposed in this alternative. 

Refer to Map 3 in Appendix A for a map of the treatment areas. 

Design Criteria __________________________________ 

Design criteria includes Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best 

Management Practices, and site specific design to avoid resource impacts. They 

are applicable and to be implemented as a matter of standard operating 

procedures for the action alternatives. Design criteria are applied to protect 

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

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

complete list of project design criteria is available in Appendix B. The design 

criteria are the same regardless of alternative. 

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________ 

This section provides a summary of each alternative. Refer to maps in Appendix 

A for a visual display of where activities are proposed. 

Table 2: Comparison of Vegetative Treatments (acres) 

Treatment Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed Burning 0 16,986 16,544 

Commercial Treatments

Commercial Thin 50 (CT50) 0 337 199 

Commercial Thin 60 (CT60) 0 904 64 

Overstory Removal (OR) 0 308 0 

Shelterwood Seedcut (SWSC) 0 96 0 

Group Selection 0 0 391 

Total Acres Commercial 0 1,645 624 

Total Volume Commercial (CCF) 0 8,980 4,594 

Non-Commercial Treatments

Pine Encroachment 0 159 114 

Precommercial Thin (PCT) 0 308 0 

POL thinning* 0 1,280 624 

Deadfall 0 785 128 

Total Acres Non-Commercial 0 2,532 866 

Total Volume Non-Commercial 0 857 556 

Commercial and Non-Commercial Treatments Combined

Total Acres * 0 18,409 16,883 

Total Volume 0 9,837 5,150 

* Some treatments are occurring on coinciding acres. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 2 

13 

Table 3: Effects to Significant Issues by Alternative 

1: Effects to the established post 

Jasper Fire, (CSU) study plots

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Acres treated within CSU plots 0 1283 0 

2: Effects to big game habitat. Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Acres of uneven aged silviculture 

techniques used to provide stand 

diversity 

0 0 391 

Acres of cover (structural stage 

4B) 

901 223 741 
Chapter 2 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

14 

This page intentionally left blank
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

15 

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter presents relevant resource descriptions of the existing condition and 

the environmental consequences of each alternative. The discussion of 

environmental consequences includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 

Resource elements that are not affected, or upon which the action alternatives 

have a negligible effect, are not discussed. These include elements such as 

topography and climate. Full reports completed by resource specialists are 

available in the project file. 

Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives on 

the biological, physical, and social environment was completed by the 

Interdisciplinary (ID) team and is presented in this chapter. Analysis was 

accomplished by field observations and surveys, past experience and 

professional recommendations, aerial photography, resource modeling, literature 

review, information obtained through monitoring, Forest Plan direction and 

associated analysis, and public participation. 

Analysis of cumulative effects includes past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future activities that could affect the biological or social 

environments. See Appendix E for a listing of past, present and future activities 

considered in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project cumulative effects 

analysis. The cumulative effects analysis area is the project area for all 

resources. 

Past activities can have long-lasting and far-reaching effects regardless of 

whether they are active or passive in nature. Past activities that were considered 

in the cumulative effects analysis are summarized in Appendix E. 

Present activities are those currently occurring in the project area. These 

include activities such as livestock grazing, dispersed recreation including 

hunting and off-highway vehicle use, developed recreation, timber harvest, fuelwood gathering, wildfire suppression, and noxious weed treatment. Refer to 

Appendix E for a summary listing. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions include those management activities that are 

scheduled to occur. These activities may occur regardless of the alternative 

selected for implementation under this analysis. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

16 

Fire and Fuels 

Existing Conditions 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project area historically experienced 

frequent, low intensity fires, which maintained a mosaic of fuels conditions with 

open meadows and groups of different age classes of trees. There was little 

woody debris composing the surface fuels. As a result of suppressing wildfires 

for the last 100 years and increasing forest densities, the fires that occur today 

are becoming harder to control and increasing in size. (Shepperd and Battaglia, 

2002) This project includes two fire areas that demonstrated this growing trend. 

Prior to the fires, the project area was comprised of ponderosa pine stands, 

intermixed with hardwoods, and montane grasslands. The fires created a mosaic 

of these stands due to differing intensities, varying from a high intensity standreplacing fire to a low intensity underburn. In the areas that burned with low 

intensity the overstory was unchanged by the fire, with mortality being limited to 

the small trees. In areas that burned with moderate intensity both the understory 

and overstory experienced mortality with the overstory mortality being moderate 

and the understory mortality being high. In high severity areas the fire was stand 

replacing, with high mortality of all size classes of trees. (Keyser et al., 2008) 

The fire-killed trees have been falling and accumulating for the past eight years. 

In areas this has happened, there is currently a high concentration of dead fuel, 

with loadings varying from 10-45 tons per acre. Recent transects north of the 

project show fuel loadings to be over 35 tpa (Smith, 2009). Transects taken 

adjacent to the project area shows fuel loadings to be just under 30 tpa (Jewel 

Cave, 2008). In both cases the majority of this fuel is 3 inches or greater in 

diameter. 

Many of the areas with remaining stands of timber are experiencing mountain 

pine beetle attacks, which would lead to an increase in surface fuels if the trees 

are left to die and decompose. The reduction in the pine overstory and thermal 

cover has opened up the forest to an increase in grass production. Grass fuel 

loadings are estimated at 3 tons per acre with heights reaching 2-3 feet. 

The existing fuel loading is characterized by what is described as coarse woody 

debris (CWD), standing or down woody material generally greater than 3 inches 

in diameter, and the presence of smaller surface fuels. As CWD decays, the 

probability of a reburn is more likely due to the high fire persistence associated 

with it caused by smoldering. Large amounts of decaying CWD are also prone to 

spotting from log to log, which would result in high probabilities of ignition, even 

in the absence of torching trees, adding to an increased difficulty in controlling a 

fire. Also, with large woody fuel accumulation there is a greater chance of 

torching, crowning, and spotting due to the increased amount of energy released 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

17 

during a fire, similar to that of heavy slash burning. (Brown, Reinhardt, and 

Kramer, 2003) 

In the event of a wildfire, during 90th or 97th percentile weather conditions 

(climatological breakpoints describing the upper 10% and 3% of historical 

weather data), the woody fuels would burn slowly with high intensity, producing 

flamelengths greater than four feet. The elevated grass fuel loadings would result 

in a flashy fuel with high rates of spread. This, when combined with high 

intensity and long burn duration, would cause firefighters significant control 

difficulties and could result in extensive resource damage. Table 4 illustrates 

expected fire behavior outputs based on existing fuel conditions and differing fuel 

models throughout the project area. GR2 is a low load, dry climate grass fuel 

model. The primary carrier of the fire is a combination of grass and shrubs. This 

area would be representative of an area which is only grass with no pine 

overstory and little to no dead fuels. Fuel model 2 is characterized by a 

moderate load grass and timber litter understory and timber overstory. The 

primary carrier of the fire is a combination of grass and timber litter. This area 

would be representative of a timbered stand with a grass understory and little to 

no dead fuels. SB2 is moderate load activity fuel or blowdown (similar fire 

behavior characteristics to the accumulation of fire killed trees). The primary 

carrier of the fire is dead and down activity fuels or light blowdown. This area 

would be representative of an area which experienced high to extreme fire 

behavior intensities during past fires with most of the dead trees having fallen to 

the ground. 

Table 4: Fire Behavior Outputs Based on Existing Conditions 

 90th Percentile Weather 97th Percentile Weather

Fuel 

Model 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

GR2 8.5 79 600 10.7 91 976 

2 6.4 76 323 7.9 89 510 

SB2 5.9 79 273 7.2 ft 91 418 

The flame length represents the distance between the flame tip and the base of 

the flame. Fire line intensity is the rate of heat released from burning fuel. The 

probability of ignition is the probability that a fire will result from a firebrand upon 

contact with the fuel. 

Condition Class and Fire Regime 

Currently, there are three general types of fire regimes in the Black Hills, 

Table 5, and (USDA Forest Service 2005). Fire regimes characterize the role fire 

plays in an ecosystem. Historically, the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project 

area could be classified as Fire Regime 1, characterized by a 0-35 year fire 

return interval which consisted of a low to mixed severity surface fire (Hann et al., 

2003). Historically the project area would have been composed of a mosaic of 

multi-aged stands. Today with the dense, even aged stand structure the fire 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

18 

regime has been changed to one characterized by less frequent fires of stand 

replacing magnitude (Hunter et al., 2007). 

Table 5: Fire Regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005) 

The fire regime condition class (FRCC) rating can be used to describe the 

degree of departure from the historic fire regime, which could result in changes in 

vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire frequency and severity, and 

insect mortality. This departure can be due to fire suppression, livestock grazing, 

timber harvesting, or insects and disease (Hann et al., 2003). Characteristic 

conditions are those that occurred within a natural fire regime, representative of 

FRCC1. Under an FRCC2 or 3, conditions are uncharacteristic (Hann et al., 

2003). Table 6: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Rating Descriptions (Hann et 

al., 2003) below describes each condition class, followed by Figure 2, showing 

typical stand structure for each condition class. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

19 

Table 6: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Rating Descriptions (Hann et al., 

2003) 

Fire Regime 

Condition Class 

Description

FRCC1 

Low Departure from 

the *central tendency 

of the historic fire 

regime. 

• Fire regimes are within the historical range. 

• Risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. 

• Vegetative attributes are intact and functioning 

within the historical range. 

FRCC2 

Moderate Departure 

from the *central 

tendency of the 

historic fire regime. 

• Fire regimes are moderately altered from their 

historical range. 

• Risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

moderate. 

• Vegetation attributes have been moderately 

altered from their historical range. 

• Fire frequencies have departed from natural 

frequencies by one or more return intervals, 

resulting in changes to fire size, intensity, severity, 

and landscape patterns. 

FRCC3 

High Departure from 

the *central tendency 

of the historic fire 

regime. 

• Fire regimes are significantly altered from their 

historical range. 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

high. 

 

• Vegetation attributes have been significantly 

altered from their historical range. 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting 

in dramatic changes to fire size, intensity, 

severity, and landscape patterns. 

 *Central tendency refers to a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics including: species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

20 

Figure 1: Typical Stand Structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

The coarse scale national data characterizes the Jasper and Rogers Shack fire 

areas as partially condition class 2, in which fire regimes are moderately altered 

and there is a moderate risk of losing key components of the ponderosa pine 

forest system, and partially condition class 3, in which fire regimes are 

significantly altered and there is a high risk of losing key ecosystem components 

(FEIS). Evidence of past fires shows the potential for large, high intensity 

surface fires, and given the right conditions, stand-replacing fires, as exhibited by 

both the Jasper and Rogers Shack fires. The optimal condition for the forest 

would be a condition class 1 in which fire regimes would be within historical 

range. 

Risk/Value/Hazard 

A Fire Protection Assessment (FPA) was completed by the Black Hills National 

Forest in 1996 to address risk, hazard and value on the Forest, and is integrated 

into the Forest Plan. The purpose of the document was to identify and prioritize 

fire management activities to comprise an effective wildfire prevention program. 

The assessment rates the potential that a lightning or person-caused ignition 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

21 

would occur (risk), once ignited, the flammability of a fuel, based on fuel type and 

condition, topography, and weather influences, can create dangerous fireline 

intensities (hazard), and a possible negative change from fire (value). Risk and 

value are rated as three levels, low, moderate, or high. 

In assessing risk, 96% of the project area falls within a high risk rating. This 

rating is based on the potential of an ignition occurring as determined from 

historical fire record data. Fire history occurrence of both large and point fires 

were analyzed using the project area to illustrate the associated risk. The fire 

history data includes fires occurring from 1950 to 2008 (Table 7). Figure 3 is a 

map showing the distribution of the point fires within the project boundary. Also 

shown are the locations of the large fires occurring since 1950 and the portion of 

the project area falling within this large historic fire boundary. (Table 8) 

Table 7: Fire History Occurrence and the Size of the Fires from 1950-2008 

Fire Size 

Class 

Fire Size (acres) Number of Fires

A 0 – 1⁄4 215 

B 1⁄4 to 9 172 

C 10-99 13 

D 100 – 299 3 

E 300-999 2 

F 1000-4999 0 

G 5000 + 5 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

22 

Figure 2: Fire History Occurrence from 1950-2008 

Table 8: Area of Each Large Fire Falling Within the Project Perimeter 

Fire Name Fire Year Total Acres Acres Within Project 

Area 

Jasper 2000 83,511 15,567 

Rogers Shack 2001 11,896 2,846 

Mud Springs 1980 1,016 284 

The number of fires occurring on Black Hills National Forest System Land has 

remained fairly constant at 65-130 starts per year. The number of fires that have 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

23 

escaped initial attack have also remained constant. However, these escaped 

fires have become larger and more difficult to control, with an average large fire 

size increasing from under 1000 acres per fire in the early 1900’s, to over 8,000 

acres in recent years. Wildfires have burned approximately 240,000 acres since 

1980. 

In assessing value, 3% of the project area falls within a high value rating with the 

remaining 97% being moderate. Values at risk include communities, non-Forest 

Service lands and structures, which are characterized as WUI, Forest Service 

lands, natural resources, such as commercial timber stands, watersheds, cultural 

resources, caves, allotments, range improvements, wildlife habitat, a hiking trail, 

motorized recreation, dispersed camping areas, powerlines, investments in 

timber stand improvement and reforestation, as well as water, air and visual 

quality. 

Five At-Risk Communities (ARC) are located within or near the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project Area. Buffer zones were created at distances of a 

half, one, two, and three miles around the communities to assess the level of 

wildfire risk for each community (Figure 3). Based on the Custer County 

Assessor’s Office, it has been determined there are approximately 31 structures 

contained within the project area, and an additional 250 more within a 3 mile 

radius of the project area. The communities of Custer, Pringle, Argyle, Custer 

Highlands, and Ferguson Canyon, could all possibly be influenced by a wildfire 

occurring in or near the project boundary. The buffer surrounding Custer 

Highlands falls within the project area. Ferguson Canyon is directly adjacent. 

Custer, Pringle, and Argyle are approximately 5 miles away from the project 

area. The local communities continue to grow at a remarkable rate with an influx 

of people building new homes within close proximity to Forest Service lands. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

24 

Figure 3: At-Risk Communities (ARC) and Structures

In assessing hazard, prior to the Jasper and Rogers Shack fires, 97% of the 

project area was rated as moderate and 3 % was rated as high based on the 

Black Hills National Forest Fire Protection Assessment. This demonstrates that 

a fire hazard rating of high is not necessary for there to be a stand replacing fire 

exhibiting extreme fire behavior. Under the right weather conditions, it can 

happen with a rating of moderate as well. Due to the change in structure stages 

caused by the fires, fire intensity and fuel loading were used to establish current 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

25 

hazard ratings in areas of the project that were impacted by the fire. The existing 

hazard ratings were used in areas that were unclassified or unburned. Fuel 

loadings were evaluated in terms of coarse woody debris (CWD), standing or 

down woody material generally greater than 3 inches in diameter and the 

presence of smaller surface fuels. Figure 5 illustrates the different intensities 

across the Jasper and Rogers Shack fire areas. Intensity estimates were unable 

to be made for various reasons in the areas identified as unclassified. The fires 

burned with high intensity in 45%, moderate intensity in 31%, low intensity in 

13%, and 11% went unclassified within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project area. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

26 

Figure 4: Burn Intensities in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires 

The Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment Team estimated tree mortality based on the 

different intensities the fire burned across the landscape. These estimates, along 

with ocular field observations and fuel loading comparisons in the Black Hills 

Photo Series, were used to determine fuel loadings based on intensity, which 

was in turn used to establish fire hazard. 

In areas of high intensity, the fire consumed the vegetation on the ground and 

burned the canopies of the trees as well, leaving black trees with a few remaining 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

27 

branches and few surface fuels. Mortality in these areas was estimated to be 50-

100 percent (Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment, 2000). With no green trees left, the 

remaining black trees are decomposing and the majority have broken off or fallen 

down and added to the surface fuels. In these areas, the fuel loading is 

approximately 30-45 tons per acre, based on ocular estimates, with it varying 

between areas that had a closed canopy to areas that were more open. 

Approximately 90 percent of this fuel loading is CWD. In places where the 

overstory is no longer present, the grass fuel loading has increased, adding to 

the surface fuels as well. 

In areas of moderate intensity, mortality was approximately 20-50 percent 

(Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment, 2000). The fire scorched much of the crowns 

and in some areas all of them, leaving trees with brown crowns or the black 

remains of trees. Many of the smaller trees and a large portion of the surface 

fuels were consumed. Today, large amounts of the dead trees and branches 

have broken off and added to the increased grass fuel loading composing the 

surface fuel. Where green trees still exist, the falling dead trees have become 

intertwined with the standing trees, creating areas that obstruct animal and 

human foot travel. Ocular estimates for fuel loadings in these areas are 20-30 

tons per acre. Approximately 80 percent is made up of CWD. 

In areas of low intensity, mortality was estimated to be 0-20 percent (Jasper 

Fire Rapid Assessment, 2000). The fire primarily burned the surface fuels, but 

did scorch some of the lower foliage on the trees as well. The majority of the 

crowns are still green on top. The lower branches and needles that were 

scorched have now fallen and added to the surface fuel loading. There is a lower 

density of grass in places that still have closed canopies. The close proximity of 

the remaining trees and areas of thick understory provide ladder fuels that 

contribute to fire spread. This is representative of fuel conditions prior to Jasper 

and Rogers Shack occurring. By ocular estimates, fuel loadings are estimated to 

be between 10-20 tons per acre in these areas. The fuel loading of CWD is 10 

percent or less. 

CWD greater than 25-30 tons per acre combined with small woody fuels of 5 tons 

per acre or less result in high fire hazard due to high resistance to control. In 

instances where 30-40 tons per acre is reached the hazard rating jumps to very 

high. In the areas that experienced moderate to high burn intensity CWD fuel 

loadings range from 25-40 tons per acre with the small woody fuels around 5 

tons per acre. This results in high to very high fire hazard. The optimum CWD 

for an acceptable fire hazard that also provides benefits to soil and wildlife in 

ponderosa pine stands is 5 to 20 tons per acre (Brown et al. in press). Figure 5 

and Table 9 illustrate current fire hazard rating and portion of the project area for 

each rating. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

28 

Figure 5: Fire Hazard Ratings for the Project Area 

Table 9: Total Area and Percentage of the Project Area for the Current Fire Hazard 

Approximate Total Acres Current Fire 

Hazard 

Approximate Percentage of 

Project Area 

7,907 High-Very High 43% 

7,546 Moderate 41% 

3,030 Low 16% 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

29 

Air Quality 

Air quality in the Black Hills is considered to be excellent, having pollution 

concentrations lower than both State and Federal standards. Maintaining and 

improving air quality in the Black Hills and western South Dakota is desired. 

Although usually short in duration, smoke from wildfires and prescribed fires has 

the potential to affect air quality. Although smoke produced by wildfires is usually 

of longer duration than prescribed fires. The EPA addresses smoke from 

wildland fire under their natural events policy at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf. 

(Phase II Amendment FEIS, 2005). 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area is in the vicinity of two Class 1 

airsheds; Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park and five 

communities, Argyle, Pringle, Custer Highlands, Ferguson Canyon, and Custer 

(Figure 4). The project area is designated as a Class II area allowing higher 

concentrations of pollutants than the Class I Airsheds. Smoke generated by a 

wildfire cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under the controlled 

conditions of a prescribed fire can be mitigated using the following means: 

• Limit treatment area size to decrease exposure 

• Write and follow prescriptions for wind direction and speed in the 

burn plan 

• Specify minimum mixing heights 

• Stagger ignitions 

These mitigation techniques, in addition to other control methods for smoke 

management, minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health. 

Winds in the project area are predominately south to southwest, which should aid 

in dispersing smoke away from the Class I Airsheds. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1: No Action 

In a no action alternative the only changes that would occur on the landscape 

would be those that result from natural occurrences, wildfire suppression, or 

future project decisions. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

No proposed management activities would occur in the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project area. The increasing trend towards FRCC2 and 

FRCC3 would continue. Without the use of fuels and prescribed fire treatments, 

the accumulation of fire-killed trees would remain continuing to decompose on 

the forest floor or entangled in existing live stands. The current conditions would 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

30 

promote the spread of mountain pine beetles within the remaining green stands 

of trees resulting in more dying trees, later adding to the surface fuel loading. 

The fuels composing the existing high levels of CWD that resulted from the fires 

would slowly decompose over time, increasing the potential for spotting during 

wildfires. 

In areas which were previously burned under high severity fire there would be a 

continued increase in grass production due to the reduction in overstory. This, 

when coupled with the high accumulations of CWD would be conducive to fast 

moving wildland fires of high intensity and duration. The areas that experienced a 

low severity burn retained their canopy fuels structure and thus remain 

susceptible to crown fire under the right weather conditions. In areas of 

moderate severity, the understory and some of the overstory was removed, but 

many larger diameter trees still remain and would act as a seed source 

continuing to produce seedlings over time. These areas would most likely 

develop into multi-structured stands, increasing the potential for torching, 

crowning, and spotting. 

In the next 10-20 years, as abundant regeneration develops and fills in openings 

across the landscape, fire behavior associated with it would resemble a shrub 

fuel type, which would exhibit high flamelengths, fireline intensities, spread rates, 

and probabilities of ignition. This fire behavior would make heavy equipment 

necessary for fire suppression. Firefighters could not use direct attack tactics. In 

addition, the accumulated CWD would resemble a fuel model consisting of heavy 

dead and down material or slash adding to the already high fireline intensity and 

increased persistence. As CWD continues to decompose, the large fuels 

become more susceptible to ignition from falling embers. As a result spotting 

would increase because the embers can spot from log to log, on the ground, as 

well as from torching trees. The high grass fuel loadings would exhibit fast 

spread rates and high flamelengths in the event of a wildfire. The closely spaced 

regeneration would have a ladder effect in the remaining stands of trees, 

enabling fire to transition to the crowns. 

Under the 90th and 97th percentile weather conditions a fire will continue to exhibit 

fire behavior conditions similar to current conditions including high rates of 

spread, flamelengths over four feet, torching, spotting, crowning, and high 

intensities, which would result in an increase in fire hazard. (Table 10) Fire 

behavior in both the moderate and high severity areas would result in an 

increase in resistance to control and a greater likelihood of wildfire escape 

leading to an increased risk of loss of natural forest resources as well as private 

property, and decreased firefighter and public safety. The high intensity would 

also cause consumption of the remaining duff layer and soil heating as well as 

other resource damage. Without treatment the FRCC of the project area would 

continue to deteriorate moving more toward FRCC3 and the fire hazard would 

move toward high to very high. The risk rating for the project area would remain 

unchanged due to the fact that risk is based on potential ignition. The value 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

31 

rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area. The greatest potential for wildland fire growth exists 

with this alternative. 

These conditions demonstrate fire behavior associated with a high fire hazard 

rating. Direct attack by firefighters is safe and effective when fire produces 

flamelengths of 0-4 feet and fireline intensities of 0-100 Btu/ft/s, represented by a 

low to moderate fire hazard. Under the conditions shown above, resistance to 

control would increase, indirect attack would be necessary, firefighters safety 

would decrease, and mechanized equipment would likely be needed to aid 

suppression efforts. 

Table 10: Alternative 1 Fire Behavior Outputs (BehavePlus 4.0) 

 90th Percentile Weather 97th Percentile Weather

Fuel 

Model 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

GR2 8.5 79 600 10.7 91 976 

2 6.4 76 323 7.9 89 510 

SB2 5.9 79 273 7.2 ft 91 418 

Air quality would not be impacted under the no action alternative, unless there 

was a wildfire in which case there would not be any control over the timing or 

amount of emissions released into adjacent airsheds. A large wildfire has the 

potential to make a much greater impact on adjacent communities and Type 1 

airsheds, possibly exceeding National Air Quality Standards. The EPA 

addresses smoke from wildland fire under their natural events policy at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf. 

(Phase II Amendment FEIS, 2005). 

Under the no action alternative, the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project would 

not contribute to meeting objectives of the Phase II Amendment of the LRMP or 

LRMP targets for fuels treatments or prescribed burning. This would also not 

meet the intent of the National Fire Plan, or any other national, regional, or local 

direction/policies. 

Alternative 2 

The proposed action alternative focuses on reducing long term fire hazard and 

improving health and vigor of forested stands in the Jasper and Rogers Shack 

Fire areas. 

This alternative would treat 1,645 acres commercially, 2,532 acres noncommercially, and 16,986 acres through prescribed fire. The commercial 

treatments would reduce basal area (BA) to 50 ft2/ac. to 60 ft2/ac which would 

reduce the susceptibility to mountain pine beetles as well as the possibility of 

crown fire spread. Pre-commercial thinning would also decrease crown fire 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

32 

potential. Prescription burning would reduce the current fuel loadings by 30%-

50% which would change fire behavior of future wildfires, reducing risk to life and 

property (Jewel Cave, 2008). Mechanical fuels treatments would treat slash to 

within 18 inches of the ground to break up fuel continuity, reducing fire hazard 

and providing greater tactical opportunities during fire suppression. 

In order for treatments to be effective for more than 10 years, some follow-up 

treatments or consecutive treatments are planned, resulting in more than one 

treatment in some sites. FRCC is expected to improve with areas classified as 

FRCC 3 moving toward a FRCC 2 and those classified as FRCC 2 moving 

toward a FRCC 1, more representative of natural conditions. Fire hazard is also 

expected to improve due with the reduced fuel loading and resulting reduction in 

fireline intensities.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Treatments outlined in alternative 2 would decrease the risk for catastrophic fires, 

allowing for characteristic low to mixed severity fires to occur. The treatments 

proposed in this alternative would have a significant effect on fuels arrangement 

and fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack under this alternative 

would be much greater and the risk to the general public and firefighters would 

be reduced. 

This alternative would move 7,907 acres from a fire hazard rating of high-very 

high to moderate and 7,606 acres from moderate to low, consistent with objective 

10-01 of the Forest Plan. It would maintain the existing mosaic of fuels and also 

treat hazardous fuels in the project area, as well as decrease the risk of mountain 

pine beetle outbreaks, consistent with Goals 10 and 11 of the Forest Plan. 

 The timber treatments, fuels treatments, and prescribed burning would decrease 

ladder fuels in the remaining stands of timber, reduce the surface fuel loading 

moving the CWD towards the optimum of 5-20 tons per acre, and break up the 

continuity of the fuels. Prescribed burning would also enhance the mosaic of 

burned and unburned fuels that which resulted from past wildfires. The result of 

these treatments would be a decrease in flamelength, intensity, duration, 

spotting, probability of ignition, and crownfire potential (Table 11). This would 

create more strategic and tactical firefighting opportunities resulting in greater 

success during initial attack due to the fact that fireline construction rates would 

be enhanced, line placement opportunities would increase, and resistance to 

control would decrease. Suppression costs would also decrease due to the 

improved initial attack success rate. The reduction in fire behavior would create 

a safer environment for firefighters as well as the public. The break up in fuel 

continuity would also lead to more opportunities for locating safety zones. The 

risk of mountain pine beetle outbreaks and the resulting accumulation to surface 

fuels would also be reduced by thinning. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

33 

Table 11: Alternative 2 Fire Behavior Outuputs (BehavePlus 4.0) 

 90th Percentile Weather 97

th Percentile Weather

Fuel 

Model

Flamelength 

(ft) 

Prob. of

Ignition (%)

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

Flamelength 

(ft) 

Prob. of

Ignition (%)

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

GR2 8.5 79 600 10.7 91 976 

2 6.4 76 323 7.9 89 510 

TL5 1.8 77 21 2.2 89 31 

In areas where the primary carrier of the fire is grass and/or shrubs the area will 

not change drastically enough to change the fuel model therefore the fire 

behavior will be the same. In the areas which are currently identified as being 

SB2, a reduction in tons per acre of 30%-50% is expected. This reduction in total 

fuel loading will be a direct result of the consumption of all size classes of the 

dead fuels. With the reduction of fuel loading this area will be best represented 

by TL5, high load conifer litter. The primary carrier of the fire would be high load 

conifer litter, light slash or mortality fuel. Both spread rates and flame lengths will 

be low when compared to current condition fuel models. Fire behavior in this fuel 

model would change from that representative of a high fire hazard to conditions 

expected under a low to moderate fire hazard rating. The level of fire hazard 

improvement is directly proportional to those areas being treated. Resistance to 

control would decrease enabling firefighters to perform direct attack safely and 

successfully. 

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require 

approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 5 to 10 years. Although usually 

short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air 

quality. The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn (HCMB) project area is in the 

vicinity of two Class 1 airsheds; Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National 

Park and three communities, Argyle, Pringle and Custer (Figure 4). The HCMB 

project area is designated as a Class II area allowing higher concentrations of 

pollutants than the Class I Airsheds. Smoke generated by wildfire is usually 

greater and cannot be mitigated; however, smoke generated under controlled 

conditions can be mitigated using the following means: 

• Limit treatment area size 

• Specify wind direction and speed 

• Specify minimum mixing heights 

• Stagger ignitions 

These mitigation techniques in addition to other control methods for smoke 

management minimize the impacts of smoke to visibility and human health. 

Effects of treatment would be visible for approximately 10 years. Beyond that, 

resistance to control would rise as the pine regeneration grows more quickly 

filling in the open areas where the canopy has been opened up and surface fuels 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

34 

continue accumulate. If wildfire occurred in the next 10 years, mortality in the 

regeneration could be high, but later in the life of the stand, the effects of a fire 

would be less as the fire resistance of pine regeneration increases (Battaglia et 

al., 2008). Consecutive treatments would be necessary to maintain treatment 

effectiveness characterized by an FRCC close to historical conditions with low 

intensity mixed severity wildfires. Without consecutive treatments, in 20 years, 

fire behavior would increase due to an increase in ladder fuels enabling spotting 

and crownfire initiation to contribute to fire spread.

This alternative would meet the Phase II Amendment, LRMP objectives 

associated with Goals 10 and 11 by managing for 50 to 75 percent moderate-tolow fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface, reducing hazardous fuels, 

inhibiting mountain pine beetle spread, and maintaining the fuel loading mosaic 

that resulted from the wildfires. It would meet the intent of the National Fire Plan 

as well as other regional and local policies and direction. This alternative would 

also contribute to creating a fire safe forest, while progressing toward a more 

natural FRCC1. Following treatment, the risk rating would remain the same 

because the risk of human caused and lightning caused ignitions cannot be 

managed. Wildfires would still occur, but after treatment they would be more 

manageable. The hazard rating would be improved following treatment with 

reduced fireline intensities and flamelengths (Table 8). Most values would 

remain unchanged. However, with mechanical treatment the value of timber 

would increase because it would be less susceptible to attack and destruction by 

mountain pine beetles. This alternative would be most effective at meeting the 

purpose and need for the project out of the three alternatives. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative would treat 624 acres commercially, 866 acres noncommercially, and 16,544 acres through prescribed fire. This alternative would 

move 7,808 acres from a fire hazard rating of high-very high to moderate and 

5,227 acres to a low rating, consistent with objective 10-01 of the Forest Plan. It 

would maintain the existing mosaic of fuels and also treat hazardous fuels in the 

project area, consistent with Goals 10 and 11 of the Forest Plan. 

Due to the reduction of thinning acres and the addition of group selection as a 

treatment, the chance of mountain pine beetle spread would be higher. The 

trees killed by the beetles would die and fall, adding to the surface fuels over 

time. The thinning in this alternative would not be as effective at reducing the 

ladder fuels and increasing crown spacing as in alternative 2. Group selection 

would leave ladder fuels within the groups of trees that were not thinned which 

would be conducive to torching and spotting. The potential for crownfire would 

remain high in areas that weren’t thinned, especially as regeneration developed. 

The acres that would receive thinning, fuels treatment, and prescribed burning 

would have fewer ladder fuels in the remaining stands of timber and a reduced 

surface fuel loading moving the CWD towards the optimum of 5-20 tons per acre. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

35 

Prescribed burning would also enhance the mosaic of fuels that resulted from the 

past wildfires. In areas the fuel loading and ladder fuels was reduced, a 

decrease in flame length, intensity, duration, spotting, probability of ignition, and 

crownfire potential would be experience during a wildfire. Treatments in this 

alternative would create more strategic and tactical firefighting opportunities due 

to the break up in fuel continuity. The result would be greater success during 

initial attack due to more opportunities for line placement. Resistance to control 

would decrease in some areas, but remain high in others where there would be 

potential for spotting from groups of trees as well as from log to log. Firefighter 

safety would increase due to the overall reduction in fire behavior and increase in 

safety zone opportunities. 

As with Alternative 2, fire behavior would not change in the grass fuel model, but 

fire behavior in the timber fuel model would change from that representative of a 

high fire hazard to conditions expected under a low to moderate fire hazard 

rating. Resistance to control would decrease enabling firefighters to perform 

direct attack safely and successfully. The same post fire conditions modeled in 

Alternative 2 would be applicable to Alternative 3. (Table 12) The major 

difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is the amount of improvement 

in fire hazard which is again directly proportional to the amount of area being 

treated. 

Table 12: Alternative 1, 2, 3, Fire Behavior Outputs (BehavePlus 4.0) 

Alternative 1:

 90th Percentile Weather 97th Percentile Weather 

Fuel 

Model 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

GR2 8.5 79 600 10.7 91 976 

2 6.4 76 323 7.9 89 510 

SB2 5.9 79 273 7.2 ft 91 418 

Alternative 2 & 3:

 90th Percentile Weather 97th Percentile Weather 

Fuel 

Model 

Flamelength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

FlameLength (ft) Prob. of

Ignition (%) 

Fireline Int

(Btu/ft/s) 

GR2 8.5 79 600 10.7 91 976 

2 6.4 76 323 7.9 89 510 

TL5 1.8 77 21 2.2 89 31 

Accomplishing prescribed broadcast burning objectives is estimated to require 

approximately 10-15 ignition days per year for 5 to 10 years. Although usually 

short in duration, smoke from prescribed fires has the potential to affect air 

quality. The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn (HCMB) project area is in the 

vicinity of two Class 1 airsheds; Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National 

Park and three communities, Argyle, Pringle and Custer (Figure 3). Smoke 

effects and mitigation techniques are the same for alternative 3 as they were for 

alternative 2. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

36 

Effects of treatment would be visible for approximately 10 years. Beyond that 

resistance to control would rise as the pine regeneration grows more quickly 

filling in the open areas where trees once grew and surface fuels accumulate. If 

wildfire occurred in the next 10 years, mortality in the regeneration could be high, 

but later in the life of the stand, the effects of a fire would be less as the fire 

resistance of pine regeneration increases (Battaglia et al., 2008). Consecutive 

treatments would be needed to maintain treatment effectiveness characterized 

by an FRCC close to historical conditions with low intensity mixed severity 

wildfires. Without consecutive treatments, in 20 years, fire behavior would 

increase due to an increase in ladder fuels enabling spotting and crownfire 

initiation to contribute to fire spread. 

This alternative would meet the Phase II Amendment LRMP objectives 

associated with Goals 10 and 11 by managing for 50 to 75 percent moderate-tolow fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface, reducing hazardous fuels, and 

maintaining the fuel loading mosaic that resulted from the wildfires. It would 

meet the intent of the National Fire Plan as well as other regional and local 

policies and direction. This alternative would also contribute to creating a fire 

safe forest. There would be a greater probability of spotting and crowning with 

this alternative than alternative 2. It would not be as effective for inhibiting the 

spread of mountain pine beetle in the areas the beetle outbreaks are occurring. 

Fire hazard rating would improve under this alternative, but only 13,035 as 

opposed to 15,513 acres would show improvement. FRCC would also move 

toward more historical conditions, with areas of a FRCC 3 moving toward a 

FRCC 2 and areas of FRCC 2 moving toward a FRCC 1. Following treatment, 

the risk rating would remain the same because the risk of human caused and 

lightning caused ignitions cannot be managed. Wildfires would still occur, but 

following treatment they would be more manageable. Most values would remain 

the same, but the areas that received thinning would result in improved timber 

value due to the reduced potential for spread of mountain pine beetles. This 

alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project as well as 

alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives 

 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions for the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project were analyzed within the project boundary. The 

analysis included activities that took place between 2000 and 2009 and those 

that would occur from 2009 to 2015. This timeframe allows for mechanical and 

prescribed fire activities as well as the mountain pine beetle spread to occur. 

Due to aggressive wildfire suppression over the last 100 years, there has been a 

buildup of down woody material, densely stocked closed canopy stands, and 

increased ladder fuels, which all lead to high fire hazard and wildfires of 

increased severity (Hunter et al. 2007). The result, evident today, is large stand 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

37 

replacing wildfires of high intensity at longer fire return intervals, a trend exhibited 

by the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires. If fires had not been so actively 

suppressed in the past, fires would burn with less intensity at a more frequent 

interval today. 

Past timber sales which took place in the project area between 2000 and 2004 

either improved or worsened the fuels condition and fire hazard depending on 

activity type. Timber treatments that decreased crown closure, reduced ladder 

fuels, and received piling and burning of the remaining activity fuels, improved 

fire hazard in the project area. These areas would be less conducive to initiation 

and spread of crown fire, spotting, and long term smoldering of fuels in the 

understory. Fire that could occur in these areas would burn with less intensity, 

lower flamelengths, and slower rates of spread than in areas that didn’t receive 

treatment. Timber treatments that didn’t reduce the understory density or in 

which activity fuels were added to the surface fuels worsened the fire hazard, 

especially in areas where there was an increased fuel loading that resulted from 

the Jasper fire. The condition of these fuels could promote crowning, spotting, 

and high intensity fire. 

Presently the project area is continuing to experience effects of the wildfires. 

Many of the fire killed trees have fallen and accumulated on the forest floor or 

have become entangled in the remaining timber stands. Grass fuel loadings 

have increased due to the reduction in overstory. Natural regeneration of 

ponderosa pine is starting to occur. Some tree planting adjacent to the project 

area has also taken place. Today, the uncharacteristic high surface fuel loading, 

along with the jack-strawed trees in the timber stands, contribute to creating a 

high to very high fire hazard in 45% of the project area, moderate in 43%, and 

low in 12%. As regeneration of pine continues to occur in the stands that 

experienced low to moderate severity, fire hazard would continue to increase. 

Fuel loadings present in the project area are very similar to what existed in the 

Brewer Fire scar at the time the Kraft Springs Fire burned through it 14 years 

later. These fuel conditions lead to extreme fire behavior during the Kraft Springs 

Fire with fast rates of spread, spotting, and convective column development. 

Firefighters became entrapped and deployed fire shelters as a result (Kraft 

Springs EA, 2003). 

 

The Jasper and Rogers Shack fires confirmed that fires on the Black Hills have 

the ability to make large runs in a short period of time. Although this is unlikely 

and requires extreme conditions, a catastrophic fire is more probable if no fuels 

treatment is implemented. A catastrophic wildfire brings with it numerous risks 

and effects. Homes in the path of a wildfire are perhaps the most immediately 

recognized value at risk, however, severe wildfires put numerous other important 

values such as critical infrastructure, critical wildlife habitat, firefighter and public 

safety, soil productivity, clean air, and functional fire-adapted ecosystems at risk 

as well (Graham et al., 2004). Some of these values are also threatened by the 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

38 

secondary effects of wildfire, such as soil erosion, and the spread of non-native 

species (Graham et al., 2004). 

Under the No Action Alternative, fire hazard would be expected to worsen in the 

future due to an increasing grass component under open stands, the slowly 

decomposing high concentrations of CWD, and the development of regenerating 

ponderosa pine. The potential for crown-fires, high fireline intensity, spotting, 

and spread rates would increase. With this type of fire behavior, forest 

suppression objectives would not be met. FRCC would not improve and would 

most likely continue to deteriorate as mountain pine beetle infestations continue 

to occur and there becomes an unnatural growth of regeneration amongst the 

large amounts of CWD in the project area. This would create conditions 

conducive to extreme fire behavior as well as mountain pine beetle outbreaks, 

resulting in a high risk of losing key ecosystem components. Defensible space 

would also be minimized, resulting in dangerous conditions for the firefighters 

and the general public in the event of a fire. A fast moving, high intensity fire 

would be difficult to stop under these conditions and would likely escape the 

project area, burning until it reached an area where fuel continuity and 

arrangement was more conducive to lessened fire behavior. 

Both action alternatives are expected to have positive long term cumulative 

effects, but alternative 2 would be most effective at decreasing the risk of 

catastrophic fires. The proposed treatments would reduce fire hazard by 

reducing canopy closure, decreasing the fuel loading, and breaking up vertical 

and horizontal fuel continuity, bringing the forest closer to historical conditions as 

well and creating a more fire safe forest. FRCC would improve and mountain 

pine beetle spread would be slowed. 

Reasonably foreseeable projects would also contribute to how fire would burn 

across the landscape. Together, treatments from these projects combined with 

the treatments proposed in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn would be more 

effective at decreasing the hazardous fuels and improving fire hazard and FRCC 

than treatment in one area alone. The combined treatments would also be 

effective for a longer time period. 

Vegetation treatments on adjacent and non-Forest Service lands would also 

enhance effects of both past, present, and future treatments on the forest. In 

areas that are left untreated, an increase in fireline intensity, torching, spotting, 

and spread rates can be expected. 

It is important to understand that regardless of treatment, the risk of ignition by 

humans or lightning cannot be managed and would continue to occur and result 

in wildfires. However, it is possible to manage fuels and minimize the fire 

behavior and its associated effects. It is possible that these future fires could 

have an impact on residential areas near the project boundary. However the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

39 

impact would be lessened with the implementation of past, present, and future 

fuels and timber treatments. 

Silviculture 

Existing Conditions 

The vegetation in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn (HCMB) area is dominated 

by burned over ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) stands that were reduced to 

the grass/forb stage along the ridges and slopes after the Jasper Fire of 2000 

and the Roger’s Shack Fire of 2001. Of these former timbered stands, 80% have 

little or no trees remaining on the slope and they are dominated by grass, forbs, 

and shrubs. The pine stands that remain stocked with ponderosa pine (20%) 

vary in tree density. Some pine stands are more dense than others with basal 

areas reaching up to 100-150 ft2/ac. Stands of aspen (Populus tremuloides)

(1%) are found in the draw bottoms in the western half of the analysis area and in 

some upslope areas in the far northeastern end. The slopes in the project area 

range from level ground to 50-60% in the southern end. Approximately 83% of 

the area has a slope between 0 and 25%. 

Table 13: Cover Type in HCMB 

Cover Type Acreage Percentage

Meadow 1,759 10 

Aspen 243 1 

Ponderosa Pine 16,462 89 

Shrubs 64 <1 

Non-Vegetated Sites* 15 <1 

Totals 18,543 100 

*Non-Vegetated Sites are three sites with a cover type of rock. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

40 

 Table 14: Structural Stages by Cover Type in HCMB 

Structural Stage Ponderosa 

Pine 

Aspen Meadow Shrub Rock Total

Meadow/grassland 1,759 1,759

Non-SS 64 15 79

SS1 13,009 13,009

SS2 243 243

SS3A 0

SS3B 0

SS3C 0

SS4A 2,553 2,553

SS4B 901 901

SS4C 

SS5 

TOTAL 16,462 243 1,759 64 15 18,543

Ponderosa Pine 

Ponderosa pine cover type dominates the HCMB analysis area with 89% of the 

area. Of the pine stands, 80% is in the grass/forb stage due to the Jasper and 

Roger’s Shack fires. Of the remaining pine stands, <1% of the pine is in the pole 

size class (5-8.9 inches DBH) and 20% is in the sawtimber size class (9-inches 

DBH and larger). 

Regeneration is sparse to none within most SS1 areas (grass/forb). Ponderosa 

pine has large heavy seeds with relatively small wings that disperse fairly close 

to the parent trees (1 to 1.5 tree height) (Sheppard and Battaglia 2002). Within 

the SS1 areas, the distance from a pine seed source is much greater than 1 to 

1.5 tree lengths to be able to regenerate these sites. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk

The majority of the remaining pine stands in the project area are 

concentrated in one area. The mountain pine beetle (MPB) is showing 

increased activity in the pine stands within this area (Table 15). Patches 

of dead trees ranging from two or three to several large patches of dozens 

of infected trees can be seen in areas where there is still a heavy 

concentration of trees. The most noticeable area of infestation is along 

the Antelope Ridge Road (FSR 283) around the intersection of the 

Surveyor’s Hill Road (FSR 668) and less than a mile to the east of this 

intersection along the Mud Springs Road (FSR 282). Trees infested from 

last year’s bug flight (green hits) were also found within these stands. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

41 

Table 15: Current MPB Risk Rating 

MPB Risk

Rating 

Current

Acres 

Current

Percentage

Low 13,008 79 

Medium 2,554 16 

High 901 5 

Structural Stage 

Management Areas 5.1 and 5.4 have a structural stage objective 

(Objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-206) within the ponderosa pine cover type. 

These objectives are to manage for the following percentages of structural 

stages in the ponderosa pine cover type across each management area in 

a variety of sizes and shapes. Management Area 3.7 does not have a 

structural stage objective (Table 16).

Table 16: Structural Stage Objective Percentages for Ponderosa 

Pine Across Management Areas 5.1 and 5.4. 

Structural 

Stage Percentage 

Structural 

Stage Percentage 

SS1 5% SS4A 25% * 

SS2 5% SS4B 25% * 

SS3A 10% SS4C 5% * 

SS3B 15% SS5 5% ** 

SS3C 5% 

*10% of the structural stage 4 ponderosa pine acres in the management area 

will have an average tree size of ‘very large’ (16-inches or greater dbh). Seek 

opportunities to increase understory shrubs in open-canopy structural stages. 

**Active management is allowed, and may be necessary to provide desired 

late-successional characteristics. 

The current condition of the structural stage percentages for ponderosa 

pine cover type in these two management areas can be found in Table 17. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

42 

Table 17: Existing Condition: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 

5.1 Management Area 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition

Pine 

Acres 

Existing *

Condition 

Percentages 

1 5% 37,468 8% 

2 5% 16,378 3% 

3A 10% 18,123 4% 

3B 15% 21,319 4% 

3C 5% 11,176 2% 

4A 25% 181,254 38% 

4B 25% 141,541 30% 

4C 5% 49,337 10% 

5 5% 798 0.2% 

Totals 100% 477,394 100%

*These are short-term percentages for the Existing Condition. 

In management area 5.1, pine sites in structural stage 4 have 12% of the 

stands in the ‘very large’ (V) tree size, which is 2% over the management 

area objective of 10%. 

Existing condition for ‘very large’ (VL) tree size (16-inches or greater dbh) 

MA 5.1: 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan 

Objective 

VL Tree Size 

Existing Condition

VL Tree Size 

Percentage 

4A,B,C 10% 12% 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

43 

Table 18: Existing Condition: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.4 

Management Area 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition

Pine 

Acres 

Existing *

Condition 

Percentages 

1 5% 52,651 15% 

2 5% 9,183 3% 

3A 10% 16,358 5% 

3B 15% 24,827 7% 

3C 5% 16,303 5% 

4A 25% 84,731 25% 

4B 25% 90,839 26% 

4C 5% 48,084 14% 

5 5% 1,196 0.3% 

Totals 100% 344,172 100%

*These are short-term percentages for the Existing Condition. 

In management area 5.4, pine sites in structural stage 4 have 9% of the 

stands in the ‘very large’ (V) tree size, which is 1% under the management 

area objective of 10%. 

Existing condition for ‘very large’ (VL) tree size (16-inches or greater dbh) MA 

5.4: 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan 

Objective 

VL Tree Size 

Existing Condition

VL Tree Size 

Percentage 

4A,B,C 10% 9% 

Structural stages change over time within management areas due to 

harvest activities, large wildfires, wind events, or MPB infestations that 

would affect an entire stand. Natural or artificial regeneration of a SS1 site 

would also change structural stages. 

Aspen 

One percent of the area (289 acres) is in the aspen cover type which is the only 

hardwood found in the analysis area. Most of the aspen is found as stringers in 

the draw bottoms within a meadow or pine stands, but there are some upland 

stands (289 acres) found on the northeast side of the project area. A few 

scattered individuals may be found mixed within the remaining pine stands. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

44 

Areas of aspen seedlings and saplings can be found in various areas of the 

Jasper fire where the fire has encouraged suckering from existing roots. There is 

no aspen found south of Hwy 16 in the Roger’s Shack portion of the analysis 

area. 

Understory Vegetation 

The understory vegetation consists of shrubs, forbs, and grasses in varying 

degrees of density. Within stocked conifer stands the amount of understory 

vegetation present depends on the denseness of the tree canopy. The denser 

the tree canopy the thinner the amount of understory vegetation may exist. This 

is due to shading and competition for moisture and nutrients from the trees. In 

areas of under stocked conifer stands or areas of structural stage 1 (grass/forb), 

the understory vegetation is denser due to lack of competition of sunlight, 

moisture and nutrients from overstory trees. 

Oregon grape (Berberis repens), kinnikinnik (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), 

serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) are 

common shrubs found in most sites, while mountain mahogany (Cerocarpus 

montanus) is found in the southern locations. There are a large variety of forbs 

and grasses in the analysis area. Five sites (68 acres) are coded with a cover 

type of shrub lands. One site (36 acres) is mountain mahogany and four sites 

(28 acres) are snowberry. 

Meadows and Grasslands 

There are 105 sites (1759 acres) that make up the meadows and grasslands. 

Large meadows in the northern end can be found as large upland openings 

(such as Deadhorse Flats) and in the drainage bottoms with stringers running up 

the draws dividing the conifer stands. In the southern end, the meadows give 

way to the southern grasslands. Pine encroachment removal from meadows and 

grasslands has been accomplished often in the post sale activities of past timber 

sales. 

Non-Vegetated Rock 

There are three sites (15 acres) with a cover type of non-vegetated rock. One is 

a rock shelf that runs horizontally along the slope. The other two sites are old 

Tepee agate quarries.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

45 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

The overall goal of silviculture is to manage the forest environment to achieve 

desired management goals and objectives. This section displays an overview of 

the analysis and effects to timber resources within the HCMB project area. 

Alternative 1: No Action 

Under this alternative, no new timber management activities or prescribed 

burning would occur in the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Ponderosa Pine 

In areas of fully stocked stands, the effects of deferring treatment in the pine 

stands would be a slower increase in yield as the size of the existing trees would 

increase at a reduced rate due to competition, a reduction of diameter growth 

due to age and overstocking, an increased risk to mountain pine beetle 

infestations, and an increased risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire. 

In areas with under stocked stands or open grown trees, trees would continue to 

grow with little or no competition. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk 

Mountain pine beetle risk would remain the same with this alternative. 

Mountain pine beetle caused mortality is expected to increase. The large 

infestations, located in the middle portion of the analysis area in the Mud 

Springs/Antelope Ridge area, are expected to increase in size and spread 

into uninfested areas. The majority of the remaining pine stands in the 

project area are concentrated in this one area and the MPB is showing 

increased activity within this area. In areas with under stocked stands or 

open grown trees, there would be little or no risk of mountain pine beetle 

infestations. 

Age class distribution may change where mortality occurs due to the MPB. 

The mortality caused by MPB would open up pine stands creating large 

openings or MPB mortality could reduce entire stands to structural stage 

1 (grass stage). Pine stands not affected by mountain pine beetle would 

have an increase in mortality due to competition between pine trees and 

an increase in merchantable defect due to disease in the long-term. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

46 

Structural Stages 

The forestwide structural stage percentages would not change for both 

management areas 5.1 or 5.4 with this alternative in the short term 

(approximately <10 years) unless the MPB infestation or wildfire would 

change stand structure, natural regeneration would occur, or planting of 

seedlings would continue in the SS1 areas. 

Structural stages 1, 4A, 4B, and 4C would continue to be over objective 

percentages for management area 5.1 while 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 5 would 

be under the target percentages for the area. Structural stages 1, 4B, and 

4C would continue to be over target percentages for management area 

5.4 while 2, 3A, 3B, and 5 would be under target percentages for the area. 

Only structural stages 3C and 4A meet target percentages in this 

management area. 

Table 19 and Table 20 display the existing percentages of the individual 

pine structural stages Forestwide by management area. Values used in 

this analysis are from the 2008 Forest Monitoring Report (USDA, Forest 

Service, 2008). 

Table 19: Alternative #1: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.1 Management 

area 

Structura

l 

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages

Existing

Condition 

Pine Acres 

Existing *

Condition 

Percentages 

Alt 1

Pine 

Acres 

Alt 1

Percentages

1 5% 37,468 8% 37,468 8% 

2 5% 16,378 3% 16,378 3% 

3A 10% 18,123 4% 18,123 4% 

3B 15% 21,319 4% 21,319 4% 

3C 5% 11,176 2% 11,176 2% 

4A 25% 181,254 38% 181,254 38% 

4B 25% 141,541 30% 141,541 30% 

4C 5% 49,337 10% 49,337 10% 

5 5% 798 0.2% 798 0.2% 

Totals 100% 477,394 100% 477,394 100%

*These are short-term percentages for the Existing Condition. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

47 

 

Table 20: Alternative #1: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.4 Management 

area 

Structural

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition 

Pine Acres 

Existing *

Condition 

Percentages 

Alt 1 

Pine Acres 

Alt 1 

Percentages 

1 5% 52,651 15% 52,651 15% 

2 5% 9,183 3% 9,183 3% 

3A 10% 16,358 5% 16,358 5% 

3B 15% 24,827 7% 24,827 7% 

3C 5% 16,303 5% 16,303 5% 

4A 25% 84,731 25% 84,731 25% 

4B 25% 90,839 26% 90,839 26% 

4C 5% 48,084 14% 48,084 14% 

5 5% 1,196 0.3% 1,196 0.3% 

Totals 100% 344,172 100% 344,172 100%

*These are short-term percentages for the Existing Condition. 

In the long term, structural stages would change as trees grow and regenerate, 

wildfires or wind events take place, or insects and disease related mortality 

occurs. These changes could take decades, or depending on the event, could 

happen overnight. Structural stage 1 (grass stage) would grow into structural 

stage 2 as the stand regenerates naturally or is planted with seedlings. As trees 

grow in height and diameter, structural stage 2 (seedling/sapling) would grow into 

structural stage 3 (poles) and structural stage 3 would grow into structural stage 

4 (sawtimber). The density of the stand (A, B, or C) would also change as the 

trees grow. The stand would become denser as the trees mature and compete 

for growing space. These changes to structural stages would occur as long as 

there are no natural or man-made disturbances within the stand. 

Adding natural disturbances such as wildfire, wind events, or insects and disease 

or man-made disturbances such as timber harvesting could alter the structural 

stage of a stand. Natural occurrences could change structural stages or have no 

impact on the stand structure depending on how large the disturbance is. Small 

(less than 10 acres) natural disturbances usually have no effect on existing stand 

structure but large (greater than 10 acres) disturbances could open up a stand 

reducing stand density or change stand size. A wind event could come through a 

dense stand and blow over trees reducing stand density where as a wildfire could 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

48 

set back the stand structural stage from a 4C (dense sawtimber) to 1 (grass) by 

burning up the entire stand. 

This alternative would not move the stand conditions towards the forest 

objectives for structural stages for the management area. 

Aspen 

Existing aspen stands and aspen clones occurring within the project area would 

not change unless an opening were created adjacent to the aspen. Possible 

wildfires or openings created by MPB would allow aspen to expand by allowing 

more light and nutrients to reach the intolerant aspen. 

Understory Vegetation 

Within stocked conifer stands, forbs, shrubs, and grasses would be shaded out 

reducing benefits to other resources such as wildlife and range. In areas with 

MPB infestation there would be an increase in forbs, shrubs, and grasses where 

MPB has caused mortality in pine allowing sunlight, moisture, and nutrients to 

become available to the understory vegetation creating more grass and forage 

for cattle and wildlife. 

In areas with under stocked stands or open grown trees, forbs, shrubs, and 

grasses would have no change or increase in size and numbers. 

Meadows and Grasslands 

Meadows and grasslands adjacent to pine stands would continue to be 

encroached by conifers decreasing grass and forage production. Conifers 

currently growing within meadows and grasslands would continue to increase in 

number taking over the area. Meadows and grasslands adjacent to conifers 

stands would eventually become encroached. In open areas where conifers are 

not present, such as SS1 areas, there would be no change in pine 

encroachment. 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

The following Direct and Indirect effects are expected to be the same for all 

action alternatives. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

49 

HARVEST ACTIVITY 

Aspen 

Existing aspen stands would be unaffected by the timber harvest. The aspen 

stands are in the north eastern part of the analysis area where no timber harvest 

would be taking place. Aspen clones that are within pine stands could be 

released by having the pine removed that is adjacent to the clones. This would 

allow the aspen clones to receive more light and nutrients and allow the clone to 

expand within the pine stand. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING 

Ponderosa Pine 

Broadcast burning would reduce the amount of slash and litter on the ground and 

release nutrients back into the soil providing a seedbed for seedling 

establishment providing that a seed source is within the seeding distance of 

ponderosa pine seed. In areas with gree trees and natural regeneration present, 

design criteria would be implemented to minimize mortality in these areas. 

The Black Hills has been in drought conditions for several years, which has 

caused drought stress in the trees. Before broadcast burning within pine stands 

takes place, the area to be burned would need to be evaluated as to the drought 

condition of the timber to avoid unexpected mortality in larger trees due to 

drought stress. 

Aspen 

Aspen stand and clones occurring within the project area would not be affected 

by this alternative. Possible changes could occur from a wildfire or MPB. 

Wildfire could stimulate suckering of the clone and MPB could create an opening 

adjacent to an aspen stand, both of which may allow the clone to expand. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

50 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – Proposed Action 

In this alternative 1,645 acres would be commercially harvested with an 

estimated volume of 8,980 CCF (4,239 MBF) and 857 CCF of POL and 

prescribed burning over approximately 16,986 acres. This alternative harvests 

the most volume from the greatest amount of acres and prescribe burns the 

greatest amount of acres. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

HARVEST ACTIVITY 

Ponderosa Pine 

All proposed harvest treatments would occur in ponderosa pine stands. 

Commercial thinning is the main harvest treatment proposed at approximately 

1,241 acres. Two different basal areas are proposed in the commercial thinning 

units depending upon specific site conditions and objectives. A basal area of 

50ft2/ac (337 acres) would be prescribed in areas with large amounts of MPB 

infestation already present. This includes the area of the Surveyor Hill Road 

(FDR 668) and the Antelope Ridge Road (FRD 283). A 60ft2/ac basal area (904 

acres) would be used in all other areas proposed for commercial thinning. 

In addition, there would be 308 acres of overstory removal to release established 

seedlings and 96 acres of shelterwood seed cut to regenerate mature pine 

stands. 

After harvest, residual trees would increase in yield as the size of existing trees 

increases due to reduced competition. Diameter growth would increase as a 

result of less competition. There would be a decreased risk of catastrophic 

wildfire because of a more open canopy and a reduced risk of MPB infestation. 

Up to 1,280 acres of POL (Products Other than Logs) thinning is proposed with 

this alternative. Trees less than 9-inch diameter DBH would be thinned. POL 

thinning improves the residual stand by increasing the quality of the timber 

through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees. An 

increase of individual tree growth also occurs by releasing the remaining trees 

from competition. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

51 

Several stands are proposed to have precommercial thinning (308 acres). 

Precommercial thinning would improve the residual stand by increasing the 

quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly 

formed trees up to 5-inches in diameter. An increase of individual tree growth 

would also occur by releasing the remaining trees from competition. 

Mountain Pine Beetle 

The effects of harvesting pine stands in this alternative would be the greatest 

reduction in the number of high risk stands to MPB infestation and the largest 

increase in the low and medium risk stands. Following harvest, 859 acres of 

ponderosa pine with a high-risk rating in the project area would be reduced to the 

medium risk rating. The shelterwood seed cut and the commercial thin to a 50 or 

60ft2/ac basal area would move high risk acres to a medium risk rating. And 269 

acres at the medium risk rating would be reduced to the low risk rating through 

an overstory removal as the majority of the residual stand would be 

seedlings/saplings. 

Most of the remaining fully stocked stands in this analysis area are concentrated 

in one continuous block in the Mud Springs/Antelope Ridge vicinity 

(approximately 1500 acres). The MPB is active and expanding within this 

isolated area. 

Table 21: Effect of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 2 

Harvest Treatment 

MPB Risk

Before 

Harvest 

Acres 

Effected

MPB Risk

After 

Harvest 

Commercial Thin 50BA Medium 90 Medium 

Commercial Thin 50BA High 247 Medium 

Commercial Thin 60BA Medium 370 Medium 

Commercial Thin 60BA High 534 Medium 

Overstory Removal Medium 269 Low 

Overstory Removal High 39 Low 

Shelterwood Seed cut Medium 57 Medium 

Shelterwood Seed cut High 39 Medium 

Total Treated Acres 1,645
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

52 

Table 22: Effect of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 2 Percentages in 

Commercial Harvest Stands Only 

MPB Risk 

Rating 

Current 

Harvest 

Acres Current 

Percentage

Acres 

Following 

Harvest 

Percentage 

Following 

Harvest 

Low 0 0 308 19 

Medium 786 48 1337 81 

High 859 52 0 0 

Total Treated 

AC 

1,645 100 1,645 100

Structural Stages 

The forest objective for structural stages applies to the entire management area. 

Depending on the type of harvests that are prescribed and how many acres are 

treated would depend on how soon the percentages of the forest plan objectives 

are reached. Forest growth rates and funding of post harvest treatments also 

must be taken into consideration. As a result, it may take two or more decades 

to achieve the Forest Plan structural stage objectives (1997, Forest Plan FEIS). 

Alternative 2 would have a relatively minor impact on the range of structural 

stages in ponderosa pine in management area 5.1 and in management area 5.4. 

In the short term, the percentages for all structural stages after harvest would 

remain the same due to so few acres are being harvested. The harvest 

treatments would be affecting structural stages 4A and 4B. All other structural 

stages would remain the same. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

53 

Table 23: Alternative 2: Ponderosa pine structural stages in 5.1 Management Area 

Structural

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition 

Pine Acres 

Existing

Condition 

Percentages 

Post-harvest

Alt 2 

Pine Acres 

Post-harvest

Alt 2 

Percentages 

1 5% 37,468 8% 37,468 8% 

2 5% 16,378 3% 16,378 3% 

3A 10% 18,123 4% 18,233 4% 

3B 15% 21,319 4% 21,319 4% 

3C 5% 11,176 2% 11,176 2% 

4A 25% 181,254 38% 181,201 38% 

4B 25% 141,541 30% 141,484 30% 

4C 5% 49,337 10% 49,337 10% 

5 5% 798 0.2% 798 0.2% 

Totals 100% 477,394 100% 477,394 100%

These are short-term percentages listed for Existing Condition and Alternative 2. 

Table 24: Alternative 2: Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in 5.4 Management 

Area 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition 

Pine Acres 

Existing

Condition 

Percentages 

Post-harvest

Alt 2 

Pine Acres 

Post-harvest

Alt 2 

Percentages 

1 5% 52,651 15% 52,651 15% 

2 5% 9,183 3% 9,183 3% 

3A 10% 16,358 5% 16,556 5% 

3B 15% 24,827 7% 24,827 7% 

3C 5% 16,303 5% 16,303 5% 

4A 25% 84,731 25% 85,335 25% 

4B 25% 90,839 26% 90,037 26% 

4C 5% 48,084 14% 48,084 14% 

5 5% 1,196 0.3% 1,196 0.3% 

Totals 100% 344,172 100% 344,172 100%

These are short-term percentages listed for Existing Condition and Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

54 

Meadows and Grasslands 

Approximately 159 acres of existing meadows would be maintained by removing 

encroaching pine. All pine encroachment is to be a post harvest activity. 

Understory Vegetation 

This alternative would harvest and open up the canopy on 1,645 acres. This 

would allow an increase in light, nutrients, and moisture to become available to 

the understory vegetation of forbs, shrubs, and grasses. The result would be an 

increase in grass and forage for cattle and wildlife. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING 

Ponderosa Pine 

In this alternative, 16,986 acres are planned for prescribed burning. Most of the 

stands to be prescribed burned are in structural stage 1 (grass/forb) where the 

overstory trees were destroyed by fire. Very little pine regeneration has been 

found in these areas. Some areas to be prescribe burned do have a small 

amount of scattered green trees but because they are so open grown, mortality 

due to the burning is expected to be minimal. Some of the remaining stands of 

green trees may have prescribed burning accomplished through them but prior to 

any burning these stands would be commercially harvested. This would help 

limit tree mortality caused by the prescribed burning through these stands. In the 

design criteria there are mortality limits listed to prevent excessive mortality in 

areas with live trees remaining in the stand. 

Meadows and Grasslands 

Prescribed burning in meadows could delay or help remove conifer regeneration 

from occurring if the seedlings are very small in size. 

Understory Vegetation 

The understory vegetation within the stands, both with structural stage 1 and the 

green tree stands, could be set back by the prescribe burning. Shrubs may be 

temporarily reduced in size by the prescribed burning but most would resprout.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

55 

ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative was designed to create more uneven-aged stands and to remove 

the Colorado State University (CSU) study plots from the treatment areas. In the 

third alternative, 624 acres would be commercially harvested with an estimated 

volume of 4,594 CCF (2,130 MBF) and 556 CCF of POL and prescribed burn 

approximately 16,544 acres. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

HARVEST ACTIVITY 

Ponderosa Pine 

All proposed treatments would occur in ponderosa pine stands as in Alternative 2 

but this alternative would harvest 1,021 acres less than Alternative 2. In 

Alternative 3 uneven-aged management was used through use of Group 

Selections instead of the Shelterwood System which results in even-aged stands. 

Group Selections are proposed on 391 acres to create more uneven-aged stands 

but since these stands are currently even-aged it may take decades to achieve 

the desired uneven-aged structure. 

Commercial thinning would be proposed on approximately 233 acres. Two basal 

areas are planned in the commercial thinning depending upon specific site 

conditions and objectives. A basal area of 50ft2/ac (199 acres) would be 

prescribed in areas with large amounts of MPB infestation already present. This 

is mainly in the vicinity of the Surveyor Hill Road (FDR 668) and the Antelope 

Ridge Road (FRD 283). A 60ft2/ac basal area would be used in the remaining 

commercial thinning areas (34 acres). 

Overstory removals and shelterwood seed cuts would not be proposed in this 

alternative. 

After harvest residual trees would increase in yield as the size of existing trees 

increase due to reduced competition and diameter growth would increase as a 

result of less competition as they would in Alternative 2 but over fewer acres. 

There would be a decrease in catastrophic wildfire because of a more open 

canopy but over fewer acres treated than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would 

harvest 62% fewer acres than Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

56 

Up to 624 acres of POL thinning are proposed with this alternative. This is 656 

acres less than Alternative 2 or about 50% less. There would be no 

precommercial thinning. 

Mountain Pine Beetle 

The effects of harvesting pine stands in this alternative would not reduce 

as many acres of pine in the high-risk category for MPB infestation and 

would treat fewer acres of pine stands with MPB infestations already 

present. The stands to be treated in Alternative 3 would move from a 

Medium or High Risk before harvest to all stands treated moving to a 

Medium Risk. There would be 1,021 acres not treated in Alternative 3 that 

would be treated in Alternative 2. 

 

Most of the remaining fully stocked stands in this analysis area are 

concentrated in one continuous block in the Mud Springs/Antelope Ridge 

vicinity (approximately 1500 acres). The MPB is active and expanding 

within this isolated area. 

Table 25: Effects of Commercial Harvest on MPB Risk 

Harvest Treatment 

MPB Risk

Before Harvest 

Acres 

Effected

MPB Risk

After Harvest 

Commercial Thin 50BA Medium 39 Medium 

Commercial Thin 50BA High 160 Medium 

Commercial Thin 60BA Medium 34 Medium 

Group Selection High 391 Medium 

Table 26: Effects of Commercial Harvest to MPB Risk: Alternative 3 

Percentages in Commercial Harvest Stands Only 

MPB Risk 

Rating 

Current

Harvest 

Acres 

Current 

Percentage 

Acres

Following 

Harvest 

Percent

Following 

Harvest 

Low 0 0 0 0 

Medium 73 12 624 100 

High 551 88 0 0 

Total 

Treated AC 

624 100 624 100 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

57 

Structural Stages 

Alternative 3 would have a minor impact on the range of structural stages 

in ponderosa pine in management area 5.4. No harvest activity would 

occur in Management Area 5.1 in Alternative 3. The amount of acres to 

be treated within both management areas is so minimal that the 

percentages would not change following harvest. The harvest activity 

would be concentrated in structural stages 4A and 4B as in Alternative 2. 

All other structural stages would remain unchanged (Table 29). 

Table 27: Alternative 3; Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in 5.4 Management 

Area 

Structural 

Stage 

Forest Plan

Objective 

Percentages 

Existing

Condition 

Pine Acres 

Existing

Condition 

Percentages 

Alt 3 

Pine Acres 

Alt 3 

Percentages 

1 5% 52,651 15% 52,651 15% 

2 5% 9,183 3% 9,183 3% 

3A 10% 16,358 5% 16,556 5% 

3B 15% 24,827 7% 24,827 7% 

3C 5% 16,303 5% 16,303 5% 

4A 25% 84,731 25% 85,335 25% 

4B 25% 90,839 26% 90,037 26% 

4C 5% 48,084 14% 48,084 14% 

5 5% 1,196 0.3% 1,196 0.3% 

Totals 100% 344,172 100% 344,172 100%

These are short-term percentages listed for Existing Condition and Alternative 3. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

58 

Table 28: Structural Stage Acreages and Percentages of Project Area by 

Alternative 

Structural Stage Alternative 1

Existing Condition

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1 13,008 (70 %) 13,008 (70 %) 13,008 (70%)

2 243 (1 %) 243 (1 %) 243 (1%) 

3A 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 0 (0%) 

3B 1 (0 %) 1 (0 %) 1 (0%) 

3C 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 0 (0%) 

4A 2,553 (14 %) 3,231 (17 %) 2,713 (15%) 

4B 901 (5 %) 223 (1 %) 741 (4%) 

4C 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 0 (0%) 

5 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

Meadow/grassland 1,759 (9 %) 1759 (9 %) 1759 (9%) 

Shrubland 64 (<1%) 64 (<1%) 64 (<1%) 

Rock 15 (0%) 15 (0%) 15 (0%) 

Total Acreage 18,543 18,543 18,543

Meadows and Grasslands 

Approximately 114 acres of existing meadows would be maintained by removing 

encroaching pine. This would be 45 acres less than Alternative 2. All pine 

encroachment is to be a post harvest activity. 

Understory Vegetation 

This alternative would harvest and open up the canopy on 624 acres which is 

1,021 acres less than Alternative 2. This would allow an increase in light, 

nutrients, and moisture to become available to the understory vegetation of forbs, 

shrubs, and grasses. The result would be an increase in grass and forage for 

cattle and wildlife but over fewer acres than Alternative 2. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING 

Ponderosa Pine 

In this alternative, 16,544 acres are planned for prescribed burning. This is 442 

acres less than alternative 2. Most of the stands to be prescribed burned are in 

structural stage 1 (grass/forb) where the overstory trees were destroyed by fire. 

Very little pine regeneration has been found in these areas. Some areas to be 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

59 

prescribed burned do have a small amount of scattered green trees but because 

they are so open grown, mortality due to the burning is expected to be minimal. 

Some of the remaining stands of green trees may have prescribe burning 

accomplished through them but prior to any burning these stands would be 

commercially harvested. This would help limit tree mortality caused by the 

prescribed burning through these stands. In the design criteria there are 

mortality limits listed to prevent excessive mortality in areas with live trees 

remaining in the stand. 

Meadows and Grasslands 

Prescribed burning in meadows could delay or help remove conifer regeneration 

from occurring if the seedlings are very small in size. There would be 31 less 

acres prescribed burned in Alternative 3. 

Understory Vegetation 

The understory vegetation within the stands, both with structural stage 1 and the 

green tree stands could be set back by the prescribed burning, but over fewer 

acres than Alternative 2. Shrubs may be temporarily reduced in size by the 

burning but would resprout. 

Cumulative Effects 

The HCMB analysis area was burned in the Jasper fire of 2000 which left much 

of the timbered area in the grass/forb stage. Post fire salvage activities followed 

the Jasper fire. All past, present, and future activities from the project area were 

compiled together. 

Time Boundary (2000 to 2019) 

The time boundary is framed from 2000 when the Jasper fire occurred to 2019 

when the last of any KV activities following the timber sale activity would occur. 

A timber sale from this analysis is scheduled to sell approximately 2012. 

Allowing 2 years for the sale to be harvested and five years for post sale 

activities to be accomplished all activities should be completed by approximately 

2019. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

60 

Space Boundary 

The analysis area boundary would be used for the cumulative effects analysis. 

Harvest activities along with post sale activities are confined to the stand level 

while natural disturbances such as wildfire or insects and disease may be 

confined to the stand level or the project area. The prescribed burning activities 

are confined at the project area. 

Ponderosa Pine 

In 2000 the Jasper Fire and in 2001 the Roger’s Shack Fire burned through part 

of the analysis area and reduced many of the timbered stands to the grass/forb 

structural stage 1. It left areas of scattered green trees and a few large areas of 

fully stocked green stands. Following the Jasper fire, hazard tree removal was 

accomplished along the main roads to prevent dead trees from falling across the 

roads. 

At the present time, mountain pine beetle has moved into the area of fully 

stocked green stands in the Antelope Ridge and Mud Springs areas where there 

is a high potential for mountain pine beetle infestation. Currently, the number of 

dead and fading trees is expanding within this area.

Future treatments for the area may include further thinning or regeneration cuts. 

Any treatments for growth and yield purposes would not occur until stands 

became overstocked again or regeneration cuts were prescribed at culmination 

of mean annual increment or when even-aged treatments were desired. 

There would be potential adverse cumulative effects to ponderosa pine with the 

No Action Alternative. Not harvesting pine stands would encourage beetle 

populations to increase and contribute to the MPB numbers growing in the 

analysis area. There would also be an increase in potential high intensity wildfire 

due to the increase of MPB killed trees. 

There would be positive cumulative effects under the action alternatives. 

Treatment of pine stands to lower stand density reduces the susceptibility of a 

stand to MPB infestation. Mountain pine beetle-caused mortality would be 

expected to decrease with the action alternatives. A decrease in MPB mortality 

and a reduction in stand density would also reduce the risk of a potential high 

intensity wildfire. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

61 

Hardwoods 

Since the Jasper and Roger’s Shack Fires aspen has increased within the fire 

boundaries. The wildfires stimulated the aspen into suckering. Prescribed 

burning would be a direct effect on the aspen but there would be no burning 

through the aspen stands. However, there are no cumulative effects to the 

aspen with any of the alternatives. 

Meadows 

The meadows have had very little impact since the Jasper and Roger’s Shack 

Fires. Prescribed burning would be a direct effect on the meadows. However, 

there are no cumulative effects with any of the alternatives. 

Table 29: Comparison of Commercial Harvest for all Alternatives for the HCMB 

Commercial Treatments 

Alternative 1

Acres 

Alternative 2

Acres 

Alternative 3

Acres 

Commercial Thin 50 (CT 50) 0 337 199 

Commercial Thin 60 (CT 60) 0 904 34 

Overstory Removal (OR) 0 308 0 

Shelterwood Seed Cut 

(SWSC) 

0 96 0 

Group Selection (GS) 0 0 391 

Total Acres Harvested 0 1,645 624 

Non-Commercial 

Treatments 

Pine Encroachment 0 159 114 

Pre-Commercial Thinning 

(TSI) 

0 308 0 

POL Thinning 0 1,280 624 

Fuels Treatments 0 785 128 

Prescribed Burning 0 16,986 16,544 

Volume CCF/MBF CCF/MBF CCF/MBF

Commercial Volume 0 8,980/ 4,239 4,594/ 2,130 

POL Volume CCF only 0 857 556 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

62 

Wildlife 

Existing Condition 

SNAGS AND DEAD WOODY MATERIAL (SDW)

The following objectives, standards, guidelines, and definitions are referenced 

from the 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Phase II 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2006a). The existing condition and 

opportunities to continue working toward these Objectives is briefly discussed. 

Snags 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 211: “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 feet 

high per acre, well-dispersed across the Forest, 25 percent of which are greater 

than 14-inch dbh.” 

Standard 2301: 

“a. Retain all snags greater than 20-inch dbh unless a safety hazard. If snag 

densities within a project area are below Objective 211, retain all snags 

unless they are a safety hazard. If large snags (>14 in dbh) are not available, 

retain snags in the largest size class available. This standard does not apply 

to areas salvaged under Objective 11-03. 

b. Retain at least six hardwood snags per acre in hardwood stands. Retain 

all snags in hardwood stands with snag density of less than six per acre.” 

Standard 2304: “Prohibit cutting of standing-dead trees for fuelwood, except in 

designated areas.” 

Standard 2305: “All soft snags should be retained unless they are a safety 

hazard.” 

Existing Condition 

Due to the wildfires, snag densities are above Objective 211 across the project 

area. 

Snags > 9” DBH and > 25 feet in height occur throughout the project area, but a 

large portion of those have snapped off and may not be > 25 feet in height. From 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

63 

ocular surveys, there are some larger diameter trees, but it does not appear that 

a large portion meet the 20-inch dbh standard. Those larger diameter snags that 

are remaining are desirable for wildlife (especially those in groups) and are 

expected to remain on the landscape. 

Isolated pockets of mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestations are present within 

the HCMB Project Area. High risk sites are those pine stands that are 

designated as structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5. There are not any SS 3C, 

4C or 5 stands in the project area. There are 901 acres of SS 4B (or about 5%) 

in the high risk category within the project area. Pine beetles have created more 

snags and downed wood in the last five years. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Snag numbers within green patches or in mountain pine beetle-killed areas 

would be expected to increase because of natural mortality. Trees would 

become more dense and over time, competition for water and nutrients would 

stress the trees, which would make them more susceptible to insects and 

disease agents. Natural mortality levels would be higher under this alternative 

than any of the action alternatives. Because no large diameter trees would be 

removed (i.e., harvested or burned during prescribed fire), the number of large 

diameter snags would be highest with the No Action Alternative. Under this 

alternative, it is more likely that there would be a higher density of snags that 

may offer suitable nesting and foraging habitat for woodpeckers. This alternative 

would continue to provide the best habitat for woodpeckers (see black-backed 

woodpecker section below) and bats (see bats section). 

Alternative 2 

This alternative treats the most acres and opens up forest canopy in these 

treated stands. Insect risk and fire risk are reduced which reduces natural tree 

mortality. This alternative would be expected to result in the most risk of existing 

snag losses (safety hazards, etc.). This alternative proposes 308 acres of 

overstory removals which would result in fewer large diameter trees that may 

serve as replacement snags. Prescribed burning (16,986 acres) would result in 

existing snag losses, especially those soft snags that are easily ignited. These 

soft snags (with cavities and bark slough) currently provide valuable wildlife 

habitat for birds, bats, and other small mammals. Prescribed fire may also 

further weaken large diameter snags that have already been burned once, 

resulting in more downed logs. Burning may also create snags in thinning units; 

however it is expected that most of these would generally be of smaller tree 

diameters (<9” DBH) because the burning would occur after the timber 

harvesting activities that would remove mature saw logs. However, in sites that 

use prescribed fire without mechanical thinning, snags of all sizes are expected 

to be created (refer to ‘Design Criteria- Snags/Dead woody material’ section – all 

Forest Standards must be met). These new snags would take time to develop 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

64 

the characteristics preferred by wildlife. Vegetation treatments, both commercial 

and non-commercial have the potential to destroy snags. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative would have similar effects to snags as described under 

alternative 2 above. There is less harvest under this alternative and fewer acres 

of prescribed burning. Therefore it is expected that fewer snags would be lost 

during treatments. 

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis boundary was used for all wildlife cumulative effects analysis. A 

time boundary consisting of the time following the Jasper Fire to when the last 

activites as identified in this project would occur (2000-2019) was also used. 

Past wildfire activity has contributed to the high amount of snag and downed 

woody material. At the same time, prescribed fire, weather events and insects 

would continue to create snag/downed wood habitat. With the restriction on 

cutting standing dead for firewood and insect outbreaks, the potential is greater 

for snags to increase. There would continue to be large areas outside the project 

area that have high numbers of snags and down woody material. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would provide the greatest opportunity 

for increased snag numbers and down woody material. This alternative allows 

forested stands to become more dense and more mature. Trees would then 

become more stressed and vulnerable to insect outbreaks and wildfire – 

variables that can significantly increase snag densities and downed wood in an 

area. However, insect infestations in the project area are slowly increasing. It is 

expected that by the time the project is initiated that snag densities may be 

higher than current numbers due to the “bug” pockets that have started killing 

trees in the area. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 has the greatest 

potential for future snag numbers. 

Dead Woody Material 

Forest Plan Direction 

 

Objective 212: “In conifer forested portions of a planning unit, provide at least 

once during a rotation (approximately 100 years) an average of 5 to 10 tons per 

acre of down, dead woody material at least 3 inches in diameter, provided there 

is no conflict with fire or pest management objectives. In the shelterwood 

silviculture system, accomplish this through commercial and precommercial 

treatments. Provide this tonnage no later than the removal cut (overstory 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

65 

removal) or a combination of removal cut and precommercial thinning of the 

established stand (thinning to be accomplished within 10 years of the removal 

cut).” 

Guideline 2307: “Leave large woody debris on harvested or thinned sites to help 

retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for establishment of 

forbs, grasses, shrubs, and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife.” 

Standard 2308: “During vegetation management activities on ponderosa pine 

forested sites, retain an average of at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse 

woody debris with a minimum diameter of 10 inches. On white spruce forested 

sites retain an average of at least 100 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris 

with a minimum diameter of 10 inches.” 

Existing Condition 

The HCMB Project Area is contributing to the dead woody material objective. 

The wildfires, along with fallen dead trees and snags, have provided an excess 

amount of dead woody material across the project area. This assessment is 

based on ocular estimates made during field surveys. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No thinning or burning would occur in this alternative; therefore, there would be 

no real change from the existing condition. It is expected that the dead woody 

material (fuel loading) would increase as existing dead trees (from pine beetle 

and wildfire-created snags) continue to fall to the ground. This alternative would 

continue to provide the best habitat for deer and elk (see white-tailed deer 

section below). In addition, this alternative would continue to provide barriers to 

off-road vehicles. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Currently, the focus is to burn much of this dead, down woody material and to 

thin green trees in order to meet fire and pest management objectives. However, 

this area has become important elk and deer habitat because of the protection it 

offers for fawning/calving. The downed material also limits off-road use of the 

area. Enough dead woody material would be left during project activities to meet 

this objective. 

Because of the Jasper and Rogers Shack wildfires, there is already a large 

amount of standing dead, which would eventually weaken and fall, becoming 

dead woody material. Current downed material would remain on the landscape 

until it breaks down from natural processes. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

66 

Under these alternatives, dead woody material may be destroyed during 

commercial and non-commercial vegetation treatments as well as fuel 

treatments. Alternative 2 proposes the most thinning and prescribed burning 

treatments, and thus, would cause the greatest decrease of dead woody material 

in the project area. Prescribed burning would create a mosaic (of dead woody 

material) across the landscape which may leave sufficient dead woody material 

for wildlife needs. However, it is expected that a good portion of the smaller 

diameter dead woody material would be consumed. 

Cumulative Effects /Conclusion 

See above under “Snags”. 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS)

The Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Forest Plan-FEIS (USDA Forest Service 

2005a) lists MIS to be considered during project-level planning. MIS species 

were selected from that list for analysis in this document if they have habitat or 

populations present within the HCMB Project Area (Table 30). Some MIS 

species have other status (such as R2 sensitive), and additional analyses are 

provided for them in the HCMB Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

(BA/BE). 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 238: “The following are objectives for management indicator species 

(MIS). MIS would be monitored using trends in habitat; however, when available, 

population trends may be used as a strong indicator of management response. 

Monitoring would be conducted at a Forest scale and not at the project level. 

Population monitoring would be discretionary as provided by 219.14.f. 

a. Maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, 

grasshopper sparrow, white-tailed deer and brown creeper; as outlined in 

specific direction pertaining to aspen, other hardwoods, riparian areas, 

grasslands, spruce and ponderosa pine (e.g., Objectives 201, 205, 211, 

239-LVD, 5.1-204). 

b. Maintain habitat opportunities for black-backed woodpeckers across 

the Forest, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to conifer habitat, 

snags and recently burned habitat (e.g., Objectives 211, 11-03, 5.1-204, 

Standard 2301). 

c. Maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets, as outlined in specific 

direction pertaining to spruce habitat (e.g., Objective 239-LVD). 

d. Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain 

suckers, as outlined in specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

67 

(e.g., Objectives 103, 104, 215, Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 

1115).” 

Table 30: MIS List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis 

Species Analyzed

in Rep. Rationale Habitat Description 

Beaver 

(Castor 

canadensis) 

NO 

Suitable habitat is not 

present within the project 

area. 

Large rivers and lakes down to 

streams, marshes and small lakes 

with seepage/weak flows adequate 

for damming and suitable woody 

vegetation (Higgins et al. 2000). 

White-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus 

virginianus) 

YES 

The project area is 

suitable habitat. The 

species was observed 

numerous times during 

field work. 

Very adaptable species that can 

live in almost any habitat. In South 

Dakota, this includes grasslands, 

wetlands and woodlands (Higgins 

et al. 2000). 

Golden-crowned 

kinglet (Regulus 

satrapa)

NO 

Suitable habitat is not 

present within the project 

area. 

Found almost exclusively in white 

spruce habitat but occasionally 

present in habitats with a spruce 

component (Panjabi 2003). 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

YES 

Suitable habitat is present 

within the project area. 

Sightings occurred 

throughout the project 

area. 

Found almost exclusively in native 

mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 

2003). 

Black-backed 

woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus)

YES 

Habitat is present in the 

project area. This 

species has been 

observed within the 

project area. 

Burned areas with a high density 

of pre-burn snags; dense and/or 

mature forests with a high snag 

density (Anderson 2003, Panjabi 

2003). 

Brown creeper 

(Certhia 

americana) 

YES 

This species has been 

observed within the 

project area. 

In the Black Hills, white spruce and 

late successional pine appears to 

be the most important habitat type 

for this species (Panjabi 2001, 

2003). 

Ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus) YES 

Habitat is present within 

the HCMB Project Area. 

This species has been 

observed in the northeast 

portion of the project 

area. 

Variable aged aspen stands, other 

hardwoods and pine forests 

provide habitat. Winter habitat is 

almost exclusively aspen (Tallman 

et al. 2002, DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

Song sparrow 

(Melospiza 

melodia)

NO 

Suitable habitat is not 

present within the project 

area. 

Streamside thickets, particularly 

shrubby wouldows, are required 

for habitat. Occasionally found in 

adjacent spruce habitat (Panjabi 

2003). 

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus) 

 NO 

Suitable habitat is not 

present within the project 

area. 

Large rivers, lakes, reservoirs, 

prairie streams but most often in 

cool, clear, moderately swift 

mountain streams with mud, 

cobble, or boulder substrate (Isaak 

et al. 2003). 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

68 

Monitoring of MIS is accomplished through coordinated efforts involving US 

Forest Service biologists, research, contracted monitoring surveys and State 

agencies. Forest monitoring of land bird species is accomplished currently by a 

contract with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). Game species 

(e.g., white-tailed deer) are monitored by a combination of research by SDSU, 

SDGFP biologists and reported observations. 

White-tailed Deer (MIS) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 217: “Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state 

objectives in effect in 1996”. 

Guideline 3203: “Provide big game screening along at least 20 percent of the 

edges of arterial and collector roads. Consider vegetation, slopes, landform, etc. 

in evaluating available screening.” 

Existing Condition 

During field surveys in 2008 white-tailed deer were commonly observed. Most of 

the project area is in a SS 1 classification. This is due to past wildfires, Jasper 

and Rogers Shack. The wildfires destroyed a large portion of timbered stands, 

reducing the amount of adequate hiding and thermal cover, but increasing forage 

(grasses, forbs and shrubs). Available forage increased after treatment of 

noxious weeds. However, there are still scattered pockets of Canada thistle and 

other noxious weeds. Also, the area contains important fawning grounds/habitat 

for white-tailed deer, and other ungulates, because the downed material provides 

some hiding cover, and the visual obstruction from the downed material provides 

shade and cover for them (Steve Griffin, SD Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife 

Biologist, personal communication). 

With the exception of the northwest portion of the project area, the majority of the 

HCMB project area is winter range, although deer may inhabit the northwest 

portion during winter if the season is mild. Usually if snow depths exceed 6” 

deep, deer move to lower elevations. For white-tailed deer, spring migration 

back to summer range generally takes place from mid-to-late May. Winter range 

road closure areas (in MA 5.4) allow deer to forage undisturbed by vehicles and 

humans which reduces animal energy demands during critical winter months. 

Fall migration to winter range is normally done during the September to October 

time frame but is primarily dependent on snow accumulation (Griffin et al. 1999). 

Black Hills white-tailed deer populations have steadily increased in recent years 

from an estimated population of 28,000 in 1999 to 50,000 in 2007 (Huxoll 

2007/2008). However, in 2008 the population was estimated at 45,000 (Huxoll 

2009), showing a decrease in white-tailed deer numbers. The Forest has 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

69 

committed (through Objective 217) to managing habitat for a combined whitetailed and mule deer population of 60,000 animals in South Dakota. This figure 

matches the South Dakota Game, Fish and Park’s population objective for the 

Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

Habitat trend at the Forest-level suggests that summer habitat is increasing while 

winter habitat is stable to slightly decreasing. The Forest is meeting Objective 

238a, with regard to summer habitat, but the Forest may not be maintaining 

winter habitat, although the decline might not be significant. The Black Hills deer 

population (white-tailed and mule deer combined) has fallen short of the South 

Dakota Game Fish and Parks objective of 60,000 animals (Objective 217) (USDA 

Forest Service 2006b, 2007-2009). 

White-tailed deer were selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest 

Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support 

species that rely on a variety of forest conditions, including the presence of 

understory shrubs, to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Of the ponderosa pine structural stage acreage in the project area, 79% is in SS 

1 and 16% is in SS 4A. These structural stages (95% of the designated pine 

acreage) are generally not considered good hiding or thermal cover for whitetailed deer. Habitat structural stages that can provide white-tailed deer and other 

big game with some level of cover are SS 3B, 3C, 4B and 4C. Structural stages 

3C and 4C are nonexistent in the project area. Currently 902 acres (5%) of the 

16,462 acres of ponderosa pine forest type in the project area provide deer cover 

habitat. 

Big Game Screening 

Screening cover is defined as: being able to hide 90% of an adult deer or elk 

from human view at a distance of 200 feet or less (off the road). There are 250 

miles of open roads within the project area. There are 7 collector and arterial 

roads in the HCMB Project Area where the screening cover requirement of 20% 

of the edges (Guideline 3203) applies. Because of the wildfires, there currently is 

not adequate cover on two of the seven roads to meet this standard. Surveyors 

Hill road (668) and Custer Limestone road (284) cannot provide adequate cover 

because of the lack of trees and lack of adequate topography. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

70 

Table 31: Current Screening cover in the HCMB Project Area on Forest Service 

Land 

Road 

Numbers 

Functional Class Percent Screening Cover 

273 Arterial 70% (mostly topography) 

277 Collector 25% (mostly topography) 

281 Collector 70% (all topography) 

282 Collector 36% (vegetation and topography)

283 Collector 49% (mostly topography) 

284 Arterial 2% (all topography) 

668 Collector 13% (mostly topography) 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative no vegetation treatments or prescribed burning would 

occur. In forested stands, trees would eventually become larger and more 

dense, providing more cover. Also, in those areas where wildfires destroyed 

entire forested stands, in time, pine seedlings should provide some additional 

hiding cover along the roads listed above. Pine would continue to encroach into 

meadows, further reducing the amount of quality forage in those areas, likely 

causing an increase in competition for forage between livestock and big game. 

When the wildfires destroyed entire timber stands, large expanses of open areas 

with down woody debris and forage were created. This area then became 

important fawning and foraging grounds for deer (Steve Griffin, SD Game, Fish 

and Parks Wildlife Biologist, personal communication). The trade-off is that 

forage would decrease with the increase in pine regeneration. The No Action 

Alternative provides the most adequate screening, hiding and thermal cover and 

fawning grounds for white-tailed deer. Noxious weeds are minimal under this 

alternative (due to past treatment); therefore, there is more available ground for 

preferred forbs and grasses. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would take an aggressive approach to fuels reduction. Pine stand 

canopy is reduced to a 50 and 60 BA (SS4A -open forest canopy) which could 

benefit shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Existing cover habitat is greatly 

reduced with this alternative. Under this alternative the 902 acres of pine, 

considered cover, would be reduced to 224 acres (223 acres SS 4B and 1 acre 

SS 3B). It is clear that this alternative would provide an open canopy that should 

allow herbaceous and shrub understory vegetation an opportunity to respond; 

however, because of the aggressive thinning, future winter thermal cover is 

sacrificed. The forested stands are important as they are because of the open 

acres surrounding the project area. The forage/cover ratio would be skewed 

towards providing foraging habitat for the foreseeable future in the project area. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

71 

In addition to the thinning treatments, prescribed burning would affect this 

species. The downed woody material provides important cover for fawning. 

Prescribed burning may burn a portion of this material, causing the fawning value 

of the project area to decline. Vegetative treatments proposed under this action 

alternative may cause displacement of individuals. This action alternative would 

not significantly reduce the amount of screening cover habitat along the roads. 

Alternative 3 

White-tailed deer cover habitat would be reduced, but to a lesser extent than 

Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would retain 742 acres of cover (SS 4B pine) for 

white-tailed deer. Under this alternative there would be less prescribed burning 

by 442 acres. This would be a benefit to those deer using the area for fawning. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past timber harvest and fires have produced areas of good forage, while at the 

same time these actions have decreased cover habitat. Past drought conditions 

may have affected availability and nutrition of forage. Pine insects have and are 

creating pockets of forage for white-tailed deer within forested sites in the project 

area. Motor vehicle use on roads within the project area contributes to wildlife 

disturbance. There are several foreseeable future activities on National Forest 

that may impact white-tailed deer cover and forage within and adjacent to the 

project area. These activities include thinning, prescribed burning, and pine 

encroachment treatment. If the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is assumed 

to be the existing condition then there would be no adverse cumulative effects. 

The Action Alternatives would reduce cover habitat (currently limited) but would 

provide additional foraging habitat. 

Conclusion 

Because of the high road density in the project area, deer need the existing cover 

provided by the forested acres. The down timber also provides protection for 

deer fawning. Action alternative vegetation treatments would provide more earlysuccession and open mature forest habitat (SS4A), which could provide more 

forage. Prescribed burning could harm or benefit white-tailed habitat in the 

project area. Burning down dead material may remove fawning/calving cover 

used by ungulates. Removal of slash may also make off-road travel easier for 

those not willing to stay on roads. Initially burning may destroy shrubs; however, 

it is expected the shrubs would re-bound. Burning and thinning would reduce 

available cover in the area, which is limited presently. Alternative 3 would retain 

more (518 acres) cover for wildlife species than Alternative 2. 

Guideline 3203 is currently being met on five of the seven arterial and collector 

roads in the HCMB Project Area. None of the alternatives would contribute to a 

Forest-wide loss of summer habitat or decrease in population for white-tailed 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

72 

deer; therefore the alternatives should allow for attainment of Objective 238a. 

However, action alternatives 2 and 3 could decrease winter habitat for deer and 

other big game. Adequate habitat across the Forest will allow for the attainment 

of Forest Plan Objective 217 (USDA Forest Service 2005a and 2006b). 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II 

Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would 

be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are 

followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. 

Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 sensitive species and MIS) 

Refer to BA/BE for details on habitat, distribution and project level analysis. 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to Objective 205 in the ‘Grasslands/meadows’ discussion in the silviculture 

section of this report. 

Objective 221: “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and 

species of local concern (SOLC). Monitoring would be conducted at a Forestwide level, not at the project level, and would be done for habitats or 

populations.” 

Existing Condition 

Grasshopper sparrow is considered a locally common migrant and summer 

resident for South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002). Monitoring in 2002 showed that 

grasshopper sparrows were found almost exclusively in native mixed grass 

prairies in the Black Hills (Panjabi 2003); however, they have been recently 

recorded in the Jasper (Panjabi 2005) and Rogers Shack Burn Areas (White and 

Giroir 2009). Observations by the RMBO tripled from 2004 to 2006 (Giroir et al. 

2007). 

The Jasper and Rogers Shack fires have created suitable habitat for the 

grassland sparrow in the HCMB project area. 

Black Hills grassland cover types have decreased from 2006 to 2007. However, 

through monitoring it appears there is an upward Forest-wide population trend of 

grasshopper sparrows between 2002 and 2008. More monitoring is needed to 

clarify trends (USDA Forest Service 2007 - 2009). The grasshopper sparrow 

was selected as an MIS to represent characteristic grassland species that rely on 

a variety of grassland conditions (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

73 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

The HCMB project area contains limited prairie grassland habitat preferred by 

this species. However, because the wildfires destroyed forested stands, creating 

grassland-type openings, the species has been detected in the project area. 

This alternative would not use prescribed burning to manage grassland habitat, 

or reduce pine encroachment into meadows. Existing grassland habitat, actually 

typed and fire-created, would remain, but conifer encroachment would slowly 

continue. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both alternatives focus on ponderosa pine forested stands and prescribed 

burning. Commercial timber harvest and thinning are activities that are not 

expected to affect this species. Alternative 2 proposes 45 more acres of pine 

encroachment than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 proposes 442 more acres of 

prescribed burning than Alternative 3. Burning is to be completed during the time 

frame September through April and therefore spring nesting of the grasshopper 

sparrow should not be affected. Burning in months following April could impact 

their nesting attempts. If the project was a fall season burn this would be 

expected to improve habitat for the sparrow and eliminate potential conflicts with 

the (spring) nesting season. Of the two action alternatives, Alternative 2 should 

enhance/create more habitat for the grasshopper sparrow.

Cumulative Effects 

Large scale wildfires (Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires) have increased 

grasshopper sparrow habitat in the project area. Grazing and chemical 

herbicides that contaminate prey or reduce vegetative diversity may negatively 

impact the grasshopper sparrow where they occur across the planning area. 

Future wild or prescribed fires should enhance habitat for the grasshopper 

sparrow within the HCMB Project Area. The No Action Alternative would not 

have adverse cumulative effects on this species as no direct or indirect effects 

would occur.

Conclusion 

Treatments to reduce conifer encroachment, and proper timing of prescribed 

burning in the project area would work to improve and expand habitat for this 

species. Projects across the Forest have been emphasizing meadow and 

grassland restoration through removal of pine encroachment. Some of this, 

particularly pine removal on the periphery of the prairies, is likely contributing to 

an increased habitat trend for the grasshopper sparrow. The HCMB project 

(action alternatives) would contribute to this trend. Adequate habitat across the 

Forest would maintain a viable population of grasshopper sparrows (USDA 

Forest Service 2007). 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

74 

Assuming Forest Plan utilization standards are met, all alternatives would allow 

the Forest-wide grasshopper sparrow population to remain stable, and would 

allow for the attainment of Forest Plan Objectives 221 and 238a. The Forest is 

largely maintaining grassland habitat consistent with Objective 238a, but 

additional time and effort is needed to achieve the grassland acres identified in 

Objective 205 (USDA Forest Service 2009). Population viability for this species 

was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across 

the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest 

standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet 

these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the 

Forest. 

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 sensitive species and MIS) 

Refer to BA/BE in Appendix D for details on habitat, distribution and project level 

analysis. 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to Objectives and Standards in the ‘Snags’ and ‘Dead Woody Material’ 

discussion in the wildlife section of this report. 

Objective 221: “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and 

species of local concern (SOLC). Monitoring would be conducted at a Forestwide level, not at the project level, and would be done for habitats or 

populations.” 

Existing Condition 

Black-backed woodpeckers are most prevalent in burned areas, pine beetle 

areas, storm damaged stands and late successional stands of ponderosa pine. 

Observations from RMBO monitoring data resulted in nearly an eight-fold 

increase in black-backed woodpeckers using burned areas from 2001 to 2002 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003; USDA Forest Service 2004a). From 2001-2007 the RMBO 

has observed black-backed woodpeckers within the project boundary, but 

densities are declining in more recent years (Panjabi 2001-2005, Giroir et al. 

2007, White and Giroir 2008). In 2008, a black-backed woodpecker was 

observed in the project area (personal observation). 

Throughout the Black Hills National Forest, a total of 18,351 acres of burned 

forest habitat was created and largely retained over the last five years. Tree 

mortality from insects from 1996-2007 is estimated at 300,000 acres, and insectinfested timber stands are increasing. Within the affected beetle acreage, not all 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

75 

trees were killed or affected (USDA Forest Service 2008). Research conducted 

by Mohren (2002) indicated that this species prefers dense stands of mature 

ponderosa pine (SS 4C) and avoids the more open nature of SS 4A and 4B 

stands. In 2005-2007, there was almost 2-3 times as much SS 4C available than 

is desired by the Forest Plan objectives (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 2007, 

2008). This species is distributed in low densities throughout most of the Black 

Hills. Where wildfires have recently occurred, the species has been observed 

much more frequently and in higher densities. The “aging” of large burned areas, 

such as the Jasper Fire, into less suitable habitat is likely being offset by the 

increasing acreage of insect-infested timber stands and the stable acreage of 

large diameter, older pine trees. However, overall the habitat is relatively 

abundant and Objective 238b is being met on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 

2007, 2008). 

The black-backed woodpecker was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the 

effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the 

Forest to support species that rely on mature and late successional forest, 

burned forest, insects, and snags to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

This alternative would allow natural successional changes to occur in vegetation, 

and without burning, existing snags used for nesting and foraging would remain 

on the landscape for a longer period. All existing stands would be maintained, 

and in the forested stands, trees would become larger and denser; this would 

eventually cause competition for water and resources inducing stress in the 

trees. Bug pockets may increase, providing a larger area for woodpeckers to 

nest/ forage. Insects provide food for woodpeckers, and trees killed by insects 

provide snags for nest sites. This alternative would provide for the greatest 

increase in woodpecker habitat over time. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Vegetative treatments included in these alternatives are designed to thin 

ponderosa pine stands by harvesting commercial and non-commercial sized 

trees. This creates more open stands that are less susceptible to insects and 

wildfire. It reduces the total acres of dense stands and the number of large (>9” 

DBH) trees. Both action alternatives may disturb nesting woodpeckers if harvest 

occurs during the nesting season. This impact is expected to be short term 

affecting only one brood at most because harvest of each unit usually takes only 

a short time 

Proposed fuel treatments (deadfall, prescribed burning) along with other 

vegetative treatments and harvest may decrease snag habitat for this species. 

Prescribed burning could also create new snags if mature trees are killed as a 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

76 

result of the burning. These treatments are not expected to improve habitat for 

the black-backed woodpecker. They are designed to open the canopy, remove 

ground fuels and reduce the risk of insect and fire tree mortality. 

 

Under Alternative 2, SS 4B is reduced to 223 acres (from 901). These timbered 

stands would be thinned to either a 50 or 60BA, which would retain some mature 

trees. There are 308 acres of overstory removal proposed under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 3, SS 4B is reduced to 741 acres (from 901). These timbered 

stands would be thinned to either a 50 or 60BA, which would retain some mature 

trees. This alternative also proposes 391 acres of group selection. This 

treatment’s intent would be to add vegetative diversity to the treated sites. 

Overall, of the two action alternatives, Alternative 3 would retain more habitat for 

the black-backed woodpecker. 

Cumulative Effects 

Large wildfires have created habitat for this species in the project area. Past 

timber harvest has removed large diameter trees in treated stands which reduced 

the potential for future large diameter snags. Past timber harvest has also 

reduced dense pine stands. There are several foreseeable future activities on 

National Forest that may impact black-backed woodpecker cover and forage 

within and adjacent to the project area. These activities include thinning, 

prescribed burning, and pine encroachment removal. Phase II Standard 2304 

prohibits the cutting of snags for firewood (unless in designated areas) and this 

should provide better habitat for this species over time. There would be no 

adverse cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1 (No Action) would be the preferred alternative for this species. It 

continues to allow stands to become mature and dense, and increases the 

likelihood of a major insect infestation (food source). The action alternatives 

decrease the existing acreage of SS 4B ponderosa pine which appears to be 

desired by the species (Mohren 2002). Alternative 3 would retain more SS4B 

habitat and would be expected to provide more habitat opportunities for this 

species compared to Alternative 2. 

Although the action alternatives may decrease preferred and/or potential habitat, 

they would not affect the habitat or population trend Forest-wide for the following 

reasons: Standards 2301, 2304 and 2305 (providing for Forest Objective 211 

snag numbers and the preservation of large and soft snags) would apply to the 

HCMB Project Area, the project area makes up a small portion of the blackbacked woodpeckers’ available habitat on the Forest, and new habitat acres 

(insect areas and burns) are being created across the Forest. Phase II Forest 

Plan Objectives 221 (sensitive and SOLC species) and 238b (MIS) are currently 

being met under the action alternatives which use project design criteria that 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

77 

incorporates Standards and Guidelines that retain large diameter trees and 

protect existing snags. Across the Forest, breeding populations are expected to 

be maintained at levels that would not lead to any concern of viability. This is 

based on the amount of acreage that has burned in the last 10 years, and the 

amount of acreage that has become infested with bark beetles over the same 

period. Black-backed woodpeckers are likely to persist on the Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a, and 2006b). 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II 

Amendment to the1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would 

be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are 

followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. 

Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Brown Creeper (MIS) 

Existing Condition 

This small forest bird is associated with mature and late succession forest 

conditions. Optimal habitat is structural stage 5 (late successional). Suitable 

cover exists in SS 4A, 4B, and 4C spruce and pine although pine is the preferred 

habitat type. Nests are constructed in the bark cracks and folds of large diameter 

(>20” dbh) ponderosa pine. There currently are no structural stages 4C or 5 in 

the HCMB project area. The RMBO has observed brown creepers within the 

project area from 2001 through 2005 (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005; Beason 

et al. 2006). 

It is considered an uncommon permanent resident of the Black Hills (Tallman et 

al. 2002), largely tied to late-succession pine and white-spruce habitats (Panjabi 

2003, 2005). White and Giroir (2009) show a decline in density since 2003. In 

the Black Hills in 2004, habitat-specific density estimates were 16.88 birds/km2

for late-successional ponderosa pine forest (i.e., structural stage 4C and 5, White 

and Giroir), but density could not be estimated in 2007 because of few 

observations. Blakesly et al. (2008) determined it may take 25 years to detect a 

3% annual decline for this species in pine-north, late successional and white 

spruce habitats and 30 years in pine-south habitat. However, in the short-term, 

relative densities declined in 2007 compared to previous years (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). The forest-wide habitat is increasing based on the increase in 

preferred habitat defined by structural stages 4C and 5, though the acres of 

structural stage 4C with very large trees (>16” dbh) has decreased (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). 

Observation data for the brown creeper reveals a short-term downward Forestwide population trend. It appears that Objective 238a is being met, although 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

78 

short-term activities to meet the structural stage 4C objective may be affecting 

the Forest’s ability to provide very large trees in structural stage 4C. Continued 

effort and additional time is needed to increase the acres of structural stage 5 

(USDA Forest Service 2008/2009). 

The brown creeper was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of 

Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to 

support species that rely on a variety of spruce and late successional and dense 

mature pine conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

This alternative would eventually move mature stands to SS 4B, 4C and 5, which 

is more preferred and desirable habitat. However, currently, there are no 

structural stages 4C or 5 within the project area. The risk with dense, mature 

stands of ponderosa pine is that they become more susceptible to insect 

infestation and catastrophic wildfire. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both alternatives would treat SS 4A and 4B stands which would reduce acreage 

of the mature, denser pine sites to SS 4A open forest condition. The habitat 

value of created SS 4A stands would increase over time for the brown creeper as 

the trees mature and the stand provides more late successional characteristics. 

Any vegetative treatments, prescribed burning and/or post-harvest projects 

proposed under the action alternatives may cause displacement of individuals; 

however, brown creepers may return to the affected areas depending on the 

remaining SS 4 condition. Any of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if 

harvest occurs during the nesting season. This impact is expected to be shortterm affecting only one brood if harvest operations are conducted during the 

nesting season. 

Under Alternative 2, SS 4B is reduced to 223 acres (from 901). These timbered 

stands would be thinned to either a 50 or 60BA, which would retain some mature 

trees. There are 308 acres of overstory removal proposed under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 3, SS 4B is reduced to 741 acres (from 901). These timbered 

stands would be thinned to either a 50 or 60BA, which would retain some mature 

trees. This alternative also proposes 391 acres of group selection. This 

treatment’s intent would be to add vegetative diversity to the treated sites. 

Overall, of the two action alternatives, Alternative 3 would retain more habitat for 

the brown creeper.

Cumulative Effects 

Fuel treatments that aid in the prevention of wildfires and help maintain mature 

and late successional stage stands can improve habitat for this species. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

79 

Wildfires on the other hand can reduce habitat if they become stand-replacing 

events. Understory burns are not likely to substantially reduce habitat because 

large diameter pines are the most fire-resistant. Past timber harvest and wildfire 

have removed large diameter trees in treated stands which may have reduced 

the potential for more large diameter snags. This project would also remove 

large diameter trees. Past timber harvest has reduced area of dense pine 

stands, however, natural succession and tree growth, coupled with fire 

suppression, can replace these dense stands. 

Future commercial treatments, prescribed burning and associated activities 

would affect large diameter trees, snags and forest structure. The No Action 

Alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on this species as no 

direct or indirect effects would occur. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1, no action, is the preferred alternative for the brown creeper. This 

alternative results in the most acreage of mature, large pine. However, with a 

lack of treatment, some of the preferred habitat may be lost to wildfire and/or 

insect infestation. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 retains the highest 

acreage of preferred habitat for the brown creeper. 

Although both of the action alternatives may contribute to a loss of habitat for the 

brown creeper within the project area boundary, the potential habitat available in 

the project area is on a small scale when comparing it to Forest-wide potential 

habitat. This in conjunction with conserving late succession and spruce habitat 

on the forest would mean that the Forest-wide habitat trend, population trend and 

Objective 238a would not be influenced by the HCMB action alternatives. 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II 

Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would 

be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are 

followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. 

Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to the Silviculture Report for Objective 201, Guideline 2202 and Standard 

2205 for aspen direction. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

80 

Existing Condition 

Ruffed grouse are a resident species where found and range from central Alaska 

to northwestern California, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Montana. They extend 

east through Minnesota, Ohio and the Appalachian Mountains from Virginia to 

northeastern Georgia (DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered an uncommon 

permanent resident in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002) with greatest 

abundance in the northern Hills (Panjabi 2003). Ruffed grouse prefer young to 

medium aged aspen stands (Tallman et al. 2002) but have been observed in 

other habitat types in the Black Hills (Panjabi 2003). In 2001, ruffed grouse were 

observed in the eastern most portion (NW of Jewel Cave) of the project area 

(Panjabi 2003; Beason et al. 2006). 

A monitoring protocol to collect necessary information on the ruffed grouse is 

currently being developed. This protocol should be available for testing 

sometime in the next year. Data collected through this protocol will serve as 

baseline data for trend assessments. Forest-wide habitat trend over the last 

eleven years has slightly decreased (USDA Forest Service 2006b/2007/2009). 

In 2008 aspen acreage showed a decline of about 7% from 1997 (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). Due to the habitat decline it is likely there has been an associated 

population decline. Additional time and effort will be needed to meet Objective 

238a. Implementation of the ruffed grouse monitoring protocol should detect a 

long-term population trend (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

The ruffed grouse is selected as a Forest MIS to be an indicator of aspen 

quantity and vigor in pure and mixed stands. It was selected to evaluate the 

effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the 

Forest to support species that rely on a variety of conditions in aspen to meet 

their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Hardwood clones are scattered throughout the project area. Most of the clones 

are in SS 2. The mature aspen were burned during the Jasper Fire and the 

aspen regeneration sprung up in the following years. The aspen regeneration is 

thriving. There are some remaining immature and mature ponderosa pine trees 

in some of the aspen sites. These pine trees appear to be reproducing in the 

aspen. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

The quality and quantity of ruffed grouse habitat in the project area may 

decrease due to increasing conifers into the hardwood sites. Ponderosa pine 

would continue to encroach and eventually take over some aspen stands within 

the project area if left untreated. This could eventually lead to the extinction of 

individual aspen clones, or groups of clones in certain areas. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

81 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Neither action alternative proposes removing pine trees from the aspen sites. 

However, prescribed burning around the perimeters of the aspen clones may 

help to eradicate some of the pine trees and encourage more aspen suckers. 

However, burning at an intensity that removes slash around the aspen clones 

may open up the aspen clones for more ungulate and livestock browsing. 

Harmful or beneficial effects, for the aspen, vary depending on the existing 

condition where burning around the clone. Refer to ‘Design Criteria’ section 

concerning burning in aspen clones. Alternative 2 would harvest more pine trees 

within designated pine sites (than Alternative 3), which may lead to more forest 

openings for aspen encouragement in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires have encouraged the spread of aspen in the project area. Insect 

infestation has created, and continues to create, open pockets where aspen may 

spread. Livestock and ungulate browsing and drought conditions have 

negatively impacted the hardwood habitat in this project area. Aspen, in some 

clones, has been suppressed due to these impacts. Proposed burning and 

harvest activities would be expected to offset those impacts by increasing aspen 

acreage and vigor. Habitat for this species could be enhanced in the foreseeable 

future through vegetative treatments, including use of fire. The No Action 

Alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on this species as no 

direct or indirect effects would occur. 

Conclusion 

Acres of aspen would in time convert to conifer stands, thereby decreasing 

habitat for this species. Both action alternatives could potentially 

increase/encourage hardwoods (aspen) in the HCMB Project Area compared to 

its present condition. 

The action alternatives would not contribute to a loss of habitat or decrease in 

population Forest-wide for the ruffed grouse. The action alternatives may 

increase the amount of hardwoods and therefore would enhance ruffed grouse 

habitat. Therefore Forest Objective 238a would be met for ruffed grouse under 

the action alternatives 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II 

Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would 

be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are 

followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these standards and guidelines. 

Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

82 

SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN (SOLC)

Black Hills Supplement “r2_bh_2600-2005-1” to Forest Service Manual 2600 

became effective November 7, 2005 and provides direction for the management 

of SOLC (USDA Forest Service 2005b). As defined by this supplement, a 

species of local concern is a plant, fish or wildlife species (including subspecies 

or varieties) that does not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could 

include species with declining trends in only a portion of R2, or those that are 

important components of diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as 

Forest Service lands within the Black Hills National Forest. This supplement also 

provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria used to select species of 

local concern and a current list for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 2005b). Table 32 lists potential SOLC for the Black Hills National 

Forest. Rationale is provided if the species is not analyzed in this report. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 221: “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and 

species of local concern (SOLC). Monitoring would be conducted at a Forestwide level, not at the project level, and would be done for habitats or 

populations.” 

Table 32: SOLC List and Rationale for Project Level Analysis. 

Species Species 

Present?

(Y/N) 

Habitat 

Present?

(Y/N) 

Include in 

NEPA 

document?

(Y/N) 

Rationale for not carrying 

species forward into the 

NEPA document 

Atlantis fritillary 

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapae) 

N N N 

Surveys failed to detect this species 

in project area. Preferred habitat 

(wet meadows and spruce) not 

present.

Tawny crescent 

(Phycoides batesii) 

Y Y Y 

Callused vertigo 

 (Vertigo arthuri) Y Y Y 

Mystery vertigo 

(Vertigo paradoxa) N Y Y 

Frigid ambersnail

(Catinella gelida) 

N Y Y 

Striate disc 

(Discus shimekii) N N N 

The area lacks limestone soils, 

closed canopy spruce forests 

(sometimes pine), abundant litter, 

and well-developed understories 

(Frest and Johannes 2002). 

Sharp-shinned hawk

(Accipiter striatus) Y Y Y 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

83 

Species Species 

Present?

(Y/N) 

Habitat 

Present?

(Y/N) 

Include in 

NEPA 

document?

(Y/N) 

Rationale for not carrying 

species forward into the 

NEPA document 

Cooper’s hawk 

(Accipiter cooperi) 

Y Y Y 

Broad-winged hawk 

(Buteo platypterus) N N N 

The area lacks mature aspen and 

late successional pine stands 

(Panjabi 2005) 

Northern saw-whet owl

(Aegolius acadicus) N N N 

The project area lacks mature 

forest and dense riparian 

woodlands (Cannings 1993, 

Johnson and Anderson 2003). 

Pygmy nuthatch 

(Sitta pygmaea) 

Y Y Y 

American dipper 

(Cinclus mexicanus) N N N 

The project area lacks habitat for 

this species. This species inhabits 

clear, fast-flowing streams 

(Anderson 2002). 

Black and white warbler

(Mniotilta varia) N N N 

This area lacks the lower elevation 

bur oak woodlands and associated 

edges that is typical habitat for this 

species in the Black Hills (Beason 

et al. 2006) 

Northern long-eared 

myotis

(Myotis septentrionalis)

N Y Y 

Small-footed myotis

(Myotis ciliolabrum) N Y Y 

Long-eared myotis 

(Myotis evotis) N Y Y 

Long-legged myotis

(Myotis volans) 

N Y Y 

Northern flying squirrel

(Glaucomys sabrinus) N N N 

The parcels lack cool, moist, 

mature forest with abundant snags 

and logs and surface water 

(swamps and streams) 

(NatureServe 2008). 

Meadow jumping 

mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius campestris) 

N N N 

Species has not been detected in 

project area. There is no suitable 

riparian habitat present in the 

project area. 

Mountain goat 

(Oreamnos 

americanus) N N N 

The project area lacks rugged 

habitat. In the Black Hills, primary 

range basically consists of the 

rugged terrain around Harney Peak, 

the Needles and Mount Rushmore 

(Richardson 1971). 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

84 

Tawny Crescent (SOLC) 

Existing Condition 

The tawny crescent is found in open meadows, stream bottoms, along roads, 

trails, and riparian woodlands (Stefanich 2001). It is also found in mesic forest 

corridors across an ecotone between mixed-grass meadows or prairie 

grasslands to adjacent woodlands (Royer and Marrone 1992). Elsewhere in the 

Dakotas, adults are known to forage for nectar from a variety of floral species, 

including dogbane, leafy spurge and various composite flowers. Tawny crescent 

larvae appear dependent on asters as a food source although the specific host 

species and their relationship remain unclear (Stefanich 2001). 

In South Dakota, the tawny crescent is restricted in its distribution to the Black 

Hills. The populations inhabiting the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming 

are considered genetically isolated and disjunct from crescents elsewhere (Royer 

and Marrone 1992). Tawny crescents were observed at two of 20 monitoring 

sites on the Mystic Ranger District in 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2004a), and 

there have been 2 observations within the project area, and 2 observations just 

outside the project boundary. However, there continues to be no reliable 

estimates of local abundance or population estimates for the Black Hills 

(Stefanich 2001). Stefanich (2001) hypothesized that the only limiting factor in 

the Black Hills is the destruction of this butterfly’s habitat or isolation of colonies 

to the extent that populations are unable to disperse. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative no prescribed burning or thinning would occur, but large 

expanses of open area (created from the Jasper and Rogers Shack wildfires) 

would continue to be present. Pine encroachment and meadow restoration 

would not be accomplished. Pine trees would continue to encroach into 

meadows/grasslands which could result in a decrease in foraging plants needed 

by the tawny crescent butterfly as meadow acreage decreases, over time. 

However, the risk increases for areas of beetle or wildfire kill in pine stands with 

this alternative which could increase foraging habitat (meadow/grassland 

acreage) that could benefit this butterfly species. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Management actions that affect hardwood communities have the potential to 

impact this species, however, prescribed burning is not occurring in hardwood 

stands (refer to ‘Design Criteria’). Numerous objectives, standards, and 

guidelines strive to enhance existing riparian communities, wetlands, and wetmeadow areas, and there are no significant riparian areas within the project 

boundary. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

85 

Dry, ponderosa pine site is not preferred habitat for this species. Proposed 

vegetation management activities (timber harvest, prescribed fire) in these dry 

pine stands would not be expected to adversely affect this species. Alternative 2 

proposes more acres of prescribed burning and pine encroachment. These 

projects associated with the action alternatives could enhance habitat for the 

tawny crescent butterfly by improving grassland vegetation. Noxious-weed 

treatments could impact the tawny crescent if nectar (dogbane, Indian hemp, 

many composites) or larval host plants (asters) were inadvertently treated. 

Conversely, treating noxious weeds and other proposed post-harvest work could 

help with native plant restoration. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires have created habitat for this butterfly species. Past encroachment 

of trees into meadow acreage and riparian areas may have impacted this 

species. Livestock grazing has impacted potential habitat for this species. 

These activities are expected to continue in the future. Drought conditions (past 

and present) may be affecting the habitat for the tawny crescent. However, the 

current precipitation amounts may benefit this species by creating more 

ephemeral or even permanent riparian habitat, which is preferred habitat. This 

may continue into the future as well. 

Any cumulative effects from the action alternatives would be beneficial for the 

tawny crescent due to habitat enhancement and protection of existing habitat 

(wet meadows/riparian), therefore Objective 221 would be met for this species. 

The No Action Alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on this 

species as no direct or indirect effects would occur. 

Callused Vertigo (SOLC)

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Standard 3103: “Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern

snail colonies to: 

 a. Retain overstory sufficient to maintain moisture regimes, ground level 

 temperatures and humidity. 

 b. Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter. 

c. Avoid burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy 

 equipment and other activities that may compact soils or alter 

 vegetation composition and ground cover. 

d. If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, 

 usually below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to 

 minimize effects to snails. 

e. Control invasive weeds, but use herbicides when snails are not on the 

 surface, and treat individual plants rather than broadcast application.” 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

86 

Existing Condition 

No callused vertigo snails were found in the project area during 2008 surveys. In 

2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or 

monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Callused vertigo 

was found sparingly in 63 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. Specimens 

were found at Frest sites 58 and 126 within the HCMB Project Area. 

This snail prefers wet, relatively undisturbed forest with closed canopied white 

spruce or ponderosa pine with a varied understory. The species was most 

common at sites with relatively diverse floras and deep litter, generally on shaded 

north-facing slopes and often at the slope base or extending slightly onto the 

adjacent floodplain. The most common substrate was limestone, but callused 

vertigo also occurred occasionally on schist-derived soils. Down woody material 

that helps maintain moist soil conditions and lessens sun exposure is an 

important habitat element. Foraging substrate appears to consist of decayed 

deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants. 

Callused vertigo has been found at 12 different habitats in Minnesota, with the 

highest densities occurring in Balsam-white spruce forests and aspen forests 

(Anderson 2004). They have also been found in bur oak riparian areas and 

mountain mahogany shrublands. The diversity of habitat types may indicate that 

additional locations could be found in the Black Hills. The narrowly restricted 

geographical range of the callused vertigo includes South Dakota (51 sites), 

Wyoming (12 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains), North Dakota, Minnesota, and 

Alberta (Frest and Johannes 2002). The callused vertigo is currently ranked 

imperiled globally and in South Dakota (NatureServe 2008). 

The monitoring protocol for snails was not funded in 2005 - 2008 (USDA Forest 

Service, 2006b, 2007-2009), therefore data to assess the status of SOLC snails 

is not available. Avoidance of known sites is currently the best available option 

for conserving and/or enhancing habitat at known snail colonies. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative, there would be no treatment in the pine sites, which 

eventually would become dense canopy pine sites (SS 3C/4C). Fire suppression 

is likely to continue which may increase density of pine trees and therefore 

canopy cover would increase. The denser the pine sites the more likely a stand 

replacing wildfire or bug infestation may occur. If these would occur then canopy 

would decrease as well as moisture levels for this snail species. Pine would 

continue to encroach into hardwood sites. This would eventually mean less 

deciduous litter (one preferred habitat component) on the ground layer. This is 

the preferred alternative for the callused vertigo. 

 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

87 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Land snails, in general, are susceptible to habitat changes that increase sun 

exposure, disturb ground cover, reduce micro site humidity, or compact the soil. 

Additional risks include direct loss of habitat, barriers to dispersal (e.g., roads), 

predation, trampling by grazing ungulates, intense wildfire, and herbicide or 

pesticide application. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), road construction, 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, herbicides and pesticides, and high-intensity 

forest fires may negatively affect land snails. The land snail’s sessile nature 

gives it limited ability to disperse and colonize adjacent habitats. 

Frest snail survey sites within the project area where this snail was observed are 

#58 and #126. Prescribed burning is proposed under both action alternatives 

within the stands containing these sites. Prescribed burning may consume 

downed woody material that is important for maintenance of habitat for this 

species. Design criteria are included to avoid the Frest sites during 

implementation. However, proposed activities could impact unknown snail 

colonies. 

Alternative 2 proposes more acreage of commercial treatment and prescribed 

burning than Alternative 3. Vegetative treatments and prescribed burning may 

impact snails directly, if present, as well as impact habitat for the callused vertigo.

Of the two action alternatives, Alternative 3 should cause the least amount of 

impact to this snail, if present, and its habitat. Both action alternatives would 

implement design criteria to protect the two known snail sites and therefore 

would be consistent with Forest Plan Standard 3103, and Objective 221. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires have impacted this snail species and its habitat. Vegetative 

treatments have also impacted this snail. Presently pine beetles are thinning 

some of the thicker pockets of pine trees. This may negatively affect snail 

habitat. If this species is present, dense forest conditions may lead to improved 

site (soil moisture) conditions in the next 10 years. Conversely, a higher chance 

would exist for habitat destruction due to stand-replacing wildfires. Fires and 

harvest are foreseeable actions in the future. These actions would negatively 

affect the snail and its habitat. 

No adverse cumulative effects would be expected under the No Action 

Alternative because no activities would be implemented. No adverse cumulative 

effects would be expected for known snail colonies under the action alternatives. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

88 

Mystery Vertigo (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Callused Vertigo’, Standard 3103. 

Existing Condition 

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or 

monitor 357 sites for land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002). Mystery vertigo 

was found in 23 of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. They were not generally 

abundant at any site. This snail was not found in the HCMB Project Area by 

Frest or during surveys (2008). Mystery vertigo is generally restricted to rich 

lowland wooded sites, quite often in the white spruce community, but 

occasionally in the ponderosa pine community. The forest canopy is generally 

closed or nearly so, with well-developed litter and a rich understory. Sites are 

usually in leaf litter at the base of a wooded, north-facing slope on limestone or 

schist substrates. Down woody material that helps maintain moist soil conditions 

and lessens sun exposure is an important habitat element. Mystery vertigo was 

not common in taluses but could be found crawling on rock surfaces in moist 

weather and appears to feed on the organic coating of rock surfaces and partially 

decayed leaves. All sites with mystery vertigo were in the central or northern 

Black Hills or the Bear Lodge Mountains. 

The mystery vertigo is rare in the United States and occurs only in South Dakota 

(21 sites); Wyoming (2 sites in the Bear Lodge Mountains); Michigan (1 site); 

Maine (2 counties); and a few northern Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota sites 

(Frest and Johannes 2002). The species appears to be more common in 

adjoining areas of southern Canada, generally from the Great Lakes eastward. 

Mystery vertigo is currently ranked vulnerable globally and critically imperiled in 

South Dakota (NatureServe 2008). 

All Alternatives/Cumulative Effects 

Refer to ‘Callused Vertigo’ section above. The same effects apply to this land 

snail species. 

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Callused Vertigo’, Standard 3103. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

89 

Existing Condition 

Nekola (2003) considered this species a “duff-specialist.” Duff specialists were 

strongly affected by human activities, suggesting that protecting soil and surface 

characteristics are important in their conservation. In 2002, the Forest received 

the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 357 sites for land snails 

(Frest and Johannes 2002). The frigid ambersnail was found in 12 (none of 

which are in the project area) of the 357 sites inventoried/monitored. The frigid 

ambersnail was rare at all locations, and very few live adults were observed 

during the early 1990s surveys. Locations are widely distributed geographically 

across the Forest at varying elevations (3,800 to 6,800 feet). The species was 

usually found on limestone but also on schist soils, and colonies were often 

found in somewhat dry wooded limestone talus, generally near the slope base. 

They were most often found in rather open ponderosa pine forest, often with a 

secondary deciduous tree and shrub component, although white spruce was a 

minor component at a few sites. According to Frest and Johannes (2002), the 

family of land mollusks that includes the frigid ambersnail is associated not only 

with rather moist forest sites but also with quite dry and open settings in much of 

the western United States. 

The frigid ambersnail is currently found only in Iowa (14 sites), South Dakota (12 

sites), and Wisconsin (Frest and Johannes 2002). The frigid ambersnail is 

currently ranked as critically imperiled globally and in South Dakota and Iowa; it 

is ranked imperiled/critically imperiled in Wisconsin (NatureServe 2008). The 

state of Iowa considers the frigid ambersnail an endangered species. 

There are no known frigid ambersnail sites in the project area. This snail was not 

found in the HCMB Project Area (2008). Potential habitat could exist in the 

shaded, limestone canyons. If snail colonies of this species were detected prior 

to harvest, Standard 3103 would be applied to protect the site. Protecting any 

new site would meet the intent of Objective 221. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

With this alternative there would be no treatment. There would be no direct 

effects. Possible direct effects could occur if dense pine acreage led to standreplacing wildfires. The indirect effect of desiccation of potential habitat related 

to a change in microclimate could occur if large areas of pine die due to insect 

outbreaks. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Because of the dry habitat type and general environment in the project area, 

commercial timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, and other fuels treatments 

proposed in both action alternatives is not expected to influence potential habitat 

for this snail species. Activities proposed under the action alternatives may 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

90 

cause mortality of this species either directly or indirectly, if the species is present 

in the area. However, prescribed burning, especially in forested stands that are 

not mechanically thinned prior to burning, may directly kill individuals, or destroy 

habitat for this species. Also, prescribed burning may consume downed woody 

material that is important for maintenance of habitat for this species. This 

species is not able to disperse from activity, other than to retreat deeper in the 

soil. 

The action alternatives may benefit this species in the long-term by enhancing 

preferred habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires may have caused mortality of this snail. The fires also may have 

created some preferred habitat within the project area. Vegetative treatments 

have also impacted this snail. Presently pine beetles are thinning some of the 

thicker pockets of pine trees. This may lead to more preferred habitat for this 

snail species. Livestock grazing and recreational use would be expected to 

continue. Both of these activities could cause harmful effects to land snails. 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Standard 3204: “Protect known raptor nests. Consider potential effects of 

disturbance, nesting phenology, human activities existing at onset of nest 

initiation, species, topography, other R2 sensitive species and plant species of 

local concern, forest cover, nest protection standards and recommendations 

used by state or federal agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing 

protection.” 

Existing Condition 

Sharp-shinned hawks nest almost exclusively in conifers, with the exception of 

some densely leafed deciduous trees that also provide nest concealment (Platt 

1976, Reynolds et al. 1982, Joy 1990). On the Forest, nests occur in white 

spruce (Stephens and Anderson 2002) and ponderosa pine (district biologists). 

Sharp-shinned hawks have also recently been detected in riparian, aspen, and 

burned habitats on the Forest, but these were not observations of nest sites 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003 and 2005, Giroir et al. 2007). Sharp-shinned hawks occur in 

most forest types across their range (Bildstein and Meyer 2000). 

The association between nesting habitat and young seral stage has been noted 

by several authors (Bildstein and Meyer 2000, Stephens and Anderson 2002). 

On the Black Hills National Forest, one of the two documented sharp-shinned 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

91 

hawk nests (within spruce) was located in a 42-acre stand of white spruce 

sapling/pole-sized trees. Canopy closure ranged from 30 to 70%, but previous 

studies have tended to find high canopy closure (68% and higher) characterizing 

nesting habitat (Bildstein and Meyer 2000). Habitat loss or alteration resulting in 

a loss of suitable nesting habitat as well as a decrease in prey abundance and 

availability are thought to be the most significant threats to accipiter species’ 

persistence (Reynolds 1983, Stephens and Anderson 2002). Habitat loss may 

also occur as forests mature beyond early seral stages. 

The sharp-shinned hawk breeds from Alaska to Newfoundland, south throughout 

much of North America, Mexico, and into Central and South America wherever 

suitable habitat occurs (Stephens and Anderson 2002). The species is 

considered a partial to long-distance migrant, with northern-most individuals 

wholly abandoning their breeding ranges and wintering in the southern United 

States. Other birds may remain on their breeding ranges throughout the winter. 

In South Dakota, the sharp-shinned hawk is considered “uncommon,” with the 

only recorded occurrences in the western part of the state (Peterson 1995). In 

the Black Hills, they have been observed at all elevations (Peterson 1995), but 

estimates of local abundance are not available due to their low numbers (Panjabi 

2003). The species has been observed an average of three times per year since 

bird monitoring began in 2001 (Giroir et al. 2007). Several observations, in past 

and current surveys, have occurred in the project area. However, there are no 

known nests in the project area. 

There are no known sharp-shinned hawk nests in the project area, but based on 

suspected forest canopy nesting preferences (>40%) the amount of exiting 

potential nesting habitat (SS 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C and 5 pine) in the project area is 902 

acres or approximately 5% of the project area. There are no SS 3C, 4C or 5 

sites in the project area. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative, no treatments of dense pine stands would occur. In fact, 

many pine stands would become denser. Conifers would continue to encroach 

into meadows and hardwoods. The threat of stand replacing wildfire and beetle 

infestation would increase. Nesting habitat potential for the sharp-shinned hawk 

would continue to increase providing that wildfires and beetles do not create 

large areas of non-forest habitat. The No Action Alternative provides diverse 

habitats and the most potential nesting habitat for the sharp-shinned hawk. 

Action Alternatives 

Preferred habitat characteristics for this species are not well defined. An action 

alternative that would create a diversity of habitats and densities may provide the 

best potential opportunities for this species. Both alternatives may increase 

meadow acreage and enhance shrub growth in the long-term. A change in 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

92 

nesting habitat, under any of the action alternatives, may cause displacement of 

this species if present. If there are unknown nests in the project area than either 

of the action alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting 

season. This impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood at 

most if harvest operations are conducted during the nesting season. If nests 

were found prior to treatments they would be protected through Standard 3204. 

Protection of known nests and the retention of suitable habitat meet the intent of 

Objective 221. 

Alternative 2 

This alternative would reduce the threat of wildfire and insects by reducing the 

canopy in treated stands to 50 and 60BA. Structural stages that are considered 

potential nesting habitat within the project area (SS3B and 4B) would be reduced 

to 224 acres from the existing 902 acres. SS 4A increases by approximately 

678 acres from the existing condition. The acreage of potential nesting habitat 

is just over 1% under Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 also reduces the threat of fire and insects but would treat fewer 

acres than Alternative 2 and may create more diverse habitat. More potential 

nesting habitat would be retained. Potential nesting habitat would be reduced to 

742 acres. Acreage of potential nesting habitat would be 4% of the project area. 

Alternative 3 may have fewer potential impacts on the sharp-shinned hawk 

habitat compared to Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires and commercial harvest have decreased nesting habitat in the 

project area. These activities may have also affected prey for the sharp-shinned 

hawk. Currently pine beetles are thinning some of the more dense stands of 

ponderosa pine trees. This may be decreasing available nesting habitat. Future 

commercial treatments, prescribed burning and associated activities would affect 

mature pine trees and forest structure. The No Action Alternative would not have 

adverse cumulative effects on this species as no direct or indirect effects would 

occur. 

Cooper’s Hawk (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to Standard 3204 above under ‘Sharp-shinned Hawk’. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

93 

Existing Condition 

The Cooper’s hawk has been observed in a variety of habitats in the Black Hills, 

including ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrublands, and burned areas 

(Panjabi 2001, 2003 and 2005; Peterson 1995). The species appears to be 

widespread but uncommon on the Forest. Bird monitoring over the past three 

years has yielded an average of five sightings per year (Giroir et al. 2007). There 

have been sightings of the Cooper’s hawk in the project area, but there are no 

known nests. 

The Cooper’s hawk is considered a habitat generalist but typically requires 

wooded areas for nesting. The most common forest type in the Black Hills, 

ponderosa pine, is used for nesting in other areas of the species range. The bird 

is known to nest in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests. Stephens and Anderson 

(2002) analyzed the likely habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk on the 

Forest based on information from nearby regions. Range-wide, most pairs nest 

in patches of mature forest with moderate-to-high (60 to 90%) canopy closure 

near openings. Nest tree diameters are usually larger than what is randomly 

available. The Cooper’s hawk forages opportunistically across a diversity of 

habitats and preys on a variety of mid-sized birds and mammals (Stephens and 

Anderson 2002). 

In general, the Cooper’s hawk is more tolerant of human presence and habitat 

fragmentation than other North American accipiters (Curtis et al. 2006). 

However, habitat loss or alteration resulting in a loss of suitable nesting habitat, 

as well as a decrease in prey abundance and availability are thought to be the 

most significant threats to accipiter species’ persistence (Reynolds 1983). 

In ponderosa pine, structural stages 4B (mature stands with 40 to 70% canopy 

closure), 4C (mature stands with >70% canopy closure), and 5 (late succession) 

correspond most closely to the nesting habitat preferences of the Cooper’s hawk. 

The Cooper’s hawk often nests and hunts along forest edges and clearings. 

Riparian-woodland communities also provide potentially important habitat for the 

Cooper’s hawk. 

The Cooper’s hawk breeds throughout the United States, southern Canada, and 

northern Mexico. The species is considered a partial migrant, with populations in 

the northern portions of its breeding range considered more migratory than those 

to the south (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Some birds may remain on their 

breeding ranges throughout the winter. In South Dakota, the Cooper’s hawk is 

considered “uncommon,” with the only recorded occurrences in the western part 

of the state (Peterson 1995). 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative no treatments would occur in the project area. Trees 

would become more dense over time. More SS 4B/4C/5 pine acres may be 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

94 

created. This condition may lead to an increased chance of stand replacing 

wildfire and beetle infestation. Conifers would continue to encroach into 

meadows, riparian areas and hardwood communities. The No Action Alternative 

provides diverse habitats and the most potential nesting habitat for the Cooper’s 

hawk. 

Action Alternatives 

Under both action alternatives, the preferred nesting habitat for the Cooper’s 

hawk, SS 4B (there are no SS 4C or 5 sites) would decrease from the existing 

condition. Hardwood acreage may be increased and enhanced under the action 

alternatives by removing adjacent pine trees. Either of the action alternatives 

may cause Cooper’s hawks, if present, to avoid, or move from, an area being 

treated. If there are unknown nests in the project area than either of the action 

alternatives may disturb nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. This 

impact is expected to be short term affecting only one brood at most if harvest 

operations are conducted during the nesting season. Known nests would be 

protected through Standard 3204. 

Alternative 2 

SS 4B acres would be reduced from 901 to 223 acres under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 

SS 4B acres would be reduced from 901 to 741 acres under Alternative 3. Of the 

two action alternatives, Alternative 3 would be preferred due to the retention of 

more potential Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat. Foraging habitat does not seem 

limited. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past wildfires and vegetation management activities have reduced the area of 

dense conifer stands. Some of the dense pockets of pine are currently being 

reduced due to pine beetle infestation. The wildfires have encouraged and 

enhanced the aspen clones in the project area. However, livestock and ungulate 

browsing and drought conditions have and would continue to negatively impact 

the hardwood habitat in this project area. Fires and vegetation management 

activities are foreseeable. 

No adverse cumulative effects would be expected under the No Action 

Alternative because no activities are planned. Dense forest conditions remain as 

is but there is a higher chance of habitat destruction due to stand-replacing 

wildfires in the future. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

95 

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC) 

Existing Condition 

The pygmy nuthatch is a primary cavity nester that also uses secondary cavities 

(Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and Ghalambor 2001) found in mature yellow-pine 

communities throughout the West (Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches prefer 

old or mature undisturbed forests, but are also known to use open, park-like 

stands of ponderosa pine (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). This presents a 

challenge in the Black Hills where ponderosa pines typically grow very densely in 

the absence of disturbance. Roosting habitat for the pygmy nuthatch varies 

seasonally. Foraging habitat is primarily in pine stands with high canopy closure 

(Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches likely need heterogeneous forests with a 

mixture of well-spaced old trees and trees of intermediate age (Kingery and 

Ghalambor 2001). 

The preference for undisturbed forests may relate to the availability of large 

snags. The nuthatch is a weak cavity excavator, requiring soft, large snags for 

nesting and communal winter roost sites (USDA Forest Service 1996, Appendix 

H p. 40). Dead or decaying coniferous trees and snags provide substrate for 

nest cavities. Nesting habitat generally includes trees that average 15 to 27 

inches in diameter (Ghalambor 2003, Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). Suggested 

practices include managing for at least three to five snags (19 inches in diameter) 

per acre (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). 

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble one component of preferred 

habitat (old or mature undisturbed forest). Structural stage 4A most closely 

resembles open, park-like, mature forest conditions. Phase II structural stage 

objectives are designed to manage for the various structural stages across the 

landscape in a diversity of sizes and shapes. Snags that are greater than 15 

inches in diameter are an integral part of pygmy nuthatch nesting and roosting 

habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. There would likely be 

some areas with higher snag densities that would allow the species to persist. 

Large trees are also important for this species because they provide foraging 

habitat, and because they are source for future large snags used for roosting and 

nesting. 

The pygmy nuthatch subspecies of the Black Hills (Sitta pygmaea melanotis) is 

found from southern interior British Columbia and south throughout the forests of 

the Rocky Mountain West into Mexico and western Texas (DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

It is considered an uncommon resident in South Dakota (Peterson 1995). There 

are no reliable estimates of pygmy nuthatch abundance for the Black Hills 

(Ghalambor 2003). Estimates of local abundance are unavailable due to the 

scarcity of this species and its unpredictable distribution (Panjabi 2003). From 

2001 through 2007, RMBO has recorded 19 pygmy nuthatches on the Forest in 8 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

96 

different habitat types (Giroir et al. 2007), and they have been observed within 

the project area by RMBO and a personal observation.

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No treatments would occur in the project area under this alternative. Pine would 

become more dense. Pine trees would increase in size and provide larger future 

snags. The dense pine conditions could lead to stand replacing wildfires and/or 

beetle infestation. Either of these activities could eradicate preferred nesting and 

roosting habitat but would create snags. The No Action Alternative provides the 

most potential pine nesting habitat for the pygmy nuthatch and therefore is the 

preferred alternative. 

Action Alternatives 

Either of the action alternatives may cause pygmy nuthatches, if present, to 

avoid, or move from, an area being treated. The action alternatives may disturb 

nesting if harvest occurs during the nesting season. This impact is expected to 

be short term affecting only one brood at most if harvest operations are 

conducted during the nesting season. No snags would be cut unless deemed a 

safety hazard during treatments. However, snags may be lost during the 

prescribed burning activities. Burning could also create snags. Refer to ‘Snags 

and Down Woody Material’ section above. Fuel treatments that aid in the 

prevention of wildfires and help maintain mature and late successional stage 

stands can improve habitat for this species. Understory burns are not likely to 

substantially reduce habitat since large diameter pines are the most fire-resistant. 

Alternative 2 

This alternative proposes to remove mature pine and reduce SS 4B down to SS 

4A (Table III-4). Under this alternative, SS 4A pine acres would be increased by 

678 from the existing condition. Prescribed burning is proposed on 16, 986 

acres. Some of these acres are pine stands. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative proposes to remove mature pine and reduce SS 4B down to SS 

4A (Table III-5). Under this alternative, SS 4A pine acres would be increased by 

160 acres (4B decreased by 160 acres) from the existing condition. Alternative 

3 removes less large pine trees through commercial thins compared to 

Alternative 2. This alternative also proposes 442 less acres of prescribed 

burning. Alternative 3 is the preferred action alternative. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

97 

Cumulative Effects 

Past timber harvest and wildfires have reduced areas of dense pine stands in the 

project area. 

Past timber harvest has removed large diameter trees in treated stands which 

may have reduced the potential for large diameter snags. Wildfires have 

created snags as well as created park-like habitat for the pygmy nuthatch. 

Present beetle kill is creating and would continue to create snags in the project 

area. The No Action Alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on 

this species as no direct or indirect effects would occur. 

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Design Criteria – Bats/Caves’ section below. 

Standard 3102: “Where caves are important nurseries or hibernacula for 

sensitive and local concern bat species protect the caves and maintain their 

microclimates when designing management activities (e.g., timber harvest, road 

construction, recreation facilities). Protect known bat day and night roosts.” 

Standard 3207: “Where caves or abandoned mines serve as nurseries or 

hibernacula for bats, vegetative changes within 500 feet of the opening are 

allowed only if needed to maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features 

protect the openings from disturbance.” 

Existing Condition 

At the western edge of its range, the northern myotis is found in the wooded 

riparian zone in badlands and prairies to higher elevation coniferous and 

deciduous woodlands. In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured 

at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 6,500 feet (Schmidt 2003a). Luce et al. 

(1999) listed habitat associations as dense ponderosa pine and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest. 

Hibernacula include caves and mines. Individuals tend to wedge into crevices 

and are not easily detected or counted. During the summer, non-reproductive 

bats roost singly or in small groups of fewer than 10 individuals. Day roosts of 

males and non-reproductive females have been reported in buildings; under 

shingles; behind shutters of buildings; underneath exfoliating tree bark; inside 

cavities or crevices of trees; and in caves, mines, and quarries (Schmidt 2003a). 

Maternity roosts have been reported in buildings, under loose bark, and in 

crevices and cavities of deciduous trees and ponderosa pines. Northern myotis 

have been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity roosts 

in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998). 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

98 

Rabe et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for the northern 

myotis and four other Myotis species in Arizona; roost snags were generally 

larger in diameter, had more loose bark, and were found at higher densities. 

Cryan et al. (2001) reported the average snag size for roosts in the Black Hills 

was about 15.6 inches. Maternity roosts are typically small and comprise 5 to 65 

individuals (Schmidt 2003a). A single offspring is born in late July (Higgins et al. 

2000). 

Foraging areas may include hillsides, ridge tops, and riparian woodlands (Luce et 

at. 1999, Schmidt 2003a). The availability of suitable hibernacula, maternity 

roosting sites, and foraging areas all represent potential risk factors for this 

species (Schmidt 2003a). 

The northern myotis ranges across most of eastern North America, extending 

from central Quebec, Ontario, and the southern half of Manitoba, south through 

all of the Dakotas, eastern Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and then east to 

the Atlantic coast. Turner (1974) reported northern myotis from Pennington and 

Custer counties in South Dakota. NatureServe (2008) reported records of this 

species from Meade and Lawrence counties as well. 

Sightings have occurred within the project area, and there are caves within the 

HCMB Project Area. The Forest is conserving habitat for this species through 

cave, mine and snag management. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No treatments would occur in the project area under this alternative. Pine would 

become more dense. Pine trees would increase in size and provide larger future 

snags. The dense pine conditions could lead to stand replacing wildfires and/or 

beetle infestation. Either of these activities could eradicate some habitat for this 

species but would create snags. Conifers would continue to encroach into 

meadows and riparian zones where this species may forage. Conifers would 

also increase in hardwood stands, which may cause a hardwood site to be 

converted to a conifer site. The No Action Alternative should provide the most 

suitable roosting snags for this bat species. 

Action Alternatives 

No snags would be cut unless deemed a safety hazard, under either of the action 

alternatives. Grasses, shrubs and forbs should benefit, from the action 

alternatives, which may subsequently increase prey species and foraging habitat 

for this bat. The project may decrease or slow-down snag recruitment by making 

the thinning units less susceptible to wildfire and insect outbreaks; however, 

snags from the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires and snags in localized pockets of 

pine beetle activity provide habitat for this species in the area. Prescribed fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

99 

may cause the loss of some of the existing snags; however the burning may 

create snags as well. 

Both action alternatives may disturb/displace roosting bats. This may be a shortterm effect. Bats may return to roosting sites, if still intact, after 

treatments/burning are completed. 

Any caves and/or mines found in the project area and determined to be important 

bat habitat would be protected through Forest Standards/Guidelines. 

Alternative 2 

Under this alternative the resulting acreage of SS 4B pine would be 223. This 

equates to a loss of 678 acres of SS 4B pine, when comparing this action 

alternative with the existing condition. With the decreases in these structural 

stages, there would be an impact to potential snag roosting habitat. This may 

cause bats to move to other suitable areas. Of the action alternatives this one 

has the potential to remove the most snags due to safety hazard concerns and 

prescribed fire. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 proposes less pine harvest than Alternative 2. Under this 

alternative SS 4B pine would decrease by 160 acres from the existing condition. 

Alternative 3 would result in 518 more acres of SS 4B pine than Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 proposes prescribed burning 442 less acres than Alternative 2. 

This action alternative would have the least impact on the northern long-eared 

myotis. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past activities such as road building, timber harvest and burning may have 

caused displacement and/or mortality of roosting bats. Past fires and beetle 

infestation has created potential habitat (snags) for this species. Beetles are still 

active in the area and this is expected to continue into the future. Future wildfires 

and vegetation management in the project area could affect this species and its 

habitat. 

In general, human disturbance in or near hibernacula may cause site 

abandonment and local population losses. Recreational activities including 

spelunking can disturb hibernating bats. Habitat loss can occur with the closure 

of abandoned mines or destruction of buildings used by bats. Disturbance to 

cave and mine openings that changes airflow patterns, temperature regimes, and 

bat access can also impact bats (USDA Forest Service 2001). 

The No Action Alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on this 

species as no direct or indirect effects would occur. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

100 

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Design Criteria – Bats/Caves’ section below. 

Existing Condition 

The small-footed myotis is found in a variety of habitats ranging from arid desert 

and badland habitats to riparian zones and grasslands. It is usually associated 

with rocky areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, and major rock 

outcroppings within these habitats. In the Black Hills region, this species has 

been captured at elevations ranging from 3,800 to 6,000 feet (Schmidt 2003b). 

Hibernacula for this species include mines and caves. Relatively warmer areas 

of caves with the least climatic fluctuations seem to be the preferred micro-site. 

Mine hibernacula are also documented (Turner 1974). Maternity and summer 

roosts are usually associated with rock features (e.g., bluffs, ridges, cliffs, 

boulders, and major outcroppings) within a variety of habitats (Schmidt 2003b). 

The small-footed myotis is one of the few bat species that actually roosts in 

cavities at ground level. Day roosts include buildings, behind the bark of pine 

trees, in rock crevices, under rocks on the ground, in holes in banks and hillsides, 

and in abandoned swallow nests. The availability of suitable hibernacula, 

maternity roosting sites, and foraging areas all represent potential risk factors for 

this species (Schmidt 2003b). 

The small-footed myotis ranges across most of western North America, 

extending from central British Columbia, southern Alberta and southwestern 

Saskatchewan, south to the central States of Mexico (Schmidt 2003b). It has 

been reported from all five South Dakota counties of the Black Hills (Turner 

1974). Turner (1974) reported this species as widespread but not abundant in 

the Black Hills. 

No records were found for this species in the project area; however, there are 

caves within the project area. The Forest is conserving habitat for this species 

through cave, mine and snag management. 

All Alternatives/Cumulative Effects 

Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis’ section above. Both action alternatives 

may impact this bat species while roosting. There may be impacts to rock 

outcroppings, ground rocks and roosting trees during harvest operations and 

prescribed burning. Impacts, such as this, may be more prevalent under action 

Alternative 2, which proposes more vegetative treatment and burning. Roosting 

disturbance should be of short duration. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

101 

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Design Criteria – Bats/Caves’ section below. 

Existing Condition

The only records of long-eared myotis in the Black Hills come from unpublished 

reports. It is unknown whether the Black Hills supports a self-sustaining 

population. This species is associated with coniferous montane habitats and has 

been reported foraging among trees and over woodland ponds (Schmidt 2003c). 

Limited data suggest that the long-eared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as 

summer and maternity roosts in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998, Vonhof and 

Barclay 1997). Rabe et al. (1998) summarize some key snag characteristics for 

the long-eared myotis and four other bat species in Arizona: roost snags were 

generally in larger DBH, had more loose bark, and were found at higher 

densities. Stumps, also of large diameter, have been documented as summer 

roost sites for the long-eared myotis in British Columbia (Vonhof and Barclay 

1997). 

Although relatively little is known about this bat’s specific hibernation needs, 

hibernation sites include caves and mines (Higgins et al. 2000), but there are no 

known reports of them hibernating in the Black Hills (Schmidt 2003c). 

Reproductive females have been found in buildings, rock crevices, and hollow 

trees. Reported day roosts for this species include buildings (often abandoned), 

under loose tree bark, in hollow trees, among timbers of an unused railroad 

trestle, in caves and mines, in cliff fissures, and in portable latrines (Schmidt 

2003c). This bat often uses caves and mine tunnels as nightly roosts (Higgins et 

al. 2000, Schmidt 2003c). 

The long-eared myotis ranges across much of montane western North America, 

extending from central British Columbia; the southern half of Alberta and the 

southwestern corner of Saskatchewan; south to Baja California along the Pacific 

coast; along the western edges of the Dakotas; and most of Wyoming and 

Colorado to northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona (Schmidt 

2003c). 

No records were found for this species in the project area; however, there are 

caves within the project area. The Forest is conserving habitat for this species 

through cave, mine and snag management. 

All Alternatives/Cumulative Effects 

Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis and small-footed myotis’ sections above. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

102 

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC) 

Additional Forest Plan Direction 

Refer to ‘Design Criteria – Bats/Caves’ section below. 

Existing Condition 

The long-legged myotis is primarily associated with montane forest. In the Black 

Hills, this species occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 feet 

(Turner 1974). This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags 

as summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other 

regions (Rabe et al. 1998). Cryan et al. (2001) found the long-legged myotis 

roosting in rock crevices in the Black Hills where they may be subject to 

disturbance by rock climbing activities. Snags used for roosting in the Black Hills 

were larger in diameter, in a greater state of decay, and were in higher densities 

when compared to random snags (Cryan et al. 2001). Roosts were generally on 

south-facing slopes within late-successional pine forests. Day roosts are usually 

under the bark of ponderosa pine and in snags. These bats prefer dead snags 

characterized by reduced needles and twigs, loose bark, broken tops, hard-tospongy heartwood, and spongy-to-soft sapwood. Roost snags are generally 

taller than surrounding trees, close to other available trees, and surrounded by a 

relatively open canopy. Reproductive females have been found roosting in 

buildings, rock crevices, under the bark of trees, and in hollow trees (Schmidt 

2003d). Hibernating individuals are known to use caves in the Black Hills, 

including Bush’s and Jewel Caves (Schmidt 2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Turner 

1974). 

The long-legged myotis forages over meadows, ponds, streams, and open mesic 

habitats of the Black Hills where it feeds on flying insects, particularly moths 

(Luce et al. 1999, Turner 1974). Although this species is the most common and 

widely distributed bat in the Black Hills (Turner 1974), general limits to 

persistence include availability of roost sites, hibernacula, and foraging areas. 

The reported preference of this bat for roosting in snags suggests that the 

availability of mature forests with abundant snags may be a limiting factor 

(Schmidt 2003d). 

The long-legged myotis is common across the western United States. Its range 

extends across most of western North America, from southeastern Alaska 

through the western and southern half of British Columbia and the southern half 

of Alberta, down the western edge of the Great Plains states and into central 

Mexico (Schmidt 2003d). This species is considered the most common and 

widely distributed member of the genus Myotis in the Black Hills region and has 

been reported from all counties occupied by the Black Hills in both South Dakota 

and Wyoming (Schmidt 2003d, Luce et al. 1999, Clark and Stromberg 1987, 

Turner 1974). 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

103 

No records were found for this species in the project area; however, there are 

caves within the project area. The Forest is conserving habitat for this species 

through cave, mine and snag management. 

All Alternatives/Cumulative Effects 

Refer to ‘Northern long-eared myotis and small-footed myotis’ sections above. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) Conclusion

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment determined 

that the SOLC species analyzed above (tawny crescent, callused vertigo, 

mystery vertigo, frigid ambersnail, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, pygmy 

nuthatch, northern long-eared myotis, small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis and 

the long-legged myotis) should persist across the Planning Area if Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet 

these standards and guidelines (such as Standards 3102 and 3103). Therefore, 

the alternatives would contribute toward meeting Forest Objective 221. The size of this 

project area represents a rather small piece of potential habitat for these species 

when considering the potential habitat across the entire Planning Area (Black 

Hills National Forest). Therefore, these species are likely to persist on the 

Forest. 

ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR R2 SENSITIVE SPECIES

Refer to the HCMB Project Area BA/BE for a thorough analysis of species and 

effects from alternatives, including rationale for determination. There are no 

endangered or threatened species that have potential habitat within the project 

area. The following table lists R2 sensitive species that were analyzed in the 

HCMB BA/BE due to the presence of potential habitat in the project area. 

Determinations based on effects from the proposed action alternatives are listed 

as well. R2 sensitive species not listed in the table below do not have habitat in 

the project area. Some of the species in Table 33 have special Forest Plan 

Direction, which is discussed in the ‘Design Criteria’ section below. Refer to 

‘Bats/Caves’ (within ‘Design Criteria’) for the fringed myotis and Townsend’s bigeared bat FP direction. Refer to ‘Butterflies’ (within ‘Design Criteria’) for the regal 

fritillary butterfly FP direction. 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 221: “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and 

species of local concern (SOLC). Monitoring would be conducted at a Forestwide level, not at the project level, and would be done for habitats or 

populations.” 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

104 

Table 33: R2 Sensitive Species with Potential Habitat in the HCMB Project Area. 

Species Status Determination 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

No impact 

Fringed myotis 

(Myotis thysanodes) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus 

townsendii)

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Northern harrier 

(Circus cyaneus) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Lewis’s woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Black-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Black Hills redbelly snake 

(Storeria occipitomaculata

pahasapae) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

Regal fritillary butterfly 

(Speyeria idalia) 

R2 Sensitive 

Species 

May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing 

MIGRATORY BIRDS 

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally 

small ranges, loss of habitat, observed population declines and other factors. 

The Black Hills National Forest recognizes the ecological and economic 

importance of birds, and approaches bird conservation at several levels by 

implementing: (1) Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, (2) a Forestwide bird monitoring program, and (3) site-specific mitigation and effects 

analyses for identified species of concern. 

A variety of Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines further the 

conservation of migratory birds. Objectives describe desired resource 

conditions. The most relevant objectives for bird conservation are those relating 

to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and down woody 

material, riparian condition, habitat improvements, and disturbance processes 

(see Forest Plan Objectives 201-240). Standards and guidelines are designed to 

help achieve those objectives, and are implemented at the project-level. The 

most relevant standards and guidelines to migratory birds are 2101-2109 

(Forested Landscapes), 2202-2207 (Hardwoods and Shrubs), 2301-2308 (Snags 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

105 

and Down Woody Material), 2505-2507 (Proper Use or Residual Levels – 

Riparian/Uplands), 3101-3125 (Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Species 

Protection and Management), and 3202-3219 (General Fish and Wildlife 

Direction). 

Bird monitoring is conducted at the Forest-level to determine species distribution, 

abundance, and trend (Panjabi 2001- 2005, Beason et al. 2006, Hutton et al. 

2007, Giroir et al. 2007, White and Giroir 2009). The monitoring is designed and 

conducted by the RMBO to provide statistically rigorous population trend data for 

at least 61 species that breed in the Black Hills. Trend data would assist the 

Forest in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary. 

Species of concern applicable to project-level conservation are identified by 

many sources, including the Endangered Species Act, the Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list, the Black Hills National Forest MIS and Species of Local 

Concern list, internal and public scoping efforts, and the USFWS Birds of 

Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS 2008). BCC 2008 publication partitions 

North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions (Table 34). The Black Hills is 

included in BCR 17 – Badlands and Prairies, and this table has changed since 

the existing condition report was written. Of the 28 bird species found in BCR 17, 

15 are duplicated on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, and are 

evaluated in the BA/BE if they have potential to occur in the Black Hills. Six 

species are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of habitat. There 

are seven remaining species that could potentially occur in the Black Hills: 

golden eagle, prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, black-billed cuckoo, red-headed 

woodpecker, pinyon jay, and dickcissel. Of these 7 species, the golden eagle, 

prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, and red-headed woodpecker have the potential 

to occur within the Project Area. The black-billed cuckoo, pinyon jay, and 

dickcissel would not be analyzed because suitable habitat is not present in the 

HCMB Project Area. 

Table 34: BCR 17 Species and Relationship to HCMB Project Area. 

Species Project Disposition

Horned Grebe 

(Podiceps auritus)

No habitat on Forest or in project area (small ponds and 

lake inlets) 

American Bittern 

(Botaurus 

lentiginosus) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (wetlands) 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

R2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BA/BE 

Ferruginous Hawk 

(Buteo regalis) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (shrub-steppe/prairie) 

Golden Eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) Habitat present; addressed in Wildlife Specialist Report

American Peregrine R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat in project area (cliffs 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

106 

Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus anatum)

and open areas near water) 

Prairie Falcon 

(Falco mexicanus) 

Foraging habitat present; addressed in Wildlife Specialist 

Report 

Yellow Rail 

(Coturnicops 

noveboracensis) 

No habitat on Forest or in project area (fresh- and 

brackish-water marshes during breeding season) 

Mountain Plover 

(Charadrius 

montanus) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (shortgrass prairie) 

Upland Sandpiper 

(Bartramia 

longicauda) 

Habitat present; addressed in Wildlife Specialist Report

Long-billed Curlew 

(Numenius 

americanus) 

R2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BA/BE 

Marbled Godwit 

(Limosa fedoa) 

No habitat on Forest or in project area (prairies and 

prairie wetlands) 

Black-billed Cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus) 

Species present on Forest but no habitat present in 

project area (riparian hardwood) 

Burrowing Owl 

(Athene cunicularia) R2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BA/BE 

Short-eared Owl 

(Asio flammeus) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (short-grass prairie) 

Lewis' Woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis) R2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BA/BE 

Red-headed 

Woodpecker 

(Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus) 

Habitat present; addressed in Wildlife Specialist Report

Loggerhead Shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

R2 Sensitive Species - Species present on Forest but no 

habitat present in project area (Open country with short 

vegetation) 

Pinyon Jay 

(Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus) 

No habitat present in project area (Piñon-juniper 

woodland). 

Sage Thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes 

montanus) 

No habitat on Forest or in project area (shrub-steppe 

habitat) 

Sprague's Pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) No habitat on Forest or in project area (prairie) 

Brewer's Sparrow 

(Spizella breweri) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (shrub-steppe habitat) 

Sage Sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (shrub-steppe habitat) 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

107 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

R2 Sensitive Species – Addressed in BA/BE 

Baird's Sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

bairdii) 

No habitat on Forest or in project area (shortgrass 

prairie) 

McCown's Longspur 

(Calcarius mccownii) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (shortgrass prairie) 

Chestnut-collared 

Longspur 

(Calcarius ornatus) 

R2 Sensitive Species - No habitat on Forest or in project 

area (prairie) 

Dickcissel 

(Spiza americana) No habitat present in project area (prairie, alfalfa). 

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird) 

Existing Condition 

The golden eagle is typically found in open country from desert grasslands to 

above timberline. It usually avoids densely forested areas. Typical habitat is 

grass-shrub, shrub-sapling and/or open coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). 

This species prefers large trees and cliffs for nesting, roosting and perching. 

Additionally, cliffs overlooking grasslands serve as typical nest sites. They may 

use the same nest or alternate nests between years (DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

Golden eagles hunt by soaring-searching and using perch sites to identify prey 

(Johnsgard 1990). Typical food items include: marmots (Marmota flaviventris), 

prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), 

weasels (Mustela spp.), lagomorphs (Sylvilagus and Lepus spp.), rattlesnakes 

(Crotalus viridis), and most medium-sized birds (DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

Golden eagles breed from western Alaska east through Canada, south to Baja 

California, northern Mexico, west-central Texas, western Oklahoma, Nebraska 

and the Dakotas. The species winters from south-central Alaska, southern 

Canada and throughout the western breeding range (Johnsgard 1990). They are 

considered uncommon permanent residents in western South Dakota (Tallman et 

al. 2002) and only ten have been detected during recent bird monitoring efforts 

(Giroir et al. 2007). Golden eagles were observed in the project area during 

2008 surveys. Golden eagles are commonly seen feeding on carrion along 

roads in the Black Hills during winter (personal observation). 

Effects of Project on Habitat 

Contiguously forested habitats, which do not make up a large portion of the 

HCMB project area, are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be 

included in a home range if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is intermixed. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

108 

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area does contain some rim-rock 

outcrops that could provide typical nesting substrates. Eagles do forage in the 

forest meadows, or in nearby grasslands and large burned forest areas. 

Pine encroachment, thinning, and prescribed burning treatments proposed for 

the HCMB project would have a negligible effect on foraging habitat because the 

project area is currently in an open condition. No other vegetation treatments 

would have any effect on the eagle or its habitat. 

Prairie Falcon (Migratory Bird) 

Existing Condition 

Typical habitat for this species includes open, treeless areas such as brushdesert, desert grassland, and other arid regions with nearby cliffs for nesting 

(Johnsgard 1990). Prairie falcons prefer to nest on cliffs with a sheltered ledge 

overlooking open country for hunting; additionally, they may use old eagle, hawk 

or raven nests. This species usually hunts from perches or low level flight and 

typically captures prey on the ground. They have a variable diet that includes 

medium to small-sized birds, prairie dogs, mice, ground squirrels, young rabbits, 

grasshoppers and lizards (DeGraaf et. al. 1991). 

Prairie falcons breed from southwestern Canada south to Baja California, 

western Texas, eastern Colorado, western Nebraska and the western Dakotas. 

They typically winter in grasslands from the breeding range in southern Canada 

to central Mexico (Johnsgard 1990). The species is considered an uncommon 

permanent resident in far western South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002). Two nest 

sites were discovered in the Black Hills in 2002, one in Spearfish Canyon and 

one in Redbird Canyon. Additionally, a nest site was found in Hell Canyon in 

2001, but was not active in 2002. Prairie falcons within the Black Hills were 

located primarily at the periphery of the Hills where high cliffs and open grassland 

exist (Panjabi 2003). Prairie falcons have been observed every year since the 

RMBO study began in 2001 except for the 2007 field season (Giroir et al. 2007). 

There was one sighting within the project area in 2005. A prairie falcon was 

observed, by a wildlife biologist, foraging in an open meadow in August 2003 

north of the HCMB Project Area. There is limited potential nesting habitat in the 

HCMB project Area. However, the Jasper and Roger’s Shack Fires created 

foraging habitat in the project area. 

Effects of Project on Habitat 

Pine encroachment, thinning, and prescribed burning treatments proposed for 

the HCMB project would have a negligible effect on foraging habitat because the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

109 

project area is currently in an open condition. No other vegetation treatments 

would have any effect on the prairie falcon or its habitat. 

Red-headed Woodpecker (Migratory Bird) 

Existing Condition 

The red-headed woodpecker is commonly found in deciduous woodlands, 

especially with beech or oak, lowland and upland habitats, river bottoms, open 

woods, groves of dead and dying trees, orchards, parks, open agricultural 

country, savanna-like grasslands with scattered trees, and forest edge and along 

roadsides. It is also a species of open country, attracted to burns and recent 

clearings (Smith et al. 2000). This species nests in dead trees or in dead 

portions of live trees, e.g., well-weathered dead pines, pine stubs that have long 

since lost their bark, maple, birch (Betula), cottonwood (Populus), oak, and in 

utility poles, often in open areas with little ground vegetation or in stands of trees 

with no understory (Smith et al. 2000). 

Red-headed woodpeckers breed from the eastern United States, west to the 

edge of the Great Plains in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. 

They are also found in extreme southern Canada from Saskatchewan to New 

Brunswick, and are most common in the mid-western and Gulf Coast states 

(Smith et al. 2000). They occur locally in the Black Hills, where they are 

generally uncommon to rare. At present, they occur in very low densities, 

primarily in burn areas. Red-headed woodpeckers breed in the eastern portion of 

Colorado in riparian habitat and urban parks. They are found throughout 

Wyoming but primarily breed in the eastern and north-central parts of the state. 

Monitoring data from 2001 through 2007 showed that this species was detected 

exclusively in burned habitat. The highest density was in 2007 with 1.48 

birds/km2. There were several observations of red-headed woodpeckers during 

field surveys in 2008, and they were also observed by RMBO during 2001-2008 

field seasons in the project area (Panjabi, 2003, Panjabi 2004, Beason et al. 

2006, White and Giroir 2008). As stated above, the project area contains 

sufficient snags in burn areas to support this species. 

Effects of Project on Habitat 

This is an edge species that depends on snags for nesting. Timber harvest and 

mechanical thinning operations are not expected to have any adverse effect on 

this bird’s habitat. The prescribed burning proposed may negatively affect this 

species if large amounts of snags are destroyed by fire or even weakened by fire. 

It is expected that there may be more snags created during burning activities. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

110 

Upland Sandpiper (Migratory Bird) 

Existing Condition 

This species prefers open grasslands that range from flats with little vegetation to 

rich pasturelands, hayfields and alfalfa fields. The bird typically nests in a 

depression on the ground within rank grasses and usually covers the nest with 

nearby vegetation (DeGraaf et al. 1991). A combination of short, medium and 

tall vegetation provides the optimum habitat for the species. Upland sandpipers 

prefer to forage in short vegetation, nest in tall vegetation and use the medium 

structured grasslands for brood cover (Dechant et al. 2003). Thus, a 

combination of grazed and ungrazed habitats located in close proximity provides 

the best habitat (Panjabi 2005). Upland sandpipers are very sensitive to habitat 

fragmentation; abundance has shown to be positively correlated to patch or field 

size (Dechant et al. 2003). 

Specific management recommendations outlined by Dechant et al. (2003) for this 

species include: (1) Maintain large (i.e., >247 acres) patches of contiguous 

grassland habitat, (2) Maintain the native prairie ecosystem through prescribed 

burning and grazing, (3) Avoid burning during the nesting season, and (4) 

Prevent encroachment of woody vegetation into prairie habitat. 

The upland sandpiper breeds from north-central Alaska, northern Yukon, Alberta 

to southern Quebec, central Maine, and southern New Brunswick south to 

northeastern Oregon, central Colorado, north-central Texas, central Missouri, 

West Virginia, and Maryland. The species winters in South America. It was once 

abundant but is now considered uncommon from past hunting pressure and 

conversion of grasslands to croplands (DeGraaf et al. 1991). It is considered 

uncommon and local in the Black Hills (Tallman et al. 2002). The 1966 to 2004 

BBS population trend data for BCR 17 indicates that the species has been 

increasing slightly at a rate of 0.3% per year (Sauer et al. 2005). Monitoring data 

from 2004 found the species restricted entirely to the mixed-grass prairie habitat 

type in the southern Hills (Panjabi 2005). There is suitable habitat in project area 

that has been burned by the Jasper and Roger’s Shack Fires. There are no 

recorded observations in the project area. However, there was an observation of 

an upland sandpiper just north of the project boundary (Giroir et al. 2007). 

Effects of Project on Habitat 

This is a prairie grassland species. Timber harvest and mechanical thinning 

operations are not expected to have any adverse effect on this bird’s habitat. 

The prescribed burning proposed could affect this species and/or its habitat if it 

included large areas of grassland habitat and was done in the spring. Burning is 

to occur prior to the upland sandpiper’s nesting season. A fall burn would have 

no adverse effect on the upland sandpiper. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

111 

DEMAND SPECIES

Species that are important local game animals but are not MIS, SOLC or 

sensitive species are demand species. These are species that are of particular 

interest to the public because they are hunted or fished. This analysis includes 

three demand species: elk, mule deer and turkey. 

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cercus elaphus nelsoni) 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 217: “Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state 

objectives in effect in 1996”. 

Existing Condition 

Elk use a wide variety of vegetation types on the Forest but show a preference 

for forested riparian areas, forested stringers in meadows, and deciduous stands 

of birch or aspen (SAIC 2003). Elk find cover (thermal or hiding or both) on the 

Forest in the denser stands of conifers (summer and winter) and hardwoods 

(summer only). For forage, however, they rely on more open stands and 

meadows and prairies, all of which may provide an abundance of grasses, forbs, 

and/or shrubs (SAIC 2003). The summer range typically provides a mixture of 

open brushy and grassy areas, water sources, and areas of dense forest cover. 

During winter, most elk move to winter ranges. Some mature bulls stay on 

summer ranges where the snow depths can reach 4 feet. The fall diet is primarily 

grass, forbs and some browse, and in winter the diet shifts to mostly browse and 

some grasses (Higgins et al. 2000). 

The elk population of the Black Hills is difficult to estimate in part because of 

interstate movements of the species. However, the 2007 estimate placed the 

population level at 3,800 elk in the South Dakota Black Hills (Huxoll 2008). The 

2008 estimate decreased to 3,600 elk (Huxoll 2009). No population estimates 

are available for the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills. The elk herd in 

Wyoming appears to be growing, but at a slower rate than in the past (Sandrini 

2007). The Forest has committed (through Objective 217) to managing habitat 

for a total of 4,350 elk, which was the combined population objective establish by 

the two state game agencies in 1996 (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Roads negatively affect elk because roads degrade habitat and contribute to 

animal displacement and stress. The loss of habitat to road construction is 

unknown, but is often estimated at 5 acres per linear mile (Rowland et al. 2004). 

Roads may affect habitat by reducing the amount of patches of forest cover large 

enough to function effectively as elk habitat (Rowland et al. 2004). Roads may 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

112 

also affect elk habitat by facilitating the spread of invasive, exotic vegetation 

(Rowland et al. 2004). Roads and motorized trails can also affect the animals 

directly. In addition to mortality from collisions with vehicles, elk avoid areas near 

open roads, are more vulnerable to hunter harvest, and exhibit higher stress 

levels in areas or higher road density (Rowland et al. 2004). Rumble et al. 

(2005) found that elk movements increased with increased human activity during 

the hunting season. They suggested this response to hunters may reflect a 

pattern of elk responses to human disturbance during other times of the year. An 

important management consideration for elk include the establishment of no 

more than one mile of open road per square mile of area and the promoting or 

maintaining of dense coniferous stands located more than 0.5 miles from open 

roads (SAIC 2003). 

Elk are common in the HCMB Project Area. Providing high-quality winter and 

transitional habitat for elk on Forest Service lands is a theme in Management 

Area 5.4 which comprises more than 90% of the HCMB Project Area. 

Effects to Elk 

Refer to ‘Management Indicator Species—White-tailed Deer’ section above for all 

effects from alternatives, big game screening and conclusions. 

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

Forest Plan Direction 

Objective 217: “Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state 

objectives in effect in 1996”. 

Existing Condition 

The Black Hills deer population is comprised of approximately 75% white-tailed 

deer and 25% mule deer (Parrish et al. 1996). There is very little research 

available on mule deer ecology. Throughout much of the Black Hills, there is not 

a clear habitat distinction between the two species and their ranges overlap in 

many areas (Parrish et al. 1996). Mule deer tend to inhabit more open, rugged 

habitat and are more abundant in the southern Black Hills of South Dakota and 

Wyoming, where open, rocky habitat is more prevalent (Sieg and Severson 

1996). Meadows and other grass cover types provide forage. Mountain 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

113 

mahogany habitat in the southern Black Hills may play an important role in 

providing mule deer habitat. 

The 2007 population estimate for the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills was 

approximately 62,000 white-tailed and mule deer combined. Of the 62,000 deer, 

12,000 were mule deer (USDA Forest Service 2008). According to Huxoll (2009) 

the 2008 estimate of mule deer in the Black Hills was 10,000 animals. The 2008 

white-tailed deer estimate was 45,000 (Huxoll 2009). The Forest has committed 

(through Objective 217) to managing habitat for a combined white-tailed and 

mule deer population of 60,000 animals in South Dakota. This figure matches 

the South Dakota Game, Fish and Park’s population objective for the Black Hills 

(USDA Forest Service 2008/2009). 

Motorized use on roads and trails may affect mule deer by direct mortality 

(collisions), though this is less likely on primitive roads and trails. Motorized use 

on roads and trails may also impact habitat effectiveness through disturbance 

and by facilitating the spread of invasive, exotic vegetation (Rowland et al. 2004). 

Mule deer are common in the HCMB Project Area. Providing high-quality winter 

and transitional habitat for mule deer on Forest Service lands is a theme in 

Management Area 5.4 which comprises more than 90% of the HCMB Project 

Area. 

Effects to Mule Deer 

Refer to “Management Indicator Species—White-tailed Deer” section above for 

all effects from alternatives, big game screening and conclusions. 

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallapavo merriami) 

Forest Plan Direction 

Guideline 3205: “Provide at least 2 to 6 turkey-roost sites per section, consisting 

of mature trees with an average diameter at breast height (dbh) of 10 to 14 

inches, widely spaced horizontal branches and basal areas at least 90 square 

feet per acre. Sites should be at least one-fourth acre in size and not isolated 

from adjacent forested stands. Emphasis should be on the upper third of eastfacing slopes if available.” 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

114 

Existing Condition 

The wild turkey is a non-migratory species. There are six recognized subspecies 

of wild turkey and of these the Merriam’s (wild) turkey is the race introduced in 

the Black Hills in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Wakeling et al. 1999). The 

Merriam’s turkey is common and widespread on the Forest, with an estimated 

population of 26,000 birds in the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills (Huxoll 

2007). Turkey populations on the Forest have been on a steady increase since 

1998 (USDA Forest Service 2004a and 2004b). 

The species occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types, including foothill and 

montane riparian associations, pine-juniper shrubland, mixed grass prairie, and 

ponderosa pine, white spruce, and aspen forest stands (Panjabi 2003). 

Merriam’s turkeys use many of the vegetation types occurring on the Forest. 

Open areas are important for foraging (structural stages 1, 2, 3A, 4A), especially 

during the summer. Hens with broods prefer more open forest conditions where 

insects are plentiful for poults to eat. Dense mature ponderosa pine (structural 

stages 4C and 5) serves as winter cover and a source of mast (Rumble and 

Anderson 1996). During the winter, turkeys also prefer south facing slopes where 

the sun melts the snow (Rumble and Anderson 1996). These birds roost in larger 

diameter, horizontally branched ponderosa pine trees, usually in SS 4B or 4C 

stands that are within 1⁄2 mile of water. 

Turkeys are common in the HCMB Project area in summer. Turkeys would 

remain in the area during mild winters. Although preferred roosting habitat is 

lacking in the project area chances are turkeys are using the best roosting habitat 

that is present. 

There are 18,543 National Forest System acres in this project area. That 

equates to 29 square miles (sections). At a minimum 58 roost sites are needed 

(according to Guideline 3205). At 1⁄4 acre a roost site that means 14.5 acres are 

needed for roosting areas. At a maximum 174 roost sites are needed. At a 1⁄4 

acre per roost site that means 43.5 acres are needed for roosting areas in the 

project area. There are 901 acres (SS 4B) of mature ponderosa pine habitat with 

an average canopy density of >40 percent within the HCMB Project Area. Just 

less than 5% of the project area is in SS 4B. Or in other words, less than 5% of 

the project area is potential roosting habitat for turkeys. There is no SS 4C or 5 

pine habitat in the project area. Just less than 95% of the project area would be 

considered summer habitat for turkeys. Conditions here of excess SS 1 were 

created by the Rogers Shack and Jasper Fires. When looking at acreage alone 

it would appear roosting habitat is suitable in the project area. However, 

Guideline 3205 wants roosting habitat in each land section and in adjacent 

forested stands. All indications point to turkeys using what roosting habitat is 

available within the HCMB Project Area. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

115 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No mature trees would be harvested under this alternative. Under this 

alternative, pine would become larger and possibly more dense; therefore better 

roosting habitat may be created. This may increase the risk of stand replacing 

wildfires and beetle infestation in SS 4B stands. Pine would continue to 

regenerate in the burned areas. The young pine would provide more hiding 

cover for turkeys foraging along the edges of the burned acres. Current slash 

from the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires are providing habitat sites for turkey 

insect prey. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Turkeys could be directly affected from activities associated with prescribed 

burning and vegetation treatments. Turkeys may start nesting in April in this 

vicinity. Nests and/or turkeys could suffer mortality. Any vegetative treatments, 

burning and/or post-harvest projects proposed under the action alternatives may 

cause displacement of individuals; however, turkeys would be expected to come 

back to the affected areas in a short time period if roosting habitat could be 

found. If the area is thinned (commercial or non-commercial) and/or burned 

(through fuel treatment) it could still be of benefit as foraging ground. 

 

Alternatives 2 and 3 increase summer habitat from the existing condition. Both 

action alternatives decrease winter habitat for turkeys. Both action alternatives 

propose thinning SS 4B stands (winter habitat). Alternative 2 proposes thinning 

more acreage than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would change 678 acres of SS 4B 

pine to SS 4A. Alternative 3 would change 160 acres of SS 4B to SS 4A. 

Alternative 2 proposes more acreage (442 acres) of prescribed burning than 

Alternative 3. The burn may remove microhabitats that are providing insects for 

turkeys. For these reasons Alternative 3 would cause less adverse impacts to 

turkeys. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past timber harvest, wildfires, livestock grazing, recreation and drought have 

impacted the turkey populations in the project area and these activities would 

likely continue. Spring weather is probably the single most significant factor in 

determining turkey populations. Hunting pressure can also affect population 

levels. Livestock grazing in conjunction with or independent of drought can 

reduce herbaceous vegetation, which is important in maintaining a high quality 

summer brood habitat (Rumble and Anderson 1996). These activities would 

likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands would likely continue to be 

developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect turkeys through 

direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, and 

disturbance. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

116 

No adverse cumulative effects are expected under the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Roosting and winter habitat is limited in the project area for turkeys. Under the 

No Action Alternative, turkeys would have the most roosting habitat opportunities 

and winter habitat. Summer habitat may decrease under this alternative; 

however, it is in excess. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 3 is preferred. It 

removes less winter and roosting habitat than Alternative 2. It also provides 

more slash for nesting turkeys and insect production. 

 

If looking at SS 4B acreage alone in the alternatives, there is enough roosting 

habitat available for turkeys in the project area. However, Guideline 3205 wants 

roosting habitat in each section and in forested stands that are not isolated. This 

is not the case in the HCMB Project Area. What is evident is the potential 

decrease of roosting and winter turkey habitat within the project area under the 

action alternatives. 

Range/Noxious Weeds 

Affected Environment 

Livestock Grazing 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn currently spans over a portion of 7 grazing 

allotments including; Hell Canyon, Limestone, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, 

Porcupine, Tepee and Water Draw Allotments. Lithograph and Porcupine grazing 

allotments contain no proposed treatment units, although the project boundary 

covers a small portion of these allotments. Close coordination between the 

district rangelands management specialists and fuels personnel would be 

essential in planning burn locations and timing. Not more than one pasture per 

allotment should be burned in any one year prior to the next grazing season. 

With prior planning, grazing rotation adjustments can be made to effectively meet 

ecological and grazing requirements. Number of acres burned in any one 

allotment should be adjusted as to not constitute a reduction in cattle numbers for 

that grazing season. Guideline 4107 states; Defer prescribed burned areas from 

livestock grazing for a portion or all of the following growing season to ensure 

regrowth of forage species. (USDA Forest Service 2006) 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

117 

Table 35: Current Livestock Management by Allotment. 

Allotment Unit Number of 

livestock 

Length of 

time 

Grazing system

Limestone Windmill 250 cow/calf pairs 65-70 days 

3-unit rest rotation with 

Alkali and Bear Springs 

units 

Limestone Bear 

Springs 250 cow/calf pairs 65-70 days 3-unit rest rotation with 

Alkali and Windmill units 

Limestone Alkali 250 cow/calf pairs 65-70 days 3-unit rest rotation with and 

Bear Springs units 

Lower Beaver Roby 80 cow/calf pairs 49 days 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Lower Boles unit 

Lower Beaver Lower 

Boles 80 cow/calf pairs 61 days 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Roby unit 

Lower Beaver Moon 276 cow/calf pairs 53 days 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Summit Ridge unit 

Lower Beaver Summit 

Ridge 276 cow/calf pairs 57 day 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Moon unit 

Lower Beaver Buck 

Springs 154 cow/calf pairs 49 days 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Wilson Place unit 

Lower Beaver Wilson 

Place 154 cow/calf pairs 61 days 2-unit deferred rotation with 

Buck Springs unit 

Lower Beaver Kennedy 

Canyon 11 cow/calf pairs 60 days 1-unit season long 

Lower Beaver Thompson 

Canyon 38 cow/calf pairs 30 days 1-unit season long 

Hell Canyon Issuewood 138 cow/calf pairs 20 days 5-unit deferred rotation 

Hell Canyon Roger 

Shack 

138 cow/calf pairs 31 days 5-unit deferred rotation 

Hell Canyon East 

Gurney 

138 cow/calf pairs 37 days 5-unit deferred rotation 

Hell Canyon West 

Gurney 

138 cow/calf pairs 27 days 5-unit deferred rotation 

Hell Canyon Hell 

Canyon 

138 cow/calf pairs 35 days 5-unit deferred rotation 

Tepee Antelope 375 cow/calf pairs 75 days 

3-unit deferred rotation with 

Gillette Canyon and 

Deadhorse 

Tepee Gillette 

Canyon 260 cow/calf pairs 75 days 3-unit deferred rotation with 

Deadhorse and Antelope 

Tepee Deadhorse 115 cow/calf pairs 75 days 

3-unit deferred rotation with 

Gillette Canyon and 

Antelope 

Tepee Hill 

Pasture 33 cow/calf pairs 31 days 1-unit season long 

Water Draw Vacant 

1-unit (currently) 

3-unit deferred rotation 

(past) 

Structural Range Improvements 

The allotments within the treatment areas contain numerous structural range 

improvements, including allotment boundary fences, unit division fences, 

pipelines and water developments that would need to be protected. Tepee, 

Limestone and Hell Canyon Allotments all contain above ground pipelines within 

the project area. Coordination between the district rangelands management 

specialist and fuels personnel would be essential to ensure no damage occurs to 

existing range improvements. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

118 

Noxious Weeds 

Following the Jasper Fire of 2000 and the Roger Shack Fire of 2001, heavy 

colonization of noxious weed species occurred in most areas burned by the fires. 

Since 2001, approximately $2 million have been allocated to reduce the spread 

of noxious weed species within the Jasper, Elk Mountain, Roger Shack and Red 

Point fire areas. Herbicide treatment has occurred every year since the fire. 

Contractors, Custer County Weed and Pest, along with Forest Service force 

account crews sprayed weeds in the post burn areas. The weed treatments 

have been very successful. The primary noxious weed species in these fire 

areas is Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Canada thistle populations in the 

treated areas were reduced to relatively low levels while the populations in 

untreated areas have greatly expanded until vegetative cover became 

established. The current Canada thistle populations are relatively stable. The 

treated areas would remain at low risk to Canada thistle re-infestation provided 

no large scale soil disturbance or vegetation removal occurs. Large infestations 

occurred across many acres of these fire areas prior to treatment. Canada thistle 

may spread through rhizomes or germinate from seed. An average Canada 

thistle plant may have 30-70 flowering heads each containing 1000-1500 seeds. 

The seeds are equipped with a feathery pappus which provides for excellent 

wind dispersal. Seeds have the ability to travel miles from the parent plant and 

may remain viable for up to 20 years. Maintaining vegetative competition is 

essential to managing Canada thistle spread. Due to the extensive Canada 

thistle populations prior to herbicide treatment, an existing widespread seed 

source poses an ecological threat if competitive vegetation cover is removed. 

Due to above average rainfall in 2008, a large increase in Leafy spurge, 

Common mullein and Canada thistle infestations occurred in many areas of the 

fires. 

Canada thistle and Leafy spurge are the main invaders in the area. Small 

infestations of Leafy spurge are north and east of Jewel Cave. Patches of Leafy 

spurge and Spotted knapweed are present along the Mud Springs Road. 

Smaller infestations of Common mullein, Spotted knapweed, Yellow toadflax, 

Black henbane, Common tansy, Diffuse knapweed and Sulfur cinquefoil also 

exist within the project. 

Documented noxious weed species found in the area include: 

• Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

• Common mullein(Verbascum thapsus), 

• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) 

• Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

• Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger)

• Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

119 

• Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) 

• Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Alternative 1: (No Action) 

Direct and Indirect effects 

The no action alternative would eventually result in a decrease of grassland 

communities in the area as forested stands become denser and ponderosa pine 

continues to encroach upon meadow areas. Allowing pine encroachment to 

continue could result in a loss of habitat for these grassland species. 

Lack of treatment in the ponderosa pine stands, lack of reduction of the existing 

fuel loads, and lack of treatment of the mountain pine beetle infestations would 

increase the potential for large-scale fire in the area. Large-scale fire could be a 

risk to previous treatments of noxious weeds. It is assumed that an intense fire 

that might have high severity effects, such as deep soil heating, could negatively 

affect native vegetation allowing for colonization Canada thistle and other 

noxious weeds. 

The lack of additional disturbance associated with the no action alternative would 

reduce the possibility of noxious weed infestations barring any occurrence of 

large scale fire. 

Livestock movement within the allotments may be impacted by the no-action 

alternative. The increase in dead, dying and wood on the ground make it difficult 

for livestock to graze within the allotment and contribute to less pounds of forage 

for livestock and wildlife use each year. The no-action alternative would not have 

an impact on existing range improvements barring any occurrence of large scale 

fires. 

Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives 

Because this project area is within areas that burned under wildfire conditions 

and were heavily infested with Canada thistle, there is a very high risk that the 

existing seed bank would result in a marked increase in Canada thistle 

infestation. Past experience indicates that populations of plants with pappiferous 

fruit, such as Canada thistle, have the potential to spread 30 percent a year with 

disturbance. The potential in this project area could be much greater due to the 

existing seed bank that might have resulted from recent infestations. 

Both action alternatives include ground disturbance thus increasing the potential 

for spread of existing and new noxious weed infestations. Prescribed burning 

reduces the grassland vegetation reducing the competition of noxious weeds. 

Existing fuel loads (wood currently on the ground) would naturally burn with 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

120 

higher temperatures in relation fuel loads associated with grassland vegetation 

increasing the heat of the soil beneath these heavy fuels allowing noxious weeds 

to germinate with no competition of native grasses. Anytime activities remove the 

protective herbaceous cover and soil is exposed, (such as severe fire, skid trails 

resulting from timber harvest, road creation, etc) there is an increase in the 

likelihood of exotic plants being introduced into an area. Proposed thinning 

treatments would also include ground disturbance with similar results of existing 

and new infestations of noxious weeds. 

Lack of treatment of post-burn weed infestations, could likely result in return to or 

exceed pre-herbicide treatment levels. It is impossible to predict precise spread 

rates due to factors such as precipitation, temperature, soils, slope/aspect, viable 

seed availability and burn intensity. Ultimately burning may not be beneficial to 

rangeland species due to the high probability of wide spread Canada thistle 

colonization. Previous disturbances within the project area and current 

infestations put this area at high risk for continued invasion. The infestations can 

be expected to spread at least 30% per year when there is disturbance. At 

highest risk would be areas containing larger fuel loads and downed timber which 

create a place for past seed accumulation and would burn with much higher 

intensities. Timely treatment and constant monitoring (and re-treatment as 

needed) can reduce infestations of noxious weeds by up to 95% per year. 

Prescribed burning and thinning practices would reduce the current heavy fuel 

loads and overtime would be beneficial to native vegetation with favorable 

weather conditions. This decrease in on-the-ground fuel loads would be 

beneficial to livestock grazing by eventually increasing forage. 

Grassland community types (i.e. meadows) are not considered heavy fuel loads 

as described in the project. Prescribed burning would reduce the fine fuels thus 

creating a seedbed for noxious weeds. There would be a negative impact to the 

grassland communities in regards to noxious weed infestations under both action 

alternatives if the weeds are not treated. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect effects 

The 159 acres of proposed pine encroachment treatment in Alternative 2 would 

likely enhance management of grass, meadow and hardwood vegetation. The 

pine encroachment treatments proposed in this alternative would be expected to 

benefit species associated with these communities by enhancing/conserving 

habitat. 

Under Alternative 2, 18,409 acres have the potential for being disturbed as trees 

are dropped and skidded to landing decks and fuels are treated. Thus skid trails, 

landings, burn piles, areas where machinery would be working, and areas which 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

121 

are treated with fire could create a seedbed for noxious weeds. The spread of 

noxious weeds is a risk to native plants communities. 

There are 16,986 acres identified for prescribed burning in Alternative 2. This 

could significantly reduce the amount of heavy fuel loads, thus improving 

livestock distribution on the allotments. As state above, prescribed burning 

practices create a disturbance and would likely result in an increase of noxious 

weeds. 

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect effects 

If implemented, Alternative 3 would have the same effects as Alternative 2 

except as follows: 

 45 fewer acres would be treated for pine encroachment, thus fewer acres 

of grass, meadow and hardwood vegetation. 

 1,156 acres would be deferred from any timber treatment, the acres of 

POL thinning would be reduced by 656 acres, the mechanical fuels 

treatment would be reduced by 657 acres and the acres proposed for 

prescribed burning would be reduced by 442 acres. All these reductions in 

acres would result in increasing the risk from wildfire, as fuels are left 

untreated; decreasing the risk of noxious weed infestation from 

mechanical disturbance, yet perhaps increasing the risk of noxious weed 

infestation that may result from a severe wildfire. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the identified burn and thinning 

units within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area and the associated 

grazing allotments. The timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis is 

estimated at 20 years, ten years prior to present and ten years in to the future, 

which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative changes. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project area include timber harvest, timber thinning, mining, 

wildfire, prescribed burning, grazing, road construction and maintenance, noxious 

weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and dispersed recreational 

use on both the public land and private land in the area. A list documenting 

known past and planned future activities for this area is included in the project 

record. 

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has 

the potential to introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and 

other exotic plants. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

122 

The grazing in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area would continue as 

identified in the Allotment Management Plans for the grazing allotments within 

the project area. 

Aside from the direct impact on the vegetation (i.e. – removal of vegetation, soil 

compaction and introduction of invasive species), construction of containment 

lines would have the indirect impact of making formerly inaccessible areas 

available to both humans and grazing animals. 

An increase in the development and subdivision of private land in the area may 

lead to an increase in the introduction of exotic plants and noxious weeds. The 

increase in development of private land could result in direct impacts to 

increased noxious weeds on federal lands. 

In the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn area, the primary impacts from recreational 

use are the negative direct impacts to the vegetation (i.e. – removal of 

vegetation, soil compaction, introduction of invasive species) that result from offroad travel. This causes additional ground disturbance. Noxious weed seeds are 

often carried into and introduced in new areas on recreational vehicles. There are 

occasionally impacts from recreational use of leaving gates open used to control 

livestock movements. 

Tepee, Lower Beaver Lithograph and Water Draw Allotments are currently being 

evaluated in the Hell Canyon 2010 Range Project to determine if livestock 

grazing would continue and if livestock grazing is permitted, and what changes 

may be necessary to authorize grazing. 

Botany 

Community Types 

Prior to the wildfires, the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Analysis Area was 

dominated by Ponderosa Pine Woodland community types (Marriot and FaberLangendoen 2000). More mesic areas contained pockets of Aspen/Chokecherry 

(Populus tremuloides/Prunus virginiana) Forest and Ponderosa 

pine/Chokecherry (Pinus ponderosa/ Prunus virginiana) Woodland community 

types (Marriot and Faber-Langendoen 2000). The more mesic areas may 

contain habitat for the Black Hills Species of Local Concern, pleated gentian 

(Gentiana affinis), although no individuals were found during the surveys. In the 

western portion of the project area, the community type Mountain 

mahogany/Side-oats grama Shrubland, (Cercocarpus montanus/Bouteloua 

curtipendula) (Marriot and Faber-Langendoen 2000) is represented in patches 

that apparently did not burn or did not burn intensely. Herbaceous community 

types such as the Western Wheatgrass/Blue Grama/Threadleaf Sedge 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

123 

(Pascopyrum smithii/Bouteloua gracilis/Carex filifolia) Prairie, Western 

Wheatgrass/Green Needlegrass (Pascopyrum smithii/Nassella viridula) 

Mixedgrass Prairie and some Northern Great Plains Little Bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium) Prairie (Marriot and Faber-Langendoen 2000) made 

up as much as 20% of the project area. 

Eight years post-fire, the herbaceous community types described above, the 

Aspen/Chokecherry Forest community type and the Mountain mahogany/Sideoats Grama Shrubland community type are still identifiable in the project area as 

well as some of the Ponderosa Pine Woodland community types which 

apparently did not burn or did not burn intensely. However, the majority of the 

landscape does not fit neatly into the community types as described by Marriot 

and Faber-Langendoen (2000). Most of the areas that were previously 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland community types are now dominated by shrubs, forbs 

(often weedy species), some graminoids and standing dead ponderosa pine. 

These areas are littered with down woody debris. Those that did not have a 

strong graminoid component pre-fire have patchy areas of bare soil. 

Shrubs present include dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium), western 

snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), 

wild rose (Rosa spp) and russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis). Fendler’s 

whitethorn (Ceanothus fendleri), a South Dakota state listed species is found 

throughout the project area, mainly on rocky ridges. Chokecherry (Prunus 

virginiana) is present in many of the aspen stands and dominates along many of 

the limestone outcroppings. 

Dominate graminoids include needlegrasses (Nassella viridula, Hesperostipa 

comata, and Achnatherum richardsonii), and wheatgrasses (Pascopyrum smithii, 

Elymus trachycaulus and Pseudoroegneria spicata). Prairie junegrass (Koeleria 

macrantha) and sedges (Carex filifolia and Carex inops ssp heliophila) make up 

the majority of shortgrass component. 

R2 Sensitive Plant Species

R2 Sensitive Plant Species are species identified by the Regional Forester for 

which population viability is currently of concern, as evidenced by significant 

current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or by 

significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species’ existing distribution (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

The Forest Service has established direction in the Forest Service Manual to 

guide habitat management for proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive 

plant species. The direction establishes the process, objectives, and standards 

for conducting a Biological Evaluation. This process ensures that these species 

receive full consideration in the decision making process. Based on the variety 

of habitats that are contained within this planning area there are only two species 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

124 

that are present, or have suitable habitat, on the R2 Sensitive Species list. Iowa 

moonwort (Botrychium campestre) and/or narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium 

lineare) occur in the project area. There are currently four known occurrences 

that contain Iowa moonwort and/or narrowleaf grapefern. 2010 field and initial 

lab species identification indicates that both species were discovered in or 

immediately adjacent to the project area. However, further genetic analysis is 

needed to fully confirm the species (expected Fall/Winter 2010). Regardless, 

both species are R2 Sensitive and are to be managed the same. 

Throughout its range, Iowa moonwort is considered a non-forested/grassland 

species although it often occurs in shrub-dominated areas or on the margins of 

forested areas (Farrar, 2006). Narrowleaf grapefern has a very broad distribution 

throughout its range. It is known to occur on heavily forested sites, grassy 

meadows, fen-like seeps, and gravelly roadsides (Farrar, 2006). All currently 

known occurrences of both species in the Black Hills are on limestone/sandstone 

soils. Little is known about the exact habitat correlations with both species, 

however all the known Black Hills occurrences are strongly tied to silt loam soils 

and most of the sites have occurrences of little bluestem and/or western 

snowberry. Both species tolerate, and may even prefer, some habitat 

disturbance such as fire and ungulate grazing. 

Based on the habitat and soils present throughout the project area, it is highly 

likely that there are additional, although currently unknown, occurrences of these 

plants in the project area. Numerous other populations were preliminarily 

identified in spring/summer 2010 as being either/both Iowa moonwort and 

narrowleaf grapefern in similar habitat adjacent to the project area. It would need 

to be assumed for this analysis that all suitable sites would contain one or both of 

these species. Early spring surveys will need to be ongoing during this project as 

the individuals do not appear aboveground every year. 

Plant Species of Local Concern

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are species that do not meet the criteria for 

sensitive status. Forest Service Manual 2622.01 directs us to consider species of 

local concern during project design and to evaluate the effects to the species 

from alternatives considered through the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process. These could include species with declining trends in only a

portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local 

area. The local area is defined as NFS lands within the Forest. (FSM 2620.5 

Black Hills Supplement 2600-2005-1). Appendix B lists the SOLC that are known, 

or likely, to occur on the Black Hills National Forest and their status in this report. 

Based on the variety of habitats within the planning area, pleated gentian 

(Gentiana affinis) is the only species that may have suitable habitat on the Black 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

125 

Hills SOLC list. During field surveys no pleated gentians were found, only 

suitable habitat. 

SD State listed species 

South Dakota state listed plant species have been identified as rare in the State 

of South Dakota. The state has identified these plants for tracking by the South 

Dakota Natural Heritage Program. There are occurrences of the state listed 

plant Fendler’s whitethorn (Ceanothus fendleri) throughout the project area, 

mostly on rocky ridges. It is apparently limited to high limestone or sandstone in 

the western Black Hills. Fendler’s whitethorn has a ranking of S2 (imperiled 

because of rarity) in the state. The occurrences in the Black Hills represent the 

northernmost outlying population of this species. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Impacts to the sensitive plant species/plant species of local concern may be 

direct impacts, i.e. trampling, exposure to fire, mechanical damage, etc., or the 

impacts may be more indirect such as a change in the microclimate, or noxious 

weed infestation due to disturbance, which may result in a loss of habitat. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The no action alternative would eventually result in a decrease of grassland 

communities in the area as forested stands become denser and ponderosa pine 

continues to encroach upon meadow areas. Conifer encroachment is expected 

to present a risk to pleated gentian (USDA Forest Service 2005). Iowa moonwort 

and narrowleaf grapefern, prefer open, grassland communities as well. Allowing 

pine encroachment to continue might result in a loss of habitat for these species. 

Lack of treatment in the ponderosa pine stands, lack of reduction of the existing 

fuel loads, and lack of treatment of the mountain pine beetle infestations would 

increase the potential for large-scale fire in the area. Large-scale fire could be a 

risk to the sensitive plant species and plant species of local concern habitat in the 

area. It is assumed that an intense fire that might have high severity effects, 

such as deep soil heating, could negatively affect both the belowground and 

aboveground portions of Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern individuals. 

(USDA Forest Service 2005) 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

126 

Noxious weed infestations are a risk for all rare plants1, as exotics are often able 

to out-compete native vegetation for available nutrients. And the treatment of 

such infestations with herbicides might present a risk to rare plants if unknown 

occurrences are inadvertently sprayed. The lack of additional disturbance 

associated with the no action alternative would reduce the possibility of noxious 

weed infestations in the rare plant habitat. 

Please see the Biological Evaluation for the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project for determination of effects From Alternative 1 to sensitive species. The 

Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined pleated gentian is likely to persist 

on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This alternative is consistent with 

the Forest Plan for this species and/or its habitat.

Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives 

The purpose of this project is to reduce high fuel loads that may lead to an 

intense, uncontrolled wildfire. Prescribed fire and silvicultural treatments would 

be used as a tool to reduce these fuel loads and manage the risk of any future 

wildfires. While effects of prescribed burning is not well known for Iowa 

moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern it is presumed that an intense wildfire would 

be more detrimental to individuals and their habitat than a fire burned under 

specific prescription (USDA Forest Service 2005). Historically, fire played a 

major role in the ecology of Black Hills, including the prairie and grassland 

systems. Thus it might be assumed that fire is necessary to maintain suitable 

habitat for these species. 

One recent prescribed fire in occupied habitat (Witch Springs Prescribed Fire) 

has seemed to increase the overall Botrychium species plant populations at that 

site. Prescribed fire that does not occur during the plants above-ground life 

stages would likely have a positive effect. There is always a possibility of 

noxious weed infestation post-burn, but effects are considered to be lessened 

when an area is burned under prescription rather than during an uncontrolled 

wildfire. Negative effects are also lessened when noxious weeds are managed 

following the prescribed fire. 

Most areas of silvicultural treatments are unlikely to occur in Iowa moonwort or 

narrowleaf grapefern habitat with the exception of pine encroachment treatments. 

Habitat that would likely be impacted (positive or negative) would be adjacent to 

more open, continuous grasslands or on loamy soils. Treatments for ponderosa 

pine with the objective of reducing or eliminating conifer encroachment would 

likely enhance, expand, and/or improve habitat conditions for these two species. 

Negative effects would be if roads were constructed, large slash piles were 

created, or other more permanent disturbances were made in suitable habitat. 

 

1

 The term “rare plants” in this analysis refers to R2 sensitive plant species and Black Hills plant species of 

local concern. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

127 

There is much uncertainty regarding actual level of risks to narrowleaf grapefern. 

Disturbances and land management activities may create and maintain suitable 

habitat for this species or may negatively impact existing populations, depending 

on the disturbance intensity and frequency (Beatty et al. 2003). Iowa moonwort is 

often found growing in disturbed areas (such as road ditches and skid trails) 

indicating that it at least tolerates some level of disturbance, but it seems less 

tolerable to disturbances than other Botrychium species. Both species are often 

found in old skid trails, road ditches, and other disturbed areas leading to the 

assumption that some level of disturbance may be beneficial. 

When both prescribed fire and silvicultural treatments are to occur on the same 

area special consideration to the habitat would need to be taken into 

consideration due to the increased effects of multiple, compounding 

disturbances. Most effects would come from the timing of treatments, increased 

amounts and types of disturbances, and the potential risk of noxious weed 

infestations. These can be easily compounded when multiple treatments occur 

within a short timeframe. Anytime activities remove the protective herbaceous 

cover and soil is exposed, there is an increased likelihood of noxious weed 

infestations. Invasion by noxious weeds can be detrimental to rare plants. In 

addition there is a potential risk to rare plant individuals from accidental spraying 

during herbicide treatment. Because this project area is within areas that burned 

under intense wildfire conditions and were heavily infested with Canada thistle, 

there is a very high risk that the existing seed bank would result in a marked 

increase in Canada thistle infestation. Past experience indicates that populations 

of plants with pappiferous fruit, such as Canada thistle, have the potential to 

spread 30 percent a year with disturbance. The potential in this project area 

could be much greater due to the existing seed bank that might have resulted 

from recent infestations. Thoughtful planning pre-treatment, careful monitoring 

and appropriate treatments of noxious weeds should ensure minimal infestations 

though. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The 159 acres of proposed pine encroachment treatment in Alternative 2 would 

likely enhance habitat for pleated gentian as conifer encroachment is expected to 

present a risk to this species (USDA Forest Service 2005). Iowa moonwort and 

narrowleaf grapefern, prefer open, grassland communities as well. There is the 

potential for treatments to impact any unknown individual plants, but overall the 

pine encroachment treatments proposed in this alternative would be expected to 

benefit these species by enhancing/conserving the habitat conditions that are 

similar to conditions where these species have been found on the Black Hills 

National Forest. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

128 

Decreasing the ponderosa pine density and the proposed prescribed burning are 

expected to reduce the risk of wildfire, which would help protect sensitive plant 

species/species of local concern habitat. As stated above under the no action 

alternative, an intense fire (from wildfires or a high intensity prescribed burn) that 

may have high severity effects, such as deep soil heating could potentially 

negatively affect both the belowground and aboveground portions of Iowa 

moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern individuals. (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Under Alternative 2, 18,409 acres have the potential for being disturbed as trees 

are dropped and skidded to landing decks and fuels are treated. Thus skid trails, 

landings, burn piles, areas where machinery would be working, and areas which 

are treated with fire could create a seedbed for noxious weeds. The spread of 

noxious weeds is a risk to rare plants as exotic plants can out-compete native 

plants for nutrients and completely alter the rare plant habitat. 

There are 16,986 acres identified for prescribed burning in Alternative 2. Many of 

these acres are in areas that may be potential habitat for Iowa moonwort and 

narrowleaf grapefern. Despite the fact that aboveground stems may be 

negatively affected, beneficial short- and long-term effects may be realized by the 

prescribed burning in the project area. Dr. Farrar (2004) indicated that when an 

occurrence has aboveground growth, a fast moving fire may not negatively 

impact it. The fire may remove aboveground stem portions, but would not be 

expected to affect belowground individuals or parts. Design criteria is in place to 

ensure known occurrences would be avoided by mechanized equipment (i.e. – 

no dozer lines, skid trails or new roads through known occurrences.) 

Although specific data is lacking on the Black Hills National Forest, the earlier 

successional conditions that occur with opening the overstory canopy (in the 

areas identified for timber removal) could produce conditions that would be 

beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, spore-producing Botrychium

species (Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern), if the associated mycorrhizal 

species and other microsite conditions are present (Farrar 2004). 

Prescribed burning, and tree thinning appear to have the potential to increase the 

growth and reproduction of Fendler’s whitethorn (the South Dakota state-listed 

species found in the project area), according to Huffman and Moore (2004). 

Thus the management activities proposed in this alternative would be expected 

to have a beneficial effect on this species. 

Please see the Biological Evaluation for the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project for determination of effects From Alternative 2 to sensitive species 

(Appendix D). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined pleated gentian 

is likely to persist on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This alternative is 

consistent with the Forest Plan for this species and/or its habitat. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

129 

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

If implemented, Alternative 3 would have the same effects as Alternative 2 

except as follows: 

 45 fewer acres would be treated for pine encroachment, thus fewer acres 

of habitat would be enhanced for the plant species that prefer open 

conditions 

 1,156 acres would be deferred from any timber treatment, the acres of 

POL thinning would be reduced by 656 acres, the mechanical fuels 

treatment would be reduced by 657 acres and the acres proposed for 

prescribed burning would be reduced by 442 acres. All these reductions in 

acres would result in increasing the risk from wildfire, as fuels are left 

untreated; decreasing the risk of noxious weed infestation from 

mechanical disturbance, yet perhaps increasing the risk of noxious weed 

infestation that may result from a severe wildfire; decreasing the potential 

for enhancing habitat by opening the overstory canopy; and decreasing 

the potential for increasing the growth and reproduction of Fendler’s 

whitethorn. 

Please see the Biological Evaluation for the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project for determination of effects From Alternative 3 to sensitive species. The 

Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined pleated gentian is likely to persist 

on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). This alternative is consistent with 

the Forest Plan for this species and/or its habitat. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The cumulative impact area for this analysis is the identified burn and thinning 

units within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area; activities beyond the 

units have a diminished effect on the sensitive species/species of local concern 

habitat within the project area. The timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis 

is estimated at 20 years, ten years prior to present and ten years in to the future, 

which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative changes. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities within the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project area include timber harvest, timber thinning, mining, 

wildfire, prescribed burning, grazing, road construction and maintenance, noxious 

weed control, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and dispersed recreational 

use on both the public land and private land in the area. A list documenting 

known past and planned future activities for this area is included in the project 

record. 

Removing timber and thinning existing stands of ponderosa pine may reduce the 

chance of large-scale fires that may threaten the sensitive plant species/species 

of local concern habitat. Removing timber and thinning existing stands of 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

130 

ponderosa pine may also create earlier successional conditions that would be 

beneficial to site colonization by wind-disperse, spore-producing Botrychium

species, if the associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite conditions are 

present. 

Any past, present or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has 

the potential to introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and 

other exotic plants. This can be detrimental to sensitive plant species/species of 

local concern, as invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired native 

plants. The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be detrimental to 

sensitive/species of local concern plants if the individuals are inadvertently 

exposed to the herbicides. 

The grazing in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area would continue as 

identified in the Allotment Management Plans for the grazing allotments within 

the project area. In the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn area, the possible 

species of local concern (pleated gentian) may be impacted by grazing and/or 

trampling, however no individuals of that species have been found in the project 

area. It is unlikely that the R2 sensitive species (Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf 

grapefern) would be grazed by cattle due to their diminutive stature. They may 

be impacted directly by livestock trampling, but that risk is reduced by the aboveground phase of plant occurring in early spring, prior to livestock turn-on. 

Aside from the direct impact on the vegetation (i.e. – removal of vegetation, soil 

compaction and introduction of invasive species), road construction has the 

indirect impact of making formerly inaccessible areas available to both humans 

and grazing animals. Opening a new area to grazing can have a negative impact 

by allowing access to areas that may be sensitive plant species/species of local 

concern habitat. 

An increase in the development and subdivision of private land in the area may 

lead to an increase in the introduction of exotic plants and noxious weeds. The 

increase in development of private land could result in direct impacts to sensitive 

plant species, plant species of local concern and/or their habitat if they occur in 

those specific development locations.

In the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn area, the primary impacts from recreational 

use to the sensitive plant species habitat and plant species of local concern 

habitat, are the negative direct impacts to the vegetation (i.e. – removal of 

vegetation, soil compaction, introduction of invasive species) that result from offroad travel. Recreational use in an area increases the likelihood of plant 

collecting which can have an impact on sensitive plant species/species of local 

concern populations. Unauthorized plant collection is not likely to impact Iowa 

moonwort or narrowleaf grapefern, but the pleated gentian is showy enough that 

it might receive attention, if it is present in the area. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

131 

All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration and therefore when 

combined with the alternatives analyzed, including the no action alternative, do 

not result in cumulative impacts to the sensitive plant species/plant species of 

local concern or their habitat. 

Soils/Hydrology 

Soils 

Soil information and interpretations were obtained from the following data 

sources: 

• BHNF GIS data of geomorphology and land type associations, 

geology, and soils; 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 

NRCS, 2007); 

• Soil Survey of Custer and Pennington Counties, Black Hills Parts, 

South Dakota (USDA SCS, 1990); 

• Black Hills National Forest Land Classification System and Soils 

Information (Hoeft, 1988); and 

• Black Hills National Forest Soil Inventory Notebook (Hoeft, 1985). 

Field investigations were completed during July and August 2008 by the 

Hydrologist. Visual assessments of soil conditions and post-fire recovery were 

completed during field review. Photographs were taken throughout the project 

area and are included in the project file. The Watershed section of the Project 

File contains a map depicting the field review travel routes and photo-point 

locations. Areas of slope instability and soil disturbance were also searched for 

while investigating the road network within the project area. 

Water Resources 

The HCMB Project lies within portions of five 6th level watersheds. These 

watersheds include Redbird Canyon (101201070404), Gillette Canyon 

(101201070405), Tepee Canyon (101201070503), Upper Hell Canyon 

(101201040501), and Lower Hell Canyon (101201070502). The water resources 

analysis area was chosen to correspond to these same five 6th level watersheds 

of Redbird, Gillette, Tepee, Upper Hell, and Lower Hell Canyons. The water 

resources analysis area includes lands managed by both the Mystic and Hell 

Canyon Ranger Districts of the Black Hills National Forest, thus management 

activities on both districts were considered in the assessment of overall 

watershed conditions. The Redbird Canyon watershed is 52,049 acres; the 

Gillette Canyon watershed is 51,072 acres; the Tepee Canyon watershed is 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

132 

48,199 acres; the Upper Hell Canyon watershed is 31,534 acres; the Lower Hell 

Canyon watershed is 26,946 acres; and thus the water resources analysis area 

encompasses an area totaling 209,800 acres. 

Water resources field investigations were completed during July and August 

2008 by the Zone Hydrologist. Streams were classified at the time as having 

perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral water flow. Observations of the general 

stream conditions and stability were also noted. Wetland, riparian, and 

groundwater dependant ecosystems were located and assessed. Seep and 

spring locations have been previously recorded and were visited to evaluate 

spring conditions, identify sources of impact, and recommend any needs for 

protection or improvements if necessary.

Roads were also evaluated for slope stability, proximity to water bodies, travel 

surface, ditch, cross-drain, and stream crossing conditions. Connected disturbed 

areas (CDA) were also documented during field investigations. CDAs are roads 

and other disturbed sites that have a continuous surface flow path into a stream, 

wetland, or other water body. 

Two stream locations within the HCMB project area have been monitored by the 

USGS periodically for stream flow and this data was used in the analysis of 

existing conditions and potential effects associated with project alternatives. 

These stations include Redbird Canyon near the confluence with Gillette Canyon 

and Hell Canyon near Jewel Cave (USGS NWIS, 2008). However, most stream 

segments have not been quantified due to the lack of sustained surface flow in 

the headwater streams. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Three alternatives, described previously in Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA, have 

been evaluated for effects to soil and water resources in the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project Area. Alternative 1-No Action does not propose any 

implementation of management activities and thus would not result in any direct 

effects to soil or water resources. However indirect effects associated with 

natural occurrences such as the continued spread of MPB, accumulation of dead 

woody material on the forest floor, and possible wildfire are anticipated. Both 

Action Alternatives have the potential for direct and indirect effects to soil and 

water resources, including indirect effects associated with natural occurrences. 

Design criteria that apply to the HCMB Project are listed in detail in Appendix B 

of the EA, along with the locations of where they apply – whether globally 

throughout the project area or tied to specific locations. These same design 

criteria are referenced in general throughout the effects analysis in order to 

support the determination for effects to soil and water resources. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

133 

Soils 

The analysis area for soils includes only the proposed activity units because 

impacts to soils occur on the site and do not accumulate outside of the activity 

area. The USFS Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18) defines 

an activity area as “An area of land impacted by a management activity ranging 

from a few acres to an entire watershed depending on the type of monitoring 

being conducted; it is commonly a timber sale cutting unit, a prescribed fire burn 

unit or an allotment pasture”. Effects to soil resources reference short term 

effects (5 years or less) as well as long term effects (greater than 5 years). 

Direct and indirect effects to slope stability; soil erosion and sediment transport; 

compaction; organic matter and nutrient cycling; and severely burned soils are 

discussed for each alternative

Slope Stability 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the “No Action” alternative and as such would not involve 

implementation of management activities as part of this project. Thus, this 

alternative would not have any proposed actions on or near soils with mass 

movement potential. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to soil mass 

movement associated with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

Soil disturbances and erosion may be expected to continue at current rates until 

a natural disturbance (such as wildfire) occurs. Ponderosa pine killed by the 

continued expansion of MPB infestations and past wildfires would fall, 

accumulating on the forest floor, thereby potentially increasing the amount of 

dead and downed wood levels above current levels. With increased amounts of 

downed wood, there is likely a greater risk of longer fire residence times and 

potential for higher temperatures should a wildfire occur. This in turn can result 

in moderate to high soil burn severity, which is exhibited by more exposed 

mineral soil and physical, chemical, biological, and/or hydrological changes in 

soil properties. Although hill slopes would likely continue to adjust in response to 

natural weathering processes such as freezing and thawing, a wildfire under 

Alternative 1 has the greatest potential of exposing and altering soils and thus 

the greatest risk of indirectly contributing to conditions that may result in an 

increase in slope failure. However, slopes in the project area are gently 

undulating, with the exception of rocky canyon walls; therefore hill slope 

adjustments are expected to be isolated individually and small (less than 1000 

sq. feet). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Alternative 2 and 3 both propose thinning ponderosa pine forest stands through 

various commercial and non-commercial methods. These methods would utilize 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

134 

ground-based equipment and thus have the potential to disturb soils directly. 

However, the project has been designed such that all proposed mechanical 

treatments under both action alternatives avoid slopes exceeding 40%. Any soils 

prone to movement on these slopes would therefore also be avoided. Since all 

proposed mechanical treatments would take place on slopes less than 40%, the 

proposed activities are not expected to produce ground disturbance that could 

contribute to future slope instabilities. Commercial and non-commercial removal 

of trees is not anticipated to de-stabilize hill slopes or initiate future slope 

instabilities because forest stands are not being clear cut. Therefore the root 

systems of remaining live trees would continue to stabilize soils on steep hill 

slopes in the long term. Additionally, the root systems of harvested trees 

generally remain on site after thinning, providing some level of soil and slope 

stabilization for the next 10 to 20 years until natural decay processes have 

broken down the stump and root structures. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both propose the implementation of prescribed broadcast 

burning. Although prescribed burning is to take place across the landscape, 

including areas where slopes exceed 40% (i.e. canyon areas), this type of activity 

does not normally disturb soils to a degree that triggers slope failures or increase 

the risk of mass failure for several reasons. First, the project has been designed 

to use existing roads and trails as fire containment lines where possible. Using 

existing roads and trails limits the need for constructing both dozer and hand-dug 

fire lines. This in turn minimizes the amount of ground disturbance and the risk 

of initiating any localized slope failures. Secondly, soils with the potential for 

movement on slopes exceeding 40% are located along canyon walls, in the 

middle of burn units. Therefore containment lines would not be constructed 

across these areas. Additionally, while surface vegetation and downed wood 

may be consumed in prescribed fire, the below-ground root systems are 

generally left intact. Although some mortality may occur, most root systems are 

expected to remain intact and provide for both short and long-term stabilization. 

This has been directly observed by the Hydrologist in low-intensity wildfire both 

locally (Jasper, Grizzly, Battle Creek, Rogers Shack, Elk Mountain II Fires) and 

across the nation as part of Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

assessments; as well as other prescribed fires conducted locally on the Black 

Hills National Forest; and has been quantified during research in the Jasper Fire 

area (Gould, 2003). In summary, thinning and prescribed burning activities 

associated with either of the Action Alternatives are not expected to have any 

measureable effects on slope stability, directly or indirectly. 

In contrast to Alternative 1-No Action, both Action Alternatives would directly 

decrease existing CWD levels through mechanical fuels treatment and 

prescribed burning. If a wildfire were to occur in the area following 

implementation of either Action Alternative, fire residence times are expected to 

be shorter and fire temperatures would be cooler because less CWD is present 

to burn. Therefore, while effects from a future wildfire are unknown, effects on 

soils could be less severe and better mimic the historic burning characteristics 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

135 

associated with more frequent, but less intense wildfires. Although hill slopes 

can be expected to continue to adjust in response to natural weathering 

processes such as freezing and thawing, a wildfire under either Action Alternative 

would generally be expected to result in less exposed mineral soil and fewer 

changes to soil characteristics as compared to the No Action alternative. 

Therefore, both Action Alternatives are generally expected to indirectly reduce 

the risk of slope failures associated with wildfire and post-fire rain events. 

Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the “No Action” alternative and as such would not involve any 

additional management activities. Thus, this alternative would not have any 

proposed actions on or near soils with high erosion risk. Therefore, there would 

be no direct effects to soil erosion rates and sediment transport associated with 

the implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

Soil disturbances and erosion would be expected to continue at current rates 

until a natural disturbance occurs. Ponderosa pine trees killed by the continued 

expansion of MPB infestations and past wildfires would fall, accumulating on the 

forest floor, thereby potentially increasing the CWD levels above current levels. 

With increased CWD levels, there is a greater risk of longer fire residence times 

and higher temperatures should a wildfire occur. This in turn can result in 

moderate to high soil burn severity conditions, which is indicated by more 

exposed mineral soil and changes to physical, chemical, biological, and/or 

hydrological soil properties. A wildfire that may be experienced under Alternative 

1 is expected to have the greatest potential of exposing and altering soil 

conditions and thus the greatest risk of indirectly contributing to increases in soil 

erosion and off-site sediment transport. However, since hill slopes in the project 

area are gently undulating, with the exception of rocky canyon walls, any soil 

erosion that may be generated is likely to travel only short distances. However, if 

an intense rainfall event occurs, soil erosion and sediment transport could mimic 

conditions previously observed during post-fire precipitation events in the Jasper 

Fire area, in which sediment was carried in flood waters all the way to Angostura 

Reservoir. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

Alternative 2 and 3 both propose thinning ponderosa pine forest stands through 

various commercial and non-commercial methods. These methods would utilize 

ground-based equipment and thus have the potential to expose bare soil to 

rainfall and snowmelt and create conditions with a greater likelihood of soil 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

136 

erosion and subsequent sediment transport to water bodies. Alternative 2 

includes approximately 1,200 acres, whereas Alternative 3 includes 

approximately 500 acres, of ground based activities which would take place on 

soils more susceptible to erosion. For Alternative 2, these areas are associated 

with soil map units RnG, SrE, VcE, VkE, and VoG located across the proposed 

silvicultural treatment areas. For Alternative 3, these areas are associated with 

soil map units RnG, SrE, VcE, and VkE across the proposed silvicultural 

treatment areas. A map of these soil locations for each Action Alternative can be 

found in the watershed section of the Project File. 

Both Action Alternatives include design criteria to prevent or minimize soil 

erosion and sediment delivery to water resources through the avoidance of areas 

where slopes exceed 40%; use of existing and designated trails; operating 

season and moisture limitations; operating on a slash mat where possible; 

installation and maintenance of drainage structures on roads and trails used to 

access thinning units; seeding of disturbed areas; and rehabilitating skid trails. 

Full implementation of the practices is expected to meet compliance with Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, and 

1111 to minimize detrimental soil disturbance, take steps to protect soils from 

runoff and erosion, and rehabilitate disturbed sites. Therefore, management 

activities are not expected to increase soil erosion to detrimental levels as 

defined in the Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (2509.25) 

and the Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both propose prescribed broadcast burning in addition to 

thinning. This type of activity does not normally disturb soils to a degree that 

results in detrimental levels of soil erosion or off-site sediment transport based on 

past observations of prescribed burn areas. Through project design, existing 

roads and trails would be used as fire containment lines when possible, thus 

limiting the need for both dozer and hand-dug fire lines. This in turn minimizes 

the amount of ground disturbance and exposed bare soil. Additionally, 

prescribed burning is conducted under controlled conditions in order to achieve 

lower intensities then would be expected under uncontrolled conditions. This 

generally results in less fire residence time and thus less exposed bare soil 

because only the surface vegetation is consumed in these controlled fires. Much 

of the litter, duff and below-ground root systems are left intact. Although some 

mortality occurs, most root systems remain intact and provide for adequate 

ground cover to limit erosion. 

Some areas may have higher intensity burning and thus may result in moderate 

to high soil burn severity. Examples include dead tree stumps and roots that 

tend to burn completely and where downed wood has accumulated naturally or 

been purposely piled. Since these areas are isolated, small in size (less than 

1000 sq. feet), and located within a mosaic of lower intensity burn, soil erosion 

and sediment transport to streams would is expected to be negligible. Gould 

(2003) found that runoff and erosion were generated in the Jasper Fire area 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

137 

during summer thunderstorms when less than 60% effective ground cover was 

on-site. Prescribed fires are generally conducted during conditions which result 

in shorter flame lengths, shorter fire residence times, and when soil heating is 

expected to be lower as compared to when wildfires occur. Thus the effects to 

soils are generally limited in severity and spatial extent. Gould (2003) found the 

percentage of exposed mineral soil following low severity fire in the Jasper Fire 

area ranged between 0 and 30%. Based on direct observations following Jasper 

Fire, it is reasonable to expect that low to moderate severity fire resulting from 

prescribed fire would not increase soil erosion to those levels identified as 

detrimental by the Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18). In 

summary, the thinning, mechanical fuels treatment, and prescribed burning 

activities associated with either of the Action Alternatives are not expected to 

result in detrimental levels of soil erosion or increase sediment transport off-site. 

Soil Compaction 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, does not have any proposed activities 

and thus no direct effect on soils that are highly susceptible to compaction. This 

alternative would not have any new activities occur within the project area so soil 

compaction would generally not be affected and remain unchanged. However, 

this alternative does not address the increasing level of hazardous fuels already 

downed or continuing to accumulate on the ground surface, and thus the wildfire 

hazard and potential severity of effects would continue to increase. Although fire 

does not directly cause compaction, by consuming organic material on top of and 

within the mineral soil, soils in burned areas are made more susceptible to 

compaction from other management activities, as well as natural processes 

(Neary et al, 2005). Organic material is no longer present in the top layers or 

interstitial spaces between soil particles to help absorb applied pressure. Soils 

can also be made more susceptible to compaction if fire conditions are severe 

enough to alter soil structure, thus breaking down soil aggregates (Neary et al, 

2005). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both propose commercial and non-commercial thinning, as 

well as fuel treatments, which may involve the use of mechanized equipment. 

Alternative 2 includes approximately 1,100 acres, whereas Alternative 3 includes 

approximately 430 acres, of ground based activities which would take place on 

soils more susceptible to compaction. These areas are associated with soil map 

units CkC, SybC, SycE, VcE, and VkE located in the northern portions of the 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

138 

project area. A map of these soil locations for each Action Alternative can be 

found in the watershed section of the Project File. 

Most of the project area contains limestone rock outcroppings and extensive 

surface rock as well as a rock fragment component within soil profiles which 

protect soils from compaction. Additionally, potential for soil compaction can be 

limited or minimized by controlling the season, location, and intensity of 

equipment operations. Both Action Alternatives have been designed to minimize 

soil compaction through the use of Design Criteria, including designated and 

existing skid trails in sensitive areas, soil moisture limitations, and seasonal 

restrictions. Historic trails, skid trails, and temporary roads utilized during harvest 

activities are to be rehabilitated post-activity as necessary, as part of Design 

Criteria measures to stabilize soils following management activities. Full 

implementation of design criteria measures is expected to comply with Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1110, and 1111 

to minimize or rehabilitate soil compaction. Refer to the “Consistency with 

Regulatory Framework (Soil and Water)” section of the soil and water report for 

more details associated with Forest Plan compliance. 

Any prescribed broadcast burning would not directly or indirectly cause soil 

compaction because burning is conducted under controlled conditions which 

minimize the fire intensity and thus the consumption of organic layers and level of 

soil heating. 

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, does not have any proposed activities 

and thus has no direct effect on soil organic matter or nutrient cycling. However, 

the potential for more severe fire effects to soils is generally highest with this 

alternative, which can directly affect the amount of organic material and nutrient 

cycling in an area. Fire can alter nutrient availability and cycling processes 

dramatically, depending on the severity of the fire. Whether nutrient 

concentrations increase, decrease, or remain the same is highly dependent on 

fire behavior, severity, nutrient response to fire, post-fire recovery and erosion 

processes, and even post-fire management activities. Fire volatilizes nutrients 

present in both vegetation and soil organic matter. Although some volatized 

nutrients are lost during the fire, through gases and particulates carried by 

smoke, other nutrients are mobilized and made more readily available. For 

example, fire acts as a rapid mobilizing agent that instantaneously releases 

phosphorus bound in organic matter, as compared to the much slower, natural 

decomposition processes (DeBano et al, 1998). Nutrients can be re-deposited or 

remain on site in ash on the soil surface. These highly available nutrients can 

then be leached out of the ash and into the soil. In contrast, these same highly 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

139 

available forms can be transformed from organic to inorganic compounds during 

combustion or when immobilized by other chemical compounds. Additionally, 

nutrients present in ash can be lost from the system through wind and water 

erosion. In contrast, some nutrients would remain available in partially 

combusted and unburned vegetation and soil organic matter. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

Proposed thinning and fuel treatment activities associated with both Action 

Alternatives have been designed to reduce hazardous fuel levels, while 

maintaining desired CWD levels necessary for both short and long-term nutrient 

recycling. Both Action Alternatives also propose prescribed broadcast-burning. 

The proposed prescribed burning is designed to result in low-to-moderate fire 

intensity. This fire intensity is expected to result in light-to-moderate soil heating, 

and therefore is not expected to reach the temperatures necessary to cause 

large nutrient losses through volatilization. Nutrients locked up in the surface duff 

layer would be expected to be released into the soil and likely become available 

for uptake by regenerating vegetation. An increase in short-term nutrient 

availability may occur and contribute to maintaining long-term soil productivity. 

Some portion of the mobilized nutrients may be lost through leaching, but most 

nutrients would remain in the soil profile or utilized by vegetation. No change in 

soil structure or infiltration is expected. Temperatures are not expected to reach 

those necessary to alter physical characteristics of the soil. Overall, prescribed 

burning associated with both Action Alternatives is not expected to detrimentally 

affect soil productivity within the activity areas. 

Both Action Alternatives include commercial vegetation management activities 

that fall under the Shelterwood silvicultural system. These include overstory 

removal (OR) and seedcut (SC) treatments. There are approximately 35 acres 

where proposed overstory and seed cut units overlap soils with low topsoil 

organic matter under Alternative 2. These areas are located within Location 

41101, Site 24 in the northwestern portion of the project area, and Location 

30813, Site 3 associated with Hell Canyon on the eastern side of the project area 

(Refer to Appendix B for specific Design Criteria related to these soils within 

these locations.) Alternative 3 does not propose overstory or seedcut treatments 

that overlap soils limited by topsoil organic matter. The Black Hills NF Forest 

Plan requires 50% or more of the fine slash in these units be left on-site for 

nutrient retention (Standard 1102). This can be accomplished by using harvest 

methods that “process in the woods” versus whole tree yarding methods. 

Leaving fine slash (generally tops and limbs) onsite over-winter or up to one year 

prior to broadcast burning allows needles to drop. Implementing Forest Plan 

requirements and Design Criteria pertaining to these soils is expected to maintain 

long term nutrient levels and contribute to the topsoil organic matter, and thus 

ensures compliance with Forest Standards 1102 and 1112 pertaining to the 

retention of organic matter. Neither action alternative proposes clear cutting or 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

140 

harvest methods that fall under the seed-tree silvicultural system; however group 

selection is proposed in Alternative 3. 

Prescribed burning is proposed across approximately 4,000 acres of soil map 

units with some components that are limited by organic matter under Alternative 

2, and approximately 3,900 acres under Alternative 3. Effects to soils due to 

prescribed burning have been described throughout this section and are 

expected to be minimal due to the inherent nature of lower-intensity prescribed 

burning. Therefore, prescribed burning effects to topsoil organic matter is also 

expected to minimal. 

Overall, soil productivity on soils already limited by organic topsoil matter is not 

expected to be adversely affected based on the type of activities proposed and 

the proper implementation and adherence to project Design Criteria. 

Severely Burned Soils 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, does not have any proposed activities 

and thus has no direct effect on severely burned soils resulting from past 

wildfires, nor would this alternative directly create conditions where adverse soil 

heating and associated effects would occur. However, this alternative has the 

greatest potential for resulting in severely burned soils as a result of a wildfire 

because the biomass and fuels would not be treated and are expected to 

continue to accumulate. Large accumulations of dead material on the forest floor 

supports more intense (hotter) and longer duration fires, which can substantially 

heat the soil profile and alter physical, chemical, biological, and hydrologic 

functions (Neary et al, 2005). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

Both Action Alternatives propose thinning and prescribed burning activities that 

include areas mapped as high soil burn severity immediately following the 2000 

Jasper Fire and the 2001 Rogers Shack Fire. However, as stated in the existing 

conditions, these soil conditions have since recovered based on field 

observations and thus are no longer considered to be severely burned as defined 

by criteria outlined in the USFS Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) 

Handbook (FSH 2509.13). While uncertainties exist on timeframes for the Black 

Hills, research conducted throughout the western United States on fires varying 

in size, intensity, vegetation, and climate, has shown that soil conditions tend to 

recover 3-5 years post-fire (Neary et al, 2005). 

Both Action Alternatives have more potential to directly impact soils through soil 

heating than Alterative 1 because of the proposed prescribed fire. However, both 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

141 

the degree and extent of soil heating are expected to be much less than that 

associated with wildfire burn intensities. Additionally, prescribed broadcast-burn 

prescriptions are designed to provide only the fire intensity needed to achieve 

vegetation and fuel management objectives. Fire intensities are usually low to 

moderate and thus soil heating and associated effects to physical, chemical, 

biological, and hydrologic soil functions are also expected to be minimal. Thus, 

proposed prescribed broadcast-burning associated with Alternative 2 and 3 are 

not expected to result in severely burned soils within proposed activity areas. 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance and Overall Soil Productivity 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1, the “No Action” alternative, does not propose any management 

activities. Therefore there would be no direct detrimental soil disturbance of any 

type associated with the implementation of this alternative. The risk of 

experiencing severe wildfire effects is expected to be greatest with this 

alternative (as discussed previously). Therefore Alternative 1 may indirectly 

cause detrimental soil disturbance in the short term. However, long term soil 

productivity is expected to be maintained for two reasons. First, fire effects 

research conducted by Neary et al (2005) has shown that forest soil conditions 

typically recover within 3-5 years following wildfire. While uncertainties exist on 

the actual timeframes for Black Hills soils, it is reasonable to expect that 

timeframes would be similar based on the cross-section of forest ecosystems 

studied. Secondly, the ponderosa pine ecosystem of the Black Hills region 

historically evolved under more frequent fires of varying intensities. The soils 

have continued to maintain support of vegetative communities to the present 

time, and can be expected to continue to do so despite exposure to wildfires. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

Both Action Alternatives propose thinning, fuels treatments, and prescribed 

burning activities that have the potential to directly and indirectly disturb soils and 

disrupt soil productivity. However, through careful design of project activities 

(Appendix B - Design Criteria), the actual likelihood of directly or indirectly 

disturbing soils to the extent that detrimental disturbance is caused and soil 

productivity is affected is extremely low. 

Much of the project area has had ground based logging activity in the past. 

Potential timber sale purchasers would have the option to use tractor or 

forwarder operations, except where designated otherwise. Whole tree yarding 

with tractors has the potential for more ground disturbance of the two methods. If 

a cut-to-length system is used, soil disturbance is generally minimized due to 

equipment operating on slash, and since organic matter is left on site, nutrient 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

142 

cycling is ensured and large, burned landings are avoided. To minimize or 

eliminate potential negative effects from harvest activities and prescribed 

broadcast-burning on sensitive soils, Design Criteria include one or more of the 

following measures: use of designated skid trails; winter harvest; partial or full 

suspension (i.e. forwarder) yarding; equipment exclusion; suspension cable 

yarding; processing at the stump; and/or higher coarse woody debris 

requirements. These design criteria are fully expected to minimize soil 

disturbance and maintain site productivity in and around those sensitive areas, 

and to meet the 15 percent standard for detrimental soil disturbance. Precommercial thinning and post-and-pole treatments could be accomplished with 

either mechanized equipment, manual labor, or a combination of both. 

Generally, if manual labor is used, less mechanized logging equipment is needed 

and thus less overall ground disturbance can be expected. Therefore, no short 

or long term effects to overall soil productivity are expected with either Action 

Alternative. Furthermore, this project would comply with Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, and 

1111 pertaining to protection of soil resources and overall soil productivity. 

Water Resources 

The analysis area for water resources includes the five 6th level watersheds of 

Redbird Canyon, Gillette Canyon, Tepee Canyon, Upper Hell Canyon, and Lower 

Hell Canyon. Effects to water resources reference short term effects (5 years or 

less) as well as long term effects (greater than 5 years). Direct and indirect 

effects to water yield and flow regime; stream channel stability and floodplains; 

water quality; and wetlands and riparian areas are discussed for each alternative. 

Water Yield and Flow Regime 

Flow regimes can be altered by major changes in cover type or ground cover, 

dense road networks, or engineering projects such as reservoir storage and 

releases. The biggest impact on flow regimes in the Black Hills region has been 

past fire suppression policies which have resulted in the increase of tree biomass 

in the Black Hills. This increase in biomass uses more water through 

evapotranspiration, thus making less water available for streamflow and 

groundwater recharge. However, for this project area, the 2000 Jasper Fire 

removed a substantial amount of forest canopy from the watershed analysis 

area. 

The primary watershed concern with vegetation removal is the potential for 

increased stream flows, which can degrade unstable stream channels. As 

regeneration occurs after timber harvest or wildfire, water yield declines. The rate 

of this decline, or recovery, depends on habitat type and rate and density of 

vegetative growth. Streams in watersheds of the same size can have different 

levels of response, due to natural factors such as soils, topography, and geology. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

143 

Watersheds with a relatively high amount of natural subsurface flow have fewer 

and less developed scour channels (i.e. Limestone Plateau area). Since 

subsurface water takes longer than surface water to reach stream channels, it 

dampens the effect precipitation and snowmelt events have on stream flow in 

these areas. Changes in stream flow can be described in terms of annual water 

yield or increases in runoff magnitudes. Water yield is fundamental in channel 

formation, maintenance, and/or destabilization. 

The greatest risk of stream channel degradation in the Black Hills occurs during 

periods of high-flow, usually resulting from intense summer thunderstorms and 

particularly thunderstorms occurring in burned watersheds (Gould, 2003). 

Effects to stream channels from an increase in runoff magnitude can include 

accelerated streambed erosion and stream channel destabilization. However, 

silvicultural prescriptions used on the Black Hills and specifically in the project 

area, do not remove most or all of the forest canopy in one cutting (i.e. clear 

cutting) and thus do not result in significant increases in flood magnitudes. 

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 reflects the existing watershed conditions. This alternative would 

not directly contribute to changes in water yield or flow regime in the short term. 

Indirectly, the remaining standing dead trees currently found in the project area 

would continue to fall and accumulate on the forest floors. This in turn increases 

the risk of watershed impairment caused by wildfire. If wildfire were to occur, fire 

residence times would be longer and fire temperatures higher due to the amount 

of large tree boles on the soil surface. This would result in more complete 

consumption of vegetation, litter, and duff and soil alterations. This in turn would 

lead to another short (less than 5 years) post-fire period of accelerated runoff in 

response to summer thunderstorms and rapid snowmelt. An increased amount 

of runoff (more volume of water) as well as a decreased time to peak (runoff is 

concentrated in less time) could lead to hill slope erosion, channel scouring, 

channel instability, and increased sediment loads. Again, this response would 

diminish and return to background levels in 3-5 years. Similar post-fire 

watershed responses have been observed and documented for large fires 

throughout the Black Hills, including the 1988 Galena Fire (Driscoll et al, 2004), 

the 2000 Jasper Fire (Gould, 2003), the 2001 Elk Mountain Fire (USDI 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team, 2001) and the 2002 

Grizzly Gulch Fire (USDA Forest Service, 2002). Post-fire flooding could lead to 

degraded water quality and impairment of beneficial uses within and downstream 

of the project during and immediately following any post-fire flooding events. In 

addition, many residences located adjacent to streams within floodplains, could 

be threatened by post-fire flooding. Thus, the threat to downstream life and 

property following a fire is greatest with this alternative. 

Indirectly, in the long-term wildfire and runoff responses would mimic natural 

cycles in which a disturbance would cause a “pulse” of water and sediment to be 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

144 

flushed through the stream network followed by a period of recovery. This cycle 

would repeat based on natural disturbance cycles (i.e. fire frequency intervals). 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Although both Action Alternatives propose treatment of hazardous fuels through 

thinning, prescribed burning, and mechanical treatment of existing slash, there 

would be no direct or indirect effect on the annual water yield, the total volume of 

water, of this region. Any silvicultural activity or natural disturbance that removes 

ponderosa pine trees from a forest has the potential to increase water yield. 

However, the growth of new seedlings and remaining trees would potentially 

offset this and decrease water yield. The overall increase or decrease in water 

yield depends on the amount of forest removed. Studies conducted on the Black 

Hills and in similar ecosystems in Colorado indicate that 25 to 30 percent of the 

growing stock in a forested watershed must be removed before there is a 

measurable increase in streamflow from that watershed (Shepperd and Battaglia, 

2002). Annual water yield did increase slightly for a few years following the 

Jasper Fire compared to pre-fire conditions; but this was only because of a few, 

isolated thunderstorm events that produced flash flooding. Streams did not flow 

continuously without a significant driving rainfall event because the area is a 

groundwater recharge zone. None of the proposed fuels treatment methods, 

individually or combined, involve removing enough forest canopy, and over a 

large enough area within a watershed to approach this threshold and thus would 

not have a measurable effect on water yield. 

 

Spring flows would remain diminished until significant precipitation is received to 

recharge the aquifers, but historically have not had enough flow to sustain 

continuous segments of surface flow. Streams occasionally flow in response to 

very intense summer thunderstorms currently and would continue to do so. In 

these events, the amount and rate of rainfall is the driving force behind 

streamflow being produced and carried throughout the drainage network. 

Therefore, proposed fuels treatments would not alter this current response. A 

wildfire could still occur within the Decision Area. However, vegetative and fuel 

treatments are expected to reduce the intensity and the size of a fire (see the 

Vegetation and Fire/Fuels sections for further discussion). Watershed effects as 

described for Alternative 1 could still occur following a wildfire, although it is 

expected to a lesser degree and in localized areas. 

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 does not propose any management actions and thus would not 

directly contribute to changes in stream channel stability or floodplains in the 

short term or long term. However, indirectly, if the spread of MPB continues and 

a wildfire should occur, post-fire flooding can be expected to cause significant 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

145 

changes to stream channels and banks through excess channel scour, bank 

erosion, channel abandonment, and excess deposition in low gradient reaches. 

However, as stated previously, recovery would occur in 3-5 years, so stream flow 

would also return to background levels. Stream channels and floodplains would 

stabilize naturally until the next “pulse” disturbance and response cycle. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3

No direct or indirect effects to stream channels and floodplains in the Project 

Area are expected as a result of changes in annual water yield or runoff 

magnitudes resulting from either Action Alternative, due to the reasons 

mentioned previously. Design Criteria (Appendix B) are included to protect 

stream courses and floodplains from direct adverse impacts during management 

activities. These include a 100-foot buffer on either side of the stream, which is 

more protective than that the 50-foot buffers required by the State of South 

Dakota State Forestry BMPs. Implementing these WCPs also ensures 

compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 1115, 1301, 1302, and 

1306 through the use of buffers for streams and riparian areas. In general, these 

areas would be avoided by equipment except at designated crossing points and 

to end-yard any cut trees out of the protected stream course zones. 

Water Quality 

Non-point sources of pollution are the primary potential causes of degraded 

water quality within the Decision Area. Non-point source pollution is water 

pollution that has sources that cannot be isolated to a single source, but can best 

be controlled by proper soil, water, and land management practices. Fine 

sediment is the most important potential non-point pollutant. Although a natural 

level of sediment exists in all streams, a substantial change in sediment delivery 

to the streams can lead to adverse geomorphic channel adjustments and impacts 

to aquatic species. In fact significant channel scouring and sediment transport 

was produced in the Jasper Fire and Rogers Shack Fire areas during the 

summer of 2001 and 2002 in response to thunderstorms, as well as occasionally 

in recent years in response to extremely intense “cloud burst” type storms. 

During the 2001 and 2002 flood events, ash, sediment, and debris were 

transported through the stream network all the way to Angostura Reservoir. 

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 does not propose any new activities so current rates and volumes of 

sediment delivered to streams would continue. If the spread of MPB continues at 

its current rate, the risk of a wildfire and adverse impacts to soil resources is 

greatest with this alternative, as explained in the Soil Resource analysis. If a 

wildfire occurs, a large amount of sediment and ash could be delivered to stream 

channels by processes explained previously, thus impacting water quality in a 

significant and negative way for several years following the fire. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

146 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Proposed timber and fuels management, and prescribed burning activities 

associated with both Action Alternatives are not expected to degrade water 

quality. Management activities must adhere to Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines – which include design criteria – during operations in order to comply 

with the Clean Water Act. Pre-commercial timber activities are generally 

conducted using manual labor, although some mechanized equipment may be 

used to address the slash created during thinning. Fuel treatments may be 

accomplished with equipment or manually depending on silvicultural needs of 

adjacent stands. Prescribed fire is done at times when there is moisture in the 

soil and organic material. Burning when there is soil moisture would reduce the 

fire severity/intensity, preserve some organic material over the soil and not 

destroy subsurface roots. 

Design criteria designed to prevent erosion and sediment transport to streams 

apply to all proposed activities (Appendix B). These include stream and riparian 

buffers, avoidance of sensitive areas, seasonal operations, drainage features, 

and restrictions on fire ignition in and immediately adjacent to water resources. 

Disturbance from these activities would be minimal and organic matter would still 

be in place to protect the soil and absorb surface precipitation, thus no sediment 

delivery to streams is expected. Where streams exist, streamside vegetation 

would be protected through required buffers and thus would not be removed. 

Design criteria are included to prevent the use and storage of concentrated 

pollutant sources near water bodies or applying harmful chemicals near water 

bodies, including fuels, oils, and lubricants used in equipment operations. This is 

also required by Forest Plan Standard 1107. Thus no direct or indirect effects to 

overall water quality are expected with either Action Alternative, so long as 

project design criteria are properly implemented and adhered to. Therefore this 

project would comply with all water-quality related Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and all State and National water quality regulations. 

Wetland, Riparian, and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Condition 

“Wetlands control runoff and water quality; recharge ground water; and provide 

special habitats. Actions that may alter their ground cover, soil structure, water 

budgets, drainage patterns, and long-term plant composition can impair these 

values” (USDA Forest Service, 1996). Riparian ecosystems provide shade, 

bank stability, fish cover, and woody debris to aquatic ecosystems, as well as 

sediment storage and release, and surface-ground water interactions (USDA 

Forest Service, 1996). 

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area so there 

would be no direct impact or affect on wetland and riparian ecosystems. Existing 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

147 

problems at wetlands, riparian areas, seeps, and spring are associated primarily 

with cattle grazing, and to a lesser extent, roads. Protective and restorative 

measures would occur primarily through grazing allotment management and road 

improvements, both of which are beyond the scope and authority of this project, 

depending on when and how much appropriated funds are available. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Wetlands, riparian areas, seeps, and springs have been identified in or adjacent 

to proposed treatment units. Design criteria have been included to protect these 

areas during management activities and are found in Appendix B. These areas 

are buffered in a “bulls-eye” manner, in which ground based activities can take 

place within the 100-foot buffer in order to accomplish project objectives so long 

as resources are protected, but no equipment is allowed within the 50-foot buffer. 

A typical example of this situation is the need for a short segment of skid trail 

within the outer buffer due to restrictive topography. Site specific needs of this 

type arise as thinning units are laid out, marked, and logging plans developed, as 

well as during timber sale administration. Any additional wetlands and riparian 

areas discovered during project layout and implementation would also be 

protected. No timber harvest, no temporary road construction, construction of 

fire line (hand or dozer), operation of heavy equipment, or ignition of prescribed 

fire (under burns and maintenance burns) would be allowed within the inner, 50-ft 

buffer. However, it is possible that prescribed fire may enter wetlands and 

riparian ecosystems, but due to the naturally moist conditions of these areas only 

low intensity fire is anticipated. This should closely mimic natural fire conditions, 

and no long-term adverse effects are expected. Since riparian buffers provide 

protection for riparian areas, no effects to wetland and riparian areas are 

anticipated for proposed activities so long as WCPs are properly implemented 

and adhered to. Therefore this project would comply with all water-quality related 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and all State and National water quality 

regulations. 

Analysis of Cumulative Effects 

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix E of the HCMB 

EA were considered for cumulative effects to soil and water resources. Effects 

from all known past actions were included in the analysis of existing soil and 

water resource conditions. Generally this includes activities that have occurred 

since the 1874 Custer Expedition to the Black Hills region. Proposed activities 

associated with each alternative were considered in the Analysis of Direct and 

Indirect Effects section. Past and present land use and activities within the 

analysis watersheds, which encompasses both the soil analysis area and HCMB 

Project boundary, include timber harvest, wild and prescribed fire, cattle grazing, 

private land ownership, roads and off road vehicles, mines and quarries, various 

types of recreation, and forest product gathering. All of these activities or events 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

148 

individually have some level of impact on the watershed, which results in 

cumulative effects to soil and watershed conditions and processes. 

Soils 

The analysis area for cumulative effects to soils is the same as that used for 

direct and indirect effects. It includes only the proposed activity units because 

impacts to soils occur on the site and do not accumulate outside of the activity 

area. 

Cumulative Soil Disturbance and Overall Soil Productivity 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Soil disturbance associated with cattle grazing, wildlife high-use areas, 

recreation, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents 

or authorities (refer to Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities) would 

have the same potential to disturb soils regardless of which alternative is 

selected. However, design criteria apply to other activities and thus minimize 

their impacts to soils as well. Soil disturbances and erosion would continue at 

current rates until a natural disturbance occurs. Trees killed by the spreading 

MPB epidemic and past wildfires would fall, accumulating on the forest floor, 

thereby increasing the CWD levels. Hill slopes would continue to adjust in 

response to natural weathering processes such as freezing and thawing. Since 

slopes in the project area are gently undulating, with the exception of rocky 

canyon walls, these adjustments would be isolated individually and small (less 

than 1000 sq. feet). 

If a wildfire occurred in the project area, effects to soils would likely be severe 

due to the increasing fuel loads accumulating on the ground, which promote 

longer fire residence times and higher fire temperatures. Since this area has 

already experienced a significant amount of moderate to high soil burn severity 

resulting from the Jasper Fire (Gould, 2003), additional high severity burning 

would essentially “set the clock back to zero” for soils that had or were beginning 

to recover. Potential impacts from such an event could include alteration of soil 

invertebrates, greatly reduced nitrogen content, significant pH changes, and loss 

of many soluble nutrients. In addition, the removal of all-or-most of the organic 

matter within the soil would alter its moisture-holding capacity, leading to 

increased runoff and erosion, and decreased slope stability in localized areas. 

These effects could be short or long term effects depending on the burning 

characteristics of the fire; and climatic factors following the fire including timing 

and intensity of rainfall, as well as drought which affects recovery of vegetation. 

Additionally, streams and riparian areas have 100-foot vegetative buffers, as 

required by the agreement between the USFS and the State of South Dakota 

(USDA Forest Service-SDDENR, 2009) stipulating that Region 2 Watershed 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

149 

Conservation Practices (WCPs) would be used as the USFS Best Management 

Practices to comply with State and Federal water quality regulations (i.e. Clean 

Water Act). Forest Plan Standards 1301, 1302, 1306 and Guideline 1115 also 

stipulate the use of buffers for streams and riparian areas. These buffers protect 

streams and other water resources from increased sediment delivery by filtering 

runoff prior to entry into streams and wetlands. Forestry Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) have been and continue to be monitored by the BHNF and 

have been proven effective at minimizing erosion and preventing sediment 

delivery to water bodies when properly implemented and maintained (USDA 

Forest Service, 2007a; Thomas, 2008). Water resources in the project area are 

limited to scattered springs, man-made impoundments, and ephemeral and 

intermittent stream channels. Therefore, any sediment that may be generated 

from erosion has a very low risk of entering a waterbody. Thus harvest activities 

are not expected to cause a measurable amount of sediment delivery resulting 

from project-related soil erosion to streams and other water bodies. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 

As stated previously under the Direct and Indirect Effects section, both Action 

Alternatives include design criteria to prevent or minimize soil disturbance and 

thus harvest activities are not expected to produce ground disturbance that would 

result in a permanent loss of soil quality. Soil disturbance associated with cattle 

grazing, wildlife high-use areas, recreation, and other forest activities authorized 

under other planning documents or authorities would have the same potential to 

disturb soils regardless of which alternative is selected. However, Design 

Criteria apply to other activities and thus minimize their impacts to soils as well. 

Hill slopes would continue to adjust in response to natural weathering processes 

such as freezing and thawing. Since slopes in the project area are gently 

undulating, with the exception of rocky canyon walls, these adjustments would be 

isolated individually and small (less than 1000 sq. feet). 

Design criteria are included with this project to minimize the area of impact to the 

extent practical throughout the project area for all Federal management actions. 

Past monitoring has shown that WCPs and Forestry BMPs are effective at 

protecting soil and water resources when implemented and maintained properly 

(USDA Forest Service, 2007a; Thomas, 2008). Since implementation and 

adherence to WCPs varies depending on the individuals performing the work, it 

is possible, although unlikely, that detrimental soil disturbance may occur. 

Detrimental soil disturbance due to the cumulative effects of other management 

activities or unauthorized public use (i.e. OHVs) in the project area could also 

result as the thinning and fuel treatment activities proposed by this project would 

open up hillsides previously blocked by forest stands and downed trees. 

Although soil disturbance related to the proposed actions is expected to remain 

well below the 15% detrimental disturbance threshold due to the inclusion of 

project Design Criteria, it is possible that cumulative actions (authorized or not) 

could approach or exceed this same threshold. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

150 

 

Water Resources 

The cumulative effects analysis area for water resources includes two spatial 

scales. The first is smaller in scale and includes the 8th level watersheds within 

which proposed actions would take place. This scale was chosen to evaluate 

effects at points adjacent to and directly downstream from contributing activities 

because any cumulative impacts that may occur can be readily observed and 

quantified and linked to activities associated with the project. The second scale 

encompasses the same area used for indirect and direct effects analysis. This 

area corresponds to the five 6th level watersheds of Redbird Canyon, Gillette 

Canyon, Tepee Canyon, Upper Hell Canyon, and Lower Hell Canyon. This 

second analysis area was chosen because activities are proposed within portions 

of all five watersheds; a significant portion of these same five watersheds were 

involved in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires; and beyond this level, impacts to 

water resources can no longer be quantified and linked back to activities 

occurring upstream. 

Cumulative effects to water yield and flow regime; stream channel stability and 

floodplains; water quality; and wetlands and riparian areas are discussed for 

each alternative. 

Water Yield and Flow Regime 

Cattle grazing, routine maintenance of trails, developed recreation facilities, and 

dispersed campsites, public use, and the operations of outfitters/guides would 

not involve activities which could affect water yield and flow regimes. These 

activities are generally dispersed across the landscape and the amount of 

vegetation removal, if any, as a result of these activities, is inconsequential in 

relation to the amount of yearly vegetative recovery within the analysis 

watersheds. Thus, these activities do not affect water yield and flow regimes 

which would destabilize stream channels. Timber harvest and road construction 

activities are expected to continue to occur on private lands, but occur less often 

and scattered across the landscape, such that water yield increases would not be 

discernable in comparison with harvest on the surrounding Federal lands. 

Current water yield and flow regime conditions would remain unchanged 

regardless of what Alternative is implemented. Flash floods would still occur in 

the project area in response to intense summer thunderstorms. Should a wildfire 

occur, these flash floods may be intensified in magnitude and frequency, but 

these are driven more by the characteristic of the precipitation event(s) than 

watershed conditions. However, vegetation management and fuels treatments 

associated with Alternative 2 and 3 can alleviate the actual watershed conditions 

by reducing the amount of fuels, thus reducing fire temperatures and residence 

times. This in turn reduces adverse effects to soils which also would minimize 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

151 

runoff and erosion generated in storm events. With improved watershed 

conditions, it would take a much larger storm event to produce runoff and erosion 

and thus flood damage is limited and localized. 

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

Past cattle grazing and road construction are the primary contributors to stream 

instability. Roads are also the primarily source of impact on floodplains. The 

environmental impacts of roads have been described previously. Grazing 

impacts on stream bank stability has not been specifically analyzed since 

changes in grazing management are beyond the scope of this project. Design 

Criteria have been included in both action alternatives to protect streams and 

floodplains during harvest activities. Cumulatively, stream channels throughout 

the area are expected to remain unchanged until a natural disturbance such as 

wildfire occurs, which would likely cause instability as discussed previously. 

Water Quality 

Little or no ground disturbance that would generate erosion and lead to increased 

sedimentation of streams is expected from Federal management activities as 

stated previously in the soils analysis. Routine maintenance of trails, developed 

recreation facilities, and dispersed campsites or the operations of outfitters and 

guides would not involve activities which would increase sedimentation or affect 

water quality. Public Recreational uses would have no measurable effect on 

sediment yields in the decision area, due to the fact that disturbance created by 

these activities would be small, if any and dispersed across the landscape. 

Routine road maintenance is likely to occur as needed on existing roads in the 

decision area regardless of which alternative is implemented. The roads most 

likely to receive maintenance are those open to vehicle traffic. Roads with 

restricted vehicle access would receive maintenance as needed to correct 

problems as they occur. Although minor sediment inputs into streams are 

possible, the long-term benefit is a reduction in routed sediment and water. 

Short-term sediment input to streams is expected to be minimized or eliminated 

by using WCPs. Other federal ongoing and foreseeable activities would also 

adhere to applicable Forest Service policy and Federal and State regulations 

regarding water resources. 

No measurable decrease in overall water quality is expected, unless a wildfire 

occurs, followed by intense summer thunderstorms. However, vegetation 

management and fuels treatments associated with Alternative 2 and 3 can 

alleviate the actual watershed conditions by reducing the amount of fuels, thus 

reducing fire temperatures and residence times. This in turn reduces adverse 

effects to soils which minimizes runoff and erosion generated in storm events. 

With improved watershed conditions, it would take a much larger storm event to 

produce runoff and erosion and thus flood damage is limited and localized. This 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

152 

means that the risk of impairments to downstream water quality and beneficial 

uses (i.e. Angostura Reservoir) would also be minimized.

Wetland and Riparian Condition 

Wetland and riparian areas are limited in both size and number throughout the 

project area, and watershed analysis area due to the groundwater recharge 

nature of the Limestone Plateau. Therefore, regardless of which alternative is 

chosen, little effect to these resources is expected. Changes in grazing 

management outside the scope of this project may lead to improved spring 

conditions. Although grazing management is beyond the scope and 

authorization of the HCMB project, protective and restoration measures for 

problem areas identified during field investigations would be pursued through 

adaptive management under the grazing allotment management plans and 

grazing permits. 

Overall Watershed Condition 

Alternative 1 (No Action) would not reduce the risk of watershed impairment due 

to wildfire under the current drought conditions, nor would it reduce the long term 

risk of impairment. As discussed throughout the soil and water resources 

section, Alternative 1 poses the greatest risk of severe fire effects resulting from 

a wildfire and multiple degraded resources resulting from post-fire runoff and 

flooding. High intensity and long-duration burning associated with wildfire in 

heavy downed timber, has the potential to remove all-or-most of the organic 

matter on the soil surface, alter moisture-holding capacity, and possibly lead to 

significant increases in overland flow and erosion, and reduced water quality due 

to sediment, ash, and volatilized chemicals and nutrients present in post-fire 

runoff. These post-fire floods would transport ash, sediment, and debris through 

the stream networks and into lakes, clogging culverts, washing out roadways, 

eroding stream banks, scouring channels, filling ponds and reservoirs, clogging 

or damaging irrigation points, as observed following other wildfires in the Black 

Hills region. Thus downstream water uses, water rights, and water quality would 

be at risk. 

However, vegetation treatment associated with both Action Alternatives provides 

an opportunity to improve watershed conditions, as well as prevent adverse 

effects should a wildfire occur. Overall, the risk of severe post-fire watershed 

conditions would be reduced and the future health and function of the watershed 

improved. If drought conditions persist, the implementation of either Action 

Alternative would decrease the risk of watershed impairment caused by highseverity wildfire. If climatic conditions return to normal or cycle towards colder 

and wetter conditions, the risk of watershed impairment caused by high-severity 

wildfire would be lower, and thus management activities associated with the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

153 

Action Alternatives would have less effect. Over the long term climate cycling 

between hot and dry, and cool and wet periods, the action alternatives would 

decrease the long term risk of watershed impairment resulting from a highseverity wildfire. 

Heritage 

Affected Environment 

Prehistoric Context. The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the 

Northwestern Plains (Sundstrom 1989). Human occupation of this area has 

been divided into six broad cultural periods (Frison 1991): 

 Paleo-Indian 11,500 B.P. to 7,000 B.P. 

 Early Archaic 7,000 B.P. to 5,000 B.P. 

 Middle Archaic 5,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P. 

 Late Archaic 3,000 B.P. to 1,500 B.P. 

 Late Prehistoric 1,500 B.P. to 500 B.P. 

The Black Hills National Forest Cultural Resources Overview identifies cultural 

sites that represent all of the above prehistoric phases of occupation in the Black 

Hills (Rom, et.al. eds 1996). Identifiable tribal groups living within the Black Hills 

area during the Protohistoric period include the Kiowa, Crow, Arapaho, 

Cheyenne, and Sioux. 

Many Native Americans consider the Black Hills to be sacred land. Their belief 

system links specific locations in and around the Black Hills to star constellations 

(Rom, et.al. eds. 1996). These spiritually significant locations include but are not 

limited to: Devil’s Tower, Old Baldy Mountain, Hot Springs, Buffalo Gap, 

Reynolds Prairie, the spearfish formation “race track” that surrounds the Black 

Hills, and Harney Peak (Goodman 1992). Ceremonies are performed at these 

locations during specific periods on the celestial calendar, such as the vernal 

equinox (March 20), autumnal equinox (September 22), summer solstice (June 

21), and the winter solstice (December 21); and also during weather events, such 

as the first thunderstorm of the year (Goodman 1992: 12). 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

154 

Historic Context. Historical chronological stages appropriate for the entire Black 

Hills are as follows: 

 Protohistoric A.D.1600-1851 

 Military Exploration 1851-1874 

 Euro-American Settlement 1874-1920 

 Depression/New Deal 1920-1941 

 World War II 1941-1945 

 Modern 1946 to present 

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

consisted mainly of fur trappers and traders (Sundstrom 1989). The western half 

of South Dakota, including the Black Hills, portions of southern North Dakota, 

and nearly the entire area of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana 

was recognized as unceded Indian Territory by the 1868 treaty between the 

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

occupation in the Black Hills began shortly after gold was discovered in the Black 

Hills in 1874. It was this discovery that brought a full scale influx of EuroAmerican prospectors and miners to the Black Hills. 

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

history of the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800’s 

through the 1920’s. Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became 

common in the early 1900’s. However, much of the land was not patented and remains 

public land. 

Within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project area there are 23 known cultural 

resources determined eligible or unevaluated for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. The majority of sites in the project area are prehistoric and range in age 

from 7,000 to 500 years BP. They include rock shelters, lithic procurement sites, 

quarries, and occupational sites. The historic sites include remnants of logging camps 

and various CCC developments linked to the Great Depression and New Deal time 

period. 

Environmental Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1: No Action 

If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36 CFR 

Part 800.16(y), for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 

U.S.C. 470f). However, no action may result in the destruction of cultural 

resources due to the increased fuel loading and tree mortality from overgrowth--

both of which increase the risk of fire and subsequent ground disturbance and 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

155 

erosion. Many of the eligible sites in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn analysis 

area are eligible for listing on the NRHP due to the presence of intact subsurface 

cultural deposits or standing architectural features. As such, any processes that 

disturb the soil/sediment matrices of an archaeological site (including erosion) or 

increase the intensity and probability of catastrophic wildfire, adversely impact 

the site’s eligibility. 

Temperatures within prescribed burns are influenced by weather, fuels and 

topography, and therefore, fire intensity can be controlled by limiting fuel load, 

adjusting method of ignition, and insuring high soil, duff, and fuel moisture 

content (USDA 2003). The probable fire intensity at each cultural resource was 

assessed by Black Hill National Forest Fuels personnel utilizing the fire behavior 

predictive modeling software BEHAVE. BEHAVE combines topographic 

information with data gathered from the field (i.e.. ground cover and fuel loading) 

to determine the BTUs and duration that a given area will experience during 

ideal burning conditions. 

Studies have shown that the effects of prescribed fires of short duration (less 

than one hour) under 400°C will generally not affect most cultural resources, 

especially those that have previously been affected by moderate to severe fires, 

as is the case with those within the boundaries of the Jasper and Rodgers Shack 

Fires (USDA 2003). 

Action Alternatives 

Known cultural resources in the project area will be protected from the effects of 

fire through avoidance and implementation of the design criteria (see appendix 

B). These sites will be avoided by the potentially adverse effects of dozer lines, 

retardant drops, hand lines, and staging areas. The potential risk of fire related 

disturbances and activities to cultural resources are based on the studies by 

professional archaeologists and documented in manuscripts from the Forest 

Service workshop “Fire and Archaeology” from 2003 (USDA 2003). Effects from 

prescribed fires on cultural resources can be divided into four categories: 

a) Direct effects from ground disturbance associated preparation/mop-up 

b) Direct effects from the fire itself 

c) Indirect, short- and long-term post-fire effects 

d) Beneficial effects 

a) Direct effects from ground disturbance associated with 

preparation/mop-up

Ground disturbance associated with cutting firelines, felling snags, driving and 

staging equipment may disturb cultural resources. Mop-up activities, such as 

digging out smoldering roots and stumps, and rehabilitation activities such as 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

156 

replanting or stabilizing soils and watersheds, may displace, break, or completely 

destroy individual artifacts or entire sites. Impacts from ground disturbance: 

• partial or complete destruction of sites, features or individual artifacts 

• breaking and displacing of artifacts 

This project will have no direct effects to cultural resources from preparing and 

mopping up prescribed burns. Design criteria in Appendix B are included for all 

alternatives to avoid ground disturbances associated with preparing and mopping 

up prescribed burns. 

b) Direct effects from the fire itself

The effects reported to occur to cultural resources from fires are similar, whether 

the impacts occurred to historic or prehistoric artifacts or features composed of a 

wide variety of material types. These effects can be summarized as: 

• partial or complete destruction 

• breaking, spalling, fracturing, potlidding 

• blackening, sooting, discoloring, adhesions 

• obscured identification of material type 

• loss of artifact-resident and other site-resident data (such as obsidian 

hydration, protein residues, pollen, and so forth) 

The nature of effects reported to occur to cultural resources due to the fire 

environment: 

• longer fire residence times result in increased effects (often even at 

reduced temperatures) 

• surface artifacts are altered more than subsurface ones 

• higher temperatures usually result in greater effects 

• effects generally increase as fuel loads increase 

• effects generally increase as duff and soil moistures decrease, particularly 

for cultural resources located on or near the mineral soil surface 

The action alternatives may have some effect to surface artifacts and features 

from prescribed fire; however the design criteria (Appendix B) will lessen those 

effects, prevent adverse effects to subsurface artifacts and features, and 

preserve site integrity. 

c) Indirect short and long-term post-fire effects

Damage and impacts can continue to occur to cultural resources even after 

burns have been extinguished. If ground vegetation has been completely 

consumed in the burn, post-fire erosion can transported artifacts off sites. Effects 

that can occur to cultural resources following fires, particularly if they are severe, 

include: 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

157 

• loss of provenience data due to ground creep, erosion, wind movement of 

artifacts, deflation, blow downs, burnt out stump holes, frost heave or 

torrential downpours 

• mixing of deposits due to collapse of burnt out stumps and root holes, or 

tree fall 

• collapse or destruction of site features due to erosion or falling snags 

• disturbance or destruction of subsurface features from tree fall, root 

collapse, or erosion 

The severity and degree of post-fire effects will be directly related to the burning 

prescriptions used to conduct each prescribed burn. Burning prescriptions will 

include design criteria (Appendix B) and will result in relatively few of the impacts 

described above. All of the alternatives would preserve the integrity of known 

sites. 

d) Beneficial Effects of Prescribed Burning

Archaeologists have historically focused on the negative impacts of fires on 

cultural resources. However, fire can be used as a management tool to enhance 

or protect cultural resources. Some potential benefits that could result from the 

application of prescribed fire near or on cultural resources include: 

• reducing fuels in and around sites in order to minimize future catastrophic 

impacts from wildfires 

• increasing ground visibility in order to facilitate meeting Section 110 of the 

NHPA inventory requirements 

• improving surface visibility on archaeological sites, so that site boundaries 

can be better defined, and the range of artifacts and features on sites can 

be more fully documented 

• restoring culturally significant landscapes, or maintaining the integrity of 

setting on significant cultural properties by restoring the conditions present 

at sites during the time they were occupied 

• restoring vegetation and plant communities important to Native peoples or 

others with traditional ties to the landscape 

Following the design criteria in Appendix B, the foreseeable benefit of the action 

alternatives will be reduced fuels in and around sites that will minimize future 

catastrophic impacts from wildfires. 

Cumulative Effects 

The nature of the cultural resources and the foreseeable actions in the project 

area dictate that the cumulative effects area should match the physical site 

boundaries. Therefore, the cumulative effects area is defined as the known 

archaeological sites in the identified burn, thinning units, and access roads to and 

from the project area. The timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis is 20 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

158 

years; ten years prior to present and ten years in the future. This time span 

allows for an adequate length of time to include the Jasper fire of 2000, which 

caused adverse effects to many cultural resources in the area. 

Cultural resources are non-renewable. Due to both natural and human 

processes, the loss of cultural resources has happened in the past and would 

happen in the future. One cumulative effect is that over time fewer cultural 

resources would be available to learn about past human life-ways, to study 

changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the past to the public. 

Recording and archiving basic information about cultural resources in the 

proposed project area serves to partially mitigate potential cumulative effects.

No adverse cumulative effects are expected to occur as a result of any action 

alternative provided that the design criteria are followed and the site specific 

recommendations are implemented. 

Lands and Minerals 

Affected Environment 

There are no Forest Service permits or easements issued in the project area. 

No active mines, issued mineral material permits or BLM Mining Claims occur 

within the project area, but the preliminary evaluation and analysis has begun for 

the Teepee Canyon Agate area to be designated as a community pit site. This 

site would be open to the public who had an authorized mineral material permit to 

remove sandstone and other mineral materials as applicable.

Environmental Effects Analysis 

None of the alternatives would have any effects on the lands, special uses, or 

minerals programs. Currently there are no special use permits or easements 

issued within the project area. A research permit for the white-winged junco 

songbird is issued for the Surveyors Hill area adjacent to the project area to the 

West of the Jasper Fire perimeter located in T4S R2E Sections 6 & 7. The 

Tepee Agate area has been identified as having the potential to be designated as 

a community pit though more evaluation and analysis would have to occur for 

this to happen, but may have an effect on the risks to the public in that area 

during prescribed burning and silvicultural implementation activities. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects on the lands, special uses, or minerals programs 

for any of the alternatives proposed as part of this project. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

159 

 

Recreation 

Affected Environment 

Primary recreational use of the area includes: 

1. Hunting; Spring & Fall turkey, Fall big game. Hunting use of the area 

is considered moderate. Spring turkey hunting is becoming 

increasingly popular for a national audience. Rogers Shack and 

Jasper Fire Areas are best known for quality deer and elk hunting. 

This may be attributed to its more remote location as well as wildfires 

resulting in increased forage and restricted motorized travel policies. 

The District has received two inquiries from commercial outfitters and 

guides interested in this specific area to conduct quality, big game, 

horse supported, hunting trips.

2. Dispersed Camping; Camping that is connected with hunting, 

horseback riding and Off Highway Vehicle (OHV), use. Dispersed 

camping use is considered low. Most of this use occurs during the 

fall big game hunting season in hard sided campers. 

3. Motorized Recreation Use; OHV use of existing roads and trails 

occur throughout the project area. OHV, particularly ATV type, use is a 

growing recreation trend for the public. The area is well roaded with 

easy access that provides the resource for this activity. Snowmobile 

use is almost non-existent as most of the project area historically has 

low, no-snow or snow for very short duration conditions. Motorized use 

is only allowed on open (numbered) Forest Service system roads as 

authorized by a Forest Special Order for the Rogers Shack and Jasper 

Fire Areas. Therefore, negative impacts such as soil and water 

erosion, vegetation damage, invasive weed spread and noise pollution 

from off highway motorized use is limited in cross country areas when 

compared to other areas of the National Forest. 

The natural succession of these burned areas to have large numbers of 

dead and down large diameter timber covering discontinued roads and open 

areas thwarts most recreational OHV travel except on open, designated 

roads as specified by special forest order. 

The Black Hills National Forest, Supervisor’s Office is currently involved in 

an OHV planning process to manage OHV use which the Chief of the Forest 

Service listed as one of the four main “threats” to national public lands in 

2004. The draft Black Hills National Forest OHV Travel Management Plan 

has been released for public comment and the final Environmental Impact 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

160 

Statement with the accompanying record of decision is expected during the 

winter of 2009-2010. 

4. Hiking/Biking/Horse Riding/Caving/Rock Collecting; A small 

portion of system trail Hell Canyon Trail #32 is located within North 

HCMB. This hiking, biking and horse use trail sees moderate use with 

typically two to three vehicles parked daily during the summer months 

at the trailhead located across from Jewel Cave National Monument. It 

is felt some of the trail use is a result of visitors to Jewel Cave seeking 

nearby outdoor pursuits in addition to caving activities. The unique 

features of this trail include hiking in a non-motorized area, scenic red 

limestone cliffs, abundant wildlife, wildflowers, geology as well as the 

experience of observing the succession of a fire impacted ecosystem. 

This type of non-motorized recreational use occurs as well, but to a low 

use level, in portions of HCMB located in and along Hell Canyon south 

of Highway 16. 

Sawmill spring area in HCMB is a favorite local area for rock collecting. 

Past commercial mining of this area for agates provide rock cuts and broken 

ground for collecting agate specimens. 

Jasper Cave located in North HCMB is a well-known local limestone cave 

resource for recreational spelunking. The Boy Scouts of America has an 

outfitter and guide special use permit to lead and educate scouts in lowimpact spelunking trips here during the summer months to earn a caving 

merit badge. This cave entrance is gated from fall to spring to protect 

hibernating bats from disturbance. 

 

Effects Analysis

Alternative 1: No Action – This alternative would have no negative effect on 

the recreation resource. 

The current setting of the area is predominantly primitive non-motorized with only 

main roads open for motorized travel. This was a result of a motorized closure 

order put in place after catastrophic wildfires to protect resources that still exists 

today. In reality the closed areas and therefore associated roads to motorized 

travel cannot be used by motorized OHV (off highway vehicle) traffic and foot, 

horse or other travel methods due to the large volume of dead, fire damaged 

trees that have fallen over much of the area. These fire damaged dead and 

down trees makes travel most difficult across the burned areas. In many cases 

travel cannot proceed in a straight line such as on a road without use of a 

chainsaw. Not removing the dead and down woody material covering the 

landscape helps maintain its current condition of a large non-motorized 

recreation area with low recreation use. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

161 

All Action Alternatives 2 & 3– If implemented, this alternative would affect the 

recreation resource by short term and longer term affects. 

Short term affects include increased human caused disturbance such as 

increased traffic, noise and smoke associated with seasonal prescribed burning 

and log thinning operations. Visitors can expect less solitude and a less natural 

experience during these times. Short term disturbance can cause a shift of 

recreation use of affected areas to other areas of the National Forest during 

periods of disturbance. 

Longer term affects after the project or portions of the project are completed is 

increased access to the affected land for all types of recreation activity. This is 

due to the removal of barriers, in this case large woody debris that had fallen to 

the ground, as a result of catastrophic wildfire. The primitive setting of the area 

would remain non-motorized, however the opportunity for OHV traffic to disobey 

motorized traffic restrictions would increase with removal of barriers, (down 

woody debris), by prescribed fire. This would most likely occur more often during 

periods of higher use such as fall big game hunting seasons for deer and elk. 

The longer term affect of removing woody debris by prescribed fire from affected 

sites would benefit opportunities for non-motorized recreation activities such as 

horseback riding, mountain biking and hiking. These activities may increase as 

the area becomes more known through word of mouth as a great dispersed 

recreation area for these types of uses. Currently, there are no developed 

recreation, dispersed recreation, trailhead or trail facilities in the project area but 

it is possible that increased public demand could increase the need for Forest 

Service non-motorized recreation facilities. The project area is particularly 

valued by recreation enthusiasts during the fall through spring season when 

temperatures are less hot and snowfall is minimal or non-existent (usually) during 

these times. There are no differences in effects to the recreation resource 

between alternatives 2 and 3. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of implementing this project is the potential to increase 

dispersed, mainly non-motorized, recreation opportunities for this area by 

removing physical barriers to travel across the landscape. 

Summary of Effects 

The effects of implementing the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project on the 

recreation resource are mainly short-term such as disturbance from logging 

operations, prescribed fire smoke, noise, increased dust and traffic, etc., and 

would cause a shift to other unaffected portions of the forest by the recreating 

public. The removal of dead woody debris from the project area, which is now a 

barrier to recreation travel, could increase the opportunities for a pleasurable 

non-motorized horseback, hike or mountain bike ride. However it could also 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

162 

increase the opportunity for illegal OHV motorized travel, particularly during big 

game hunting seasons. Forest Service responsibility to meet public recreation 

needs while protecting natural resources could increase for the area 

proportionate to increased public use of the area as it becomes more clear of 

woody debris and therefore more desirable as a recreation resource. 

Scenery 

Existing Conditions 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Planning Areas are centered around 

Jewel Cave National Monument, between Custer, SD, & Newcastle, WY. From 

Jewel Cave, the project area extends approx. 11 1/5 miles to the northwest, 5 

miles to the northeast, and 6 1⁄2 miles to the south, in the Black Hills National 

Forest. 

The project areas are almost entirely within the Jasper Fire (2000) and the Roger 

Shack Fire (2001) areas. Most of the vegetation within the project areas was 

impacted by these two fires. Most of the trees within the fire perimeter were 

killed by the fires. The majority of those remaining killed trees (not removed 

during ‘salvage’ operations) have since fallen to the ground (whether from decay 

or wind throw), resulting in a visually ‘open’ grass/shrub covered landscape, with 

isolated groups of live trees. 

The area is noted for gently rolling terrain. The Jasper Fire (2000) and the Roger 

Shack Fire (2001) killed the majority of the vegetation and ‘reset’ the vegetation 

from a dense forest to open grasslands with scattered and pockets of live trees 

(primarily Aspen and Ponderosa Pine). Water features are limited to narrow, 

quiet, low-flow intermittent streams. Apparent human alterations are limited to 

open roads that provide access to the area for recreation, grazing and vegetation 

management. The road network in the area has generally been accepted over 

time as part of the positive cultural landscape character attributes. 

The closure of roads within the fire area has reduced human disturbance since 

the fires, allowing natural recovery processes to occur. As the region has 

experienced reduced rainfall from 2000 to 2008, recovery was slowed by these 

hotter and drier conditions. This year has seen a change to wetter conditions, 

visibly improving grass and shrub growth. In addition, Ponderosa Pine seedlings 

are evident when there is a seed tree source nearby. The majority of fire killed 

trees have decayed to the point that they have snapped off 10-20 feet above the 

ground, or have completely fallen over, creating an open, grass-covered, 

landscape in appearance. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

163 

There are no recreation areas or trails within the project areas, although there is 

a non-motorized trail nearby in the Hell Canyon drainage. Recreation activities 

are dispersed in nature. Travels along the roads in the area, aside from Hwy. 16, 

are at relatively low speeds, providing a greater opportunity to view and study the 

landscape. Approximately 447 acres of the USFS lands within the planning area 

would be viewed from U.S. Highway 16. 

Other USFS lands within the planning area are viewed from Sensitivity Level 2 

Corridors (where people have the moderate to high concern for scenery in this 

area) including: County Road 273 (Pass Creek), Forest Development Roads - 

FDRs: 165, 282, 283, 284, and 668. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are management objectives for forest scenic 

resources. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is 

visually perceived to be “complete” and is classified as low, moderate, high or 

very high. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes that 

have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its 

aesthetic appeal. 

The SIOs for the mechanical vegetation treatments and the fuels reduction 

treatments were calculated separately. Overall, the mechanical vegetation 

treatment area has approximately 60% at a Moderate SIO, and 40% at a Low 

SIO. The fuels reduction treatments have approximately 3% at a High SIO, 25% 

at a Moderate SIO and 72% at a Low SIO.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Direct Effects 

There would be no direct effects resulting from this alternative as no activities 

would occur. 

Indirect Effects 

Natural levels of down, dead material would continue to slowly decay. In some 

areas, large quantities of down material may delay some plant sprouting/growth 

opportunities – that could in turn provide more visual vegetative diversity in this 

landscape. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

164 

Cumulative Effects 

None were identified that would affect the scenic resource. 

Effects Common To All Action Alternatives 

Direct Effects 

Vegetative Treatments result in the removal of trees within a stand. How well 

these treatments blend into the characteristic landscape, and meet the Scenic 

Integrity Objective (SIO), is based upon the slope, aspect, and vegetation 

remaining on the site. Thinning trees to an even spacing can result in a 

managed, un-natural appearance. Reducing soil disturbance, uneven spacing of 

the trees remaining in the landscape, and cleaning up the slash (branches and 

tree tops left when trees are commercially removed from the forest) to natural 

levels, can result in an appearance that is in harmony with the landscape 

character, often resulting in a higher SIO being achieved. Those treatments 

where more large trees remain can generally blend in to the characteristic 

landscape the best, or maintain the most desired vegetative characteristics. 

Indirect Effects 

Skidding logs on, or across, steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace 

soil creating opportunities for noxious weeds and invasive plants to become 

established in treated areas. Burning piles of tree tops & limbs can sterilize the 

soil, also creating opportunities for their establishment. These invasive plants 

often have shapes that distinctive (i.e. – Mullen) and are recognized by the 

general public non-natives that are competing with native plants. These plants 

are often readily apparent in the Immediate Foreground. As the quantity of these 

weeds increase in the landscape, they out-compete native plants, resulting in the 

visual quality decreasing. Efforts are made to minimize this potential, so it is 

difficult to predict where, how wide spread, and the duration this would affect 

scenery. 

Thinning and reducing the overall density of ponderosa pine vegetation can lead 

to an increase in the amount of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods 

increasing in the landscape. This could increase the variety of colors evident 

now, and in the future, across the landscape. In addition, there is a potential for 

hardwoods to increase in thinned stands (other than where we are specifically 

managing to encourage hardwoods), creating a greater amount of fall color in 

across the landscape. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

165 

Irretrievable & Irreversible Effects 

There are no Irretrievable and/or Irreversible Effects that are common to the 

action alternatives. 

 EFFECTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 

Direct Effects 

Effects of management will change the appearance of the forest. Treatments are 

grouped and applied on a landscape basis, creating a consistent pattern across 

whole landforms. This method should mimic natural vegetation patterns in this 

area – due to the wide scale effects of the 2000 and 2001 fires. Views into the 

forest, due to the reduced densities of trees will increase. Previously hidden rock 

formations in the immediate foreground, foreground, and middleground distance 

zones will be evident. 

Hardwoods would be more evident across the landscape, providing a contrast in 

color throughout the year, particularly adjacent to meadows and in drainages. 

Rock formations will be readily apparent as well. The diversity of vegetation 

structure, created for wildlife, will be visible in all distance zones. 

Overstory Removals (OR) result in an open area with seedlings scattered 

across the opening, and 3-6 large (commercial-sized) trees, for wildlife remain 

per acre. These units have the greatest potential to appear out of scale and 

character with natural vegetation patterns. Overstory Removal treatments 

generally meet a Moderate to Low SIO, depending on how closely they appear in 

shape and size (scale) to mimic the natural openings in the characteristic 

landscape, and the size of the remaining seedlings. A Moderate SIO can be 

achieved if the size of the unit does not exceed the natural openings by more 

than 10%, otherwise it will likely meet a Low SIO. However, in this planning area 

with the past fire activity and the open condition of the landscape, the unit shape 

and edge effect will be the key elements that determine how well these units will 

dominant these treatments will appear in the landscape. 

Of the 308 acres of Overstory Removal, 217 acres are within the Middleground 

areas. Units: 030813-12 (35.7 acres), 030813-16 (57.8 acres), and 030813-20 

(65 acres) are all contiguous, forming one large overstory removal unit of 158.5 

acres. This large unit is primarily level with road FSR 282. The large unit – 2/3 

have a Moderate SIO assigned, while 1/3 has a Low SIO. 

Summary

Effects of vegetation management will be evident, however they will replicate 

textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

166 

planning area and the surrounding area. Except where noted above, and when 

Design Criteria is followed, these treatments should meet their assigned SIO and 

be consistent with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP for Scenic Integrity. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

Direct Effects 

Effects from mechanical vegetation treatments would be less than in Alternative 

2, because less area is to be treated. . Treatments will be on a landscape basis 

similar to Alternative 2. 

No Overstory Removals would occur, resulting in a more natural appearance that 

Alternative 2. 

Less prescribed burning, approximately 68 acres than Alternative 2, would occur 

in the immediate and distant foreground of Highway 16. However, the overall 

reduction in prescribed burning is approx. 212 acres less than Alternative 2. 

Summary

Effects of vegetation management would be evident; however they will replicate 

textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the 

planning area and the surrounding area. This Alternative would leave a more 

natural appearing vegetation pattern on the landscape than Alternative 2. When 

Design Criteria is followed, these treatments would meet their assigned SIO and 

be consistent with the Black Hills National Forest LRMP for Scenic Integrity. 

Cumulative Effects 

The geographic boundary for analyzing cumulative effects is the planning area. 

This identified area is the landscape that is evident in the foreground and middle 

ground from the main travel routes of moving through the landscape. 

The time boundary for this analysis extends from 2000,when the Jasper Fire 

occurred (and Roger Shack Fire in 2001) when the quantity and distribution of 

vegetation changed radically in this landscape, to 2040 [completion of 

management activities (2020), followed by 5 years for pine seedlings to become 

established, and approx. 25 years for trees to grow up and visually ‘fill’ open 

areas]. This time period includes known management activities, and activities 

that are planned but have yet to be accomplished. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

167 

Fire suppression over the past century has played a role in the increased density 

of the vegetation on the forest. Likewise, much of the Forest was precommercially thinned by the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s and 1940s, 

however we do not know if that effort included any or all of this planning area. 

From 1980 to 2000, commercial vegetation treatments and precommercial 

thinning was conducted in this landscape. However, the 2000 and 2001 fires 

within this area greatly affected the vegetation patterns in this landscape. These 

large wildfires are readily apparent from highways and trails. These two fires 

visually display the range of ecological processes from natural fires (during the 

heat of the summer when fuel moisture is low). As a result, forested areas 

generally draw the viewer’s attention in this landscape. Vegetation will become 

more scrutinized – as it is less common in this landscape. As a result, the 

patterns created through treatments will also be more evident.

Since these fires, management of the area has been limited. Ongoing cattle 

grazing is the only vegetation management that has been occurring within the 

planning area. 

Alternative 2 

Under this alternative, trees of all sizes would be removed. The resulting 

appearance of vegetation treatments will change little for the first 10 years after 

the treatments are completed. Any treatments will result in fewer trees across 

the landscape - reducing risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and fire hazard 

– the reduction is similar, but varies by alternative – due to the remaining density 

(basal area) of the trees. 

The variety of treatments should produce a natural appearing landscapes – but 

whole landforms with similar treatments and fewer trees – as if fire had continued 

to play its natural roll all along. Views of these treatments will be limited from 

Sensitivity Level 1 or 2 roads inside or outside the planning area, due to the 

topography surrounding the planning area. 

Within the planning area, activities will be more evident. The variety of 

treatments will create a variety of vegetation patterns, colors, and improve 

opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Restoration treatments to increase 

hardwoods and meadows may take time to appear natural – but long term they 

will improve the visual diversity in the landscape. Under burning will reduce fuel 

levels to natural levels – a positive ecological & scenic characteristic of frequent 

fires in a pine ecosystem. Treatments should meet a range of SIOs from Low to 

High after being completed. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

168 

Alternative 3 

Under this alternative, cumulative effects are less than of Alternative 2, with the 

differences as noted in the Direct Effects section and below. 

Although not treating as large an area as Alternative 2 – through commercial 

vegetation treatments – the results should be more natural appearing. 

The prescribed fire treatments, given the scale (approx. 17,000 acres) the effects 

will essentially be the same as Alternative 2 from a Scenery standpoint. 

Economics 

This economics section includes two separate parts; a financial efficiency 

analysis pertaining to the costs and benefits associated with the proposed 

mechanical vegetation treatments, and a display and discussion of expected 

costs associated with proposed prescribed burning. The economics review was 

divided in this way because the only financial benefit that may be claimed is the 

value of the commercial timber harvested. While the proposed prescribed 

burning would result in positive effects to resource conditions, these effects 

cannot be quantified in a financial manner. There are no revenue figures 

associated with reducing fire hazard or improving wildlife habitat, for instance. 

Financial and Economic Efficiency for Mechanical Vegetation Treatments 

Only 

The financial efficiency analysis for mechanical vegetation treatments, only, was 

generated using QUICKSILVER, a Forest Service economic analysis program 

customized for the Rocky Mountain Region. The economic analysis only 

includes direct costs and revenues to the Forest Service that would occur over 

the next 5 to 15 years. The economic analysis does not include an estimate of 

non-monetary values for other resource benefits such as fuels reductions, 

wildlife, recreation or forage. The complete analysis resides in the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project file on the Hell Canyon Ranger District. 

The objective of the analysis is to provide a relative comparison of the costs and 

revenues associated with implementing the three alternatives being analyzed. 

Only those revenues and costs that are recorded in financial records are included 

in this analysis. There are non-monetary benefits associated with activities 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

169 

occurring in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area that are not included 

in this analysis. No monetary values or costs that have been established by 

USDA Forest Service. While some research studies have explored the 

development of such values, it is reasonable to handle these items in a nonmonetary fashion. This analysis does not include the monetary benefit of 

reducing fire hazard or other resource benefits. 

Economic concerns are important considerations of National Forest management 

and a general discussion has been included. 

Goal 8 of the Forest Plan discusses ways the Black Hills National Forest can 

promote rural development opportunities. Desired future conditions for local 

economic conditions include: recognizing local community dependency on 

National Forest activities; recognizing local goals to maintain desired lifestyles 

and social values; providing local employment and income opportunities. 

The main criterion used in assessing financial efficiency is present net value 

(PNV), which is defined as the value of discounted benefits (or revenues) minus 

discounted costs. The efficiency analysis completed here estimates the net 

financial returns of each alternative. Table 36 displays the financial efficiency 

analysis for each alternative. All monetary values are expressed in constant 

dollars with no allowance for inflation. A four percent discount rate was used 

over a 10-year period (2010-2020). Revenues are not reduced for payments 

made to states and counties. The reduction of PNV in any alternative as 

compared to the most financially or economically efficient solution is the 

economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative.

 

The benefits that have been quantified include only the commercial sale of 

timber. The costs which have been quantified are those associated with those 

timber sale activities including timber preparation and administration, road 

maintenance, and noxious weed treatment. 

There are 3 action alternatives being analyzed for management of the Hell 

Canyon Maintenance Burn Project area. Direct costs of implementing these 

alternatives are included. Costs for pre-commercial thinning, fuels treatments, 

and weed control are all based on the planning costs used in recent timber sales. 

These costs include district administration and overhead. Though costs could be 

distributed in different ways over the analysis period, the important aspect is to 

keep assumptions consistent across alternatives to facilitate meaningful 

comparisons. In this analysis, the most important economic information is the 

relative differences between alternatives. Scheduling of activities that follow the 

sale is based upon a 5-year sale length and District specialist’s experience with 

timing of activities. 
Chapter 3 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

170 

All cost and benefit values were entered into the QuickSilver program. This 

program analyzes the costs and benefits for a variety of investments or 

operations in order to compare the economic performance (costs and revenues) 

associated with each alternative. The results of the analysis are displayed in the 

table below. The values shown are intended to show relative efficiency of each 

alternative and serve as a means of comparing alternatives. The values would 

fluctuate with changes in costs and stumpage values, and do not reflect actual 

costs and revenues. 

Table 36: Financial Analysis Results by Alternative, for Mechanical 

Vegetation Treatments Only. 

Financial 

Measure 

Alternative 1 –

No Action 

Alternative 2 –

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3

Present Value 

Costs 

NA -$1,611,261 -$641,854 

Present Value 

Benefits 

NA $133,491 $68, 291 

Present Net 

Value (PNV) 

NA -$1,477,770 -$573,563 

Benefit/Cost 

Ratio 

NA 0.08 0.11 

Source: Quicksilver, 2000. Figures may not add due to discounting and rounding. 

All three action alternatives show negative PNV figures because the costs of the 

project outweigh the financial benefits that were enumerated in this analysis. A 

majority of the benefits from this project would be long-term and are difficult to 

value in terms of dollars. Benefits associated with reduced fire hazard, improved 

health and vigor of forested stands, increased wildlife habitat diversity, scenery, 

noxious weed control, riparian protection and watershed improvements are not 

included in the PNV analysis, but are important to consider. 

Disclosure of Expected Costs to Implement Fuel Reduction Treatments 

As discussed earlier, there are no quantified financial benefits associated with 

effects from the proposed prescribed burning. Therefore, a financial analysis of 

the discounted costs and financial benefits is not possible. This section displays 

the total expected costs associated with only the fuels reduction portion of this 

project. 

Three activities are proposed and their total costs listed in Table 37. These costs 

include prescribed burning at $437/acre, deadfall treatment at $350/acre, and 

noxious weed treatment following prescribed burning at $250/acre. Noxious 

weed treatment is a follow-up treatment which is included as part of the project 

design. The extent of noxious weeds following treatment is unknown. It is 

estimated that there may be as few as 2% and as much as 20% of the prescribe 

burned area infested. The range of costs shown in Table 33 for noxious weed 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 3 

171 

treatment reflects this potential range of infestation. The actual costs would 

occur within this range. 

 Table 37: Total Costs of Fuels Treatments 

Financial 

Measure 

Alternative 1 –

No Action 

Alternative 2 –

Proposed 

Action 

Alternative 3

Prescribed Fire NA $7,422,882 $7,229,728 

Deadfall NA $274,750 $44,800 

Noxious Weed 

Treatment 

NA $85,000-

$849,250 

$82,750-

$827,250 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

172 

CHAPTER 4. LITERATURE CITED 

Allen, Kurt K. (December 2003) Evaluation of MPB Activity on the Black Hills 

National Forest. Forest Health Evaluation R2-04-02. Rapid City Service 

Center, Rapid City, SD.

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/american

_dipper.pdf. 

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment of woodpeckers in the Black Hills 

 National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 176 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/woodpeck

ers.pdf. 

Anderson, T. 2004. Callused vertigo (Vertigo authuri): A technical conservation 

 assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

 http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf. 

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire 

Behavior. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-122, 22p. 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah 84401. 

Available on-line at < http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf> 

Batagglia, Mike, A.; Smith, Frederick W.; Shepperd, Wayne D. (2008) “Can 

Prescribed Fire be Used to Maintain Fuel Treatment Effectiveness Over 

Time in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Forests?” Forest Ecology and 

Management, 256, 2029-2038. 

Beason, J., K. Hutton, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2006. Monitoring 

the Birds of the Black Hills: 2005 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M

 MBBH05-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 113 pp. 

BehavePlus fire modeling system. Available on-line at<http://www.firemodels.org 

Blakesly, J.A., G. Giroir, and C. White. 2008. Population densities and trend 

detection of avian species on the Black Hills National Forest. Tech. Rep. 

M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 45pp. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

173 

Brown, James K.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Kramer, Kylie A. 2003. Coarse 

woody debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering 

forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 16 p. 

Cannings, R. J. 1993. Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). In: The 

Birds of North America, No. 42. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia. 

Clark, T. W. and M. R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Museum of 

Natural History. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 314 pp. 

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species 

in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica. 3: 43-52. 

Curtis, O. E., R. N. Rosenfield and J. Bielefeldt. 2006. Cooper’s Hawk. 

(Accipiter cooperii). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). 

Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of 

North America Online database: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Coopers_Hawk/.

Deal, Krista, 2003 Fire Effects to Flaked Stone, Ground Stone, and Other Stone 

Artifacts. Chapter 4 In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on 

Cultural Resources and Archeology, Edited by Anne Trinkle Jones and 

Kevin C. Ryan. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 3. Ogden, 

Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Dechant, J. A., M. F. Dinkins, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, B. D. 

Parkin, and B. R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on 

grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Jamestown, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/upsa/upsa.htm. 

(Version 12DEC2003). 

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst and S. H. Anderson. 1991. 

Forest and rangeland birds of the United States, Natural History and 

Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service- Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp. 

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003. 2003 survey results for small forest 

owls, the northern goshawk and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, 

South Dakota. Report prepared for South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

174 

Fire Family Plus version 4.0.2 (September 2008) Available on-line 

at<http://www.firemodels.org 

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming summary Report, 1991-

2001. USDA Forest Service. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South 

Dakota. 127 pp. 

Frison, George C. 1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, 

 New York. 

 

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation assessment of the pygmy nuthatch in the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/pygmy_n

uthatch.pdf

Giroir G., C.White and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills, 

2007 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 81 pp. 

Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. 2004 Science Basis for 

Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Available on-line at <http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr120.pdf> 

Griffin, S. L., L. A. Rice, C. S. DePerno, and J. A. Jenks. 1999. Seasonal 

movements and home ranges of white-tailed deer in the central Black 

Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming, 1993-97. South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks, Pittman-Robertson Game Rep., W-75-R-34, 

Pierre, South Dakota. 

Griffin, Steve. 2009. Personal communication- wildlife biologist, ungulates in 

Jasper. South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks. Rapid City, South Dakota. 

Haecker, Charles 2003 Fire Effects on Material of the historic Period. Chapter 6 

in Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and 

Archeology, edited by Anne Trinkle Jones and Kevin C. Ryan. General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 3. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

175 

Hann, Wendel, Havlina, Doug, Shlisky, Ayn, et al. 2003. Interagency and The 

Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest 

Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and 

Systems for Environmental Management 

Available on-line at 

<http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=309&&PageID=1

397&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true> 

Higgins, K. F., E. D. Stukel, J. M. Goulet, and D. C. Backlund. 2000. Wild 

mammals of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 278 pp. 

Huffman, David W., and Margaret M. Moore. March 2004. Responses of Fendler 

ceanothus to overstory thinning, prescribed fire, and drought in an Arizona 

ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. Pg 105-115. 

Hunter, M.E.; Shepperd, W.D.; Lentile, J.E.; Lundquist, J.E.; Andreu, M.G.; 

Butler, J.L.; Smith, F.W. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment 

practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, and 

Southwest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-198. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Available on-line at < http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr198.pdf> 

Hutton K., J. Beason, G. Giroir, A. Panjabi, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2007. 

Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: 2006 Field Season Report. Tech. 

Rep. M-MBBH06-01. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 71 pp. 

Huxoll, C. 2007. 2006 annual report: Big game harvest projections. South 

Dakota Game Report N0. 2007-03. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 74pp. 

Huxoll, C. 2008. 2007 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South 

Dakota Game Report No, 2008-02. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 72 pp. 

Huxoll, C. 2009. 2008 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South 

Dakota Game Report No, 2009-03. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish 

and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 75 pp. 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

176 

Isaak, D. J., W. A. Hubert, and C. R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment 

for lake chub, mountain sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South 

Dakota. 64 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_suc

ker_dace.pdf. 

Jewel Cave National Monument, Hilltop Prescribed Fire (RX Fire Summary). 

October 30, 2008 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America. 

Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D. C. 403 pp. 

Johnson, A. S. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the 

northern saw-whet owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota 

and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 27pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_

saw_whet_owl.pdf. 

Joy, S. M. 1990. Feeding ecology of sharp-shinned hawks and nest-site 

characteristics of accipiters in Colorado. Masters Thesis, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins. 

Keeling, Hal, 1993. The Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources. Ms on file, Black 

Hills National Forest 

Keyser, Tara L.; Lentile, Leigh B.; Smith, Frederick W.; Shepperd, Wayne E. 

(2008) “Changes in Forest Structure After a Large, Mixed-Severity Wildfire 

in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Black Hills, South Dakota, USA“ Forest 

Science, 54 (3), 328-338. 

Kingery, H. E. and C. K. Ghalambor. 2001. Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). 

In: the birds of North America, No. 567. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Knight, Wouldiam, 1994. The Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources: A Survey of 

Literature Pertaining to Fire Control and Management. Ms on fire, Black 

Hills National Forest. 

Lentil, Leigh B.; Smith, Frederick W.; Shepper, Wayne D. (2006). “Influence of 

Topography and Forest Structure on Patterns of Mixed Severity Fire in 

Ponderosa Pine Forests of the South Dakota Black Hills, USA” 

International Journal of Wildland Fire, 15, 557-566. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

177 

Luce, B., A. Cerovski, B. Oakleaf, J. Priday, and L.Van Fleet. 1999. Atlas of 

birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, Wildlife Division, Biological Services Section, 

Lander, Wyoming. 

Marriot, H. and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2000. The Black Hills Community 

Inventory, Volume 2: Plant Community Descriptions. The Nature 

Conservancy, Midwest Conservation Science Center and Association for 

Biodiversity Information. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 326 pp. 

Marrone, G. M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota 

 Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 478 pp. 

Mohren, S. 2002. Habitat evaluation and density estimates for the black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) and northern three-toed woodpecker 

(Picoide tridactylus) in the Black Hills National Forest. M.Sc. Thesis, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 110pp.

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America, 

 Third Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. 480 pp. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2006. Fireline Handbook Appendix B: 

Fire Behavior. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, US 

Department of Interior, National Association of Foresters. April, 2006. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

 application]. Version 7.0. Arlington, Virginia 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed October 2008. 

Nekola, J. C. 2003. Large-scale terrestrial gastropod community composition 

patterns in the Great Lakes region of North America. Diversity and 

Distributions 9: 55-71. 

Noisat, Bradley A. 2005. North Unit of the South Analysis Area: Heritage 

Resource Inventory, Monitoring and Evaluation. Black Hills National 

Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Custer and Pennington Counties. 

CRI # R2005020300115 

Padilla, Matthew J., Ami Schlosser, and Candace Keierleber. 2009,A Level III 

Cultural Resource Inventory of the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

Analysis Area, Custer and Pennington Counties, South Dakota. Black Hills 

National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District. CRI # R2008020300120 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

178 

Panjabi, A. 2001. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 1. Final Report, 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, Colorado. 96 pp. 

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 2. Final Report. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. Fort Collins, Colorado. 125 pp. 

Panjabi, A. 2004. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 3. Annual Report 

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 58 pp. 

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills: Year 4. Annual Report 

submitted to Black Hills National Forest. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, Colorado. 67 pp. 

Parrish, J.B., D.J. Herman, D.J. Reyher, and Black Hills National Forest. 1996. A 

century of change in the Black Hills forest and riparian ecosystems. 

USDA Forest Service Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA, South 

Dakota State University. 13p. 

Peterson, R. A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home 

page. Jamestown, North Dakota. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/sdatlas/sdatlas.htm. 

Platt, J. B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. 

Condor. 78:102-103. 

Powder River Eagle Studies. 2000. Northern Black Hills broad-winged hawk 

occurrence and distribution study. Phase Two Conclusion: Nest Search & 

Summary of Nest Site Characteristics. Submitted to: Wharf Resources 

Partnership, HC 37, Box 811, Lead, South Dakota. 

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. DeVos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. 

Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats 

in Northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(2):612-621. 

Reynolds, R. T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for 

nesting accipiter hawks. General Technical Report RM-102. USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Reynolds, E. C. Meslow and H. M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting 

accipiter in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46:124-138. 

Richardson, A. H. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Bulletin Number 2. 24 pp. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

179 

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest 

Cultural Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National 

Forest, Supervisor’s Office 

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson and M. A. Penninger. 2004. 

Effects of roads on elk: Implications for management in forested 

ecosystems. Transactions of the sixty-ninth North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference: resource stewardship in the 21st century: 

a voyage of rediscovery: March 16-20, 2004, Spokane, Washington. 

Washington D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, p. 491-508.

Royer, R. A., and G. M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary 

(Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Rep. to the U.S. Department 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp. 

Rumble, M. A., and S. H. Anderson. 1996. Microhabitats of Merriam’s Turkeys in 

the Black Hills, South Dakota. Ecological Applications 6(1) 326-334. 

Rumble, M. A., L. Benkobi and R. S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in 

densely roaded area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. Vol. 11, 

No.102:10-24. June 2005 

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic 

management direction on the Black Hills National Forest. Science 

Application International Corporation. SAIC project number 01-0209-04-

4456-106. 

Sandrini, J. 2007b. 2006 job completion report, mule deer. Casper Region, Herd 

Unit .751. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Newcastle. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American breeding bird 

survey, results and analysis 1966-2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_

myotis.pdf

Schmidt, C. A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

180 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_foo

ted_bat.pdf. 

 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003c. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_ear_

bat.pdf. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in 

the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_legg

ed_bat.pdf

Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A 

Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 72p. 

Shepperd, Wayne D.; Battaglia, Michael A. 2002. Ecology, Silviculture, and 

Management of Black Hills Ponderosa Pine. General Technical Report. 

RMRS-GTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p. 

Sieg, C.H., and K.E. Severson. 1996. Managing Habitats for White-Tailed Deer: 

Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. 

General Technical Report RM-GTR- 274. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Smith, Frederick. “reburn”. Email to Blaine Cook. 25 July 2010. 

Smith, Jim, 1999. Protecting Archaeological Sites with Prescribed Fire. Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, 

April 23-25, Sacramento California. 

Smith, K.G., J.H. Withgott, and P.G. Rodewald. 2000. Red-headed Woodpecker 

(Melanerpes erythrocephalus), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of 

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/518
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

181 

Smith, Rusty, Wouldiam Harding, Jeffry Shelton, and Shane Hope. 2006, 

Archaeological Investigations of the South Analysis Unit, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer County, South Dakota. CRI# R2004020300052. 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP). 2006. Rare, threatened or 

 endangered animals tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage 

Program. South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm. 

South Dakota State Historical Society. 2005, Guidelines for Cultural Resource 

Surveys and Survey Reports in South Dakota (For Review and 

Compliance). 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in 

the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills 

National Forest. March 2001. 

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the 

Cooper’s hawk and Sharp-shinned hawk in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/assessments/coopers_ss_hawk.

pdf. 

Sundstrom, Linea. 1989, Culture History of the Black Hills with Reference to 

 Adjacent Areas of the Northern Great Plains. J & L Reprint Company, 

Lincoln, NE. 

Tallman, D. A., D. L. Swanson, and J. S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. 

Third Edition. Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

441 pp. 

Timmons, Rebecca S., Leonard DeBano, Alston Thoms. 2000, Kootenai National 

Forest Prescribed Fire Effects Monitoring Report, 1996-1999. USDA 

Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 

Turner, R. W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. 

 University of Kansas. Museum of Natural History. Miscellaneous 

Publication 60:1-178. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final environmental impact statement for the 

revised land and resources management plan for the Black Hills National 

Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. December 1996. Available on-line 

at <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml> 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

182 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2000. Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment. US Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South 

Dakota. September, 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Black Hills National Forest monitoring and 

evaluation report for fiscal year 2000 (October 1999 through September 

2000). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2003. Fire and Archaeology: A workshop Addressing 

Fire Behavior, the Federal Fire Policy, and Managing Risks to Cultural 

Resources. Prepared by Region 5, Forest Service, Vallejo, California. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2003. Kraft Springs Fire Hazard Abatement and 

Restoration Project-Environmental Analysis. US Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service, Custer National Forest. Camp Crook, South 

Dakota. March, 2003. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Black Hills National Forest 2002 monitoring and 

five-year evaluation report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. FY2003 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final environmental impact statement for the 

 phase II amendment to the 1997 revised land and resource management 

plan for the Black Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

October, 2005. Available on-line at 

 <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml> 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Forest Service Manual, Black Hills National 

Forest. FSM 2600 – wildlife, fish and sensitive plant habitat 

management. Chapter 20 – habitat planning and evaluation. Supplement 

number: r2_bh_2600-2005-7. 

http://fsweb/directives/fsm/2600/bh_supp_2600-2005-1.doc. 

 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 4 

183 

 USDA-Forest Service. 2006a. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Black Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II 

Amendment. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. March, 2006. Available on-line at 

<http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml> 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. FY2005 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. FY2006 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. FY2007 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

South Dakota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 93pp. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2008/BCC2008m.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2009. FY2008 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

South Dakota. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2009. Black Hills National Forest Fire Management Plan. 

US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. April, 2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and 

Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, 

Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Region 2 Supplement No. 

2600-2009-1. Forest Denver, CO. Effective: June 9, 2009. 

Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the Black Hills Ponderosa Pine 

Type and Spruce Type. 1990. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain 

Region. 

Vonhof, M. J. and R. M. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the 

western long-eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):674-684. 
Chapter 4 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

184 

Wakeling, B. F., S. Weimann, T. Jackson, B. Dowler, M. Eacret, and J. Gillis. 

1999.c Ponderosa Pine Tree Selection by Roosting Merriam’s Turkeys in 

North-Central Arizona. In Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of 

Research on the Colorado Plateau. USGS Southwest Biological Science 

Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station. Pp. 119-124

White, C. and G. Giroir. 2009. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills, 2008 Field 

Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH-USFS08, SDDGF08. Rocky

Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 57 pp. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 5 

185 

CHAPTER 5. LIST OF PREPARERS 

Interdisciplinary Team

Lynn Kolund District Ranger – Bachelor of Science, Forest Biology, 

Colorado State University, 1978. Thirty-one years of Forest 

Service experience in timber, silviculture, recreation, 

wilderness, fire and lands. Worked on seven districts and

two Supervisor’s offices on six National Forests in Wyoming, 

Colorado, Alaska and South Dakota. 

Gwen Lipp IDT Leader- Bachelor of Science, Environmental 

Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and 

Technology, 2004. Ten years of Forest Service experience 

at the district and national level in fire operations, fuels, 

timber, prescribed fire and planning. Current qualifications 

include: Incident Commander Type 4, Dozer Boss, Engine

Boss, Prescribed Fire Effects Monitor, Prescribed Fire 

Ignition Specialist, Resource Unit Leader, Situation Unit 

Leader, Task Force Leader trainee, Burn Boss Type 2 

trainee and Planning Section Chief trainee. 

 

Kelly Honors District NEPA Coordinator – Bachelor of Science, Forestry, 

State University of New York, College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry, 1985. Twenty six years of Forest 

Service experience at the district level in timber and 

planning; twenty-three of those years on the Black Hills 

National Forest. Twenty-two years experience in writing 

NEPA documents. 

Amy Ham Fire/Fuels- Fire/Fuels Specialist-Bachelor of Science, 

Biology, Chadron State College, 2000. Eleven years of 

experience at the district and forest level in fire, fuels, 

recreation, wilderness, prescribed fire, and fire planning on 

the Black Hills National Forest. Experienced in Forest 

Service wildland fire and prescribed fire practices and 

management in regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. Currently the 

fire planner on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Nancy Bayne Silviculturalist – Bachelor of Science, Forest Resources with 

an emphasis in Silviculture, University of Minnesota, 1986. 

Twenty-one years of Forest Service experience in timber at 

the district level on the Black Hills National Forest. Six years 

in current silviculturalist position. 
Chapter 5 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

186 

Tracy Clark Wildlife Biologist- Graduated from the University of 

Wisconsin-Stevens Point in 1990 with a B.S. in Wildlife 

Management and a minor in Environmental Law 

Enforcement. Eight seasons (1989-1994, 2000-2001) of 

wildlife experience as a Biological Technician with the Forest 

Service, Park Service and BLM in South Dakota, Idaho and 

Oregon. From 1994-1996 worked as a private consultant

with the Minnesota DNR writing land stewardship plans and 

performing forest inventory. From 1996-2001 worked as a 

contractor performing stand exam on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Have been a Wildlife Biologist on the Black Hills 

National Forest since January of 2002. 

Sara Erickson GIS- Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources, Minor in 

Soils, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, 1998. 

Associate of Arts degree, Wilderness Management, 

Vermillion Community College, 1995. Sixteen years of 

Forest Service experience on the Superior NF, St. Joe NF, 

Shoshone NF, Clearwater NF and Black Hills NF in GIS, 

wilderness, trails, timber, range, fire and fuels management. 

Cynthia Buckert Rangeland Management Specialist – BS in Range Science 

from SD State University, 1985; Qualified for OPM 430 

series (Botany) in 2003; Twelve years of Forest Service 

experience as a Rangeland Management Specialist on the

Nebraska, Toiyabe and Black Hills National Forests; Five 

years experience conducting plant surveys and sensitive 

plant surveys on the Black Hills National Forest 

Matthew Scott Botanist- B.S. Rangeland Ecology and Watershed 

Management; Minor, Reclamation and Restoration Ecology; 

Extensive coursework in soils and botanical sciences, 2006. 

Three years experience fuels, wildland and prescribed fire 

management. Four years experience as a Natural Resource 

Specialist for Laramie Rivers Conservation District focused

in rangeland management, vegetation monitoring, and

wildlife habitat management. Qualified for OPM 430 Series 

(Botanist) in 2010. Six months experience as Botanist on 

the Black Hills National Forest. 

Matthew Padilla Archaeologist-Archaeologist- Master of Arts in Anthropology 

and Minor in GIS from New Mexico State University, 2006. 

Bachelors of Arts in Anthropology from Kansas State 

University, 2003. Three field seasons as an Archaeological 

Technician for the Black Hills National Forest (2002, 2004, 

2005). One year as a SCEP archaeologist on the Plumas
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 5 

187 

National Forest (2006). Four years of Forest Service 

experience as an Archaeologist at the district level, six years 

as a fire archaeologist, and five years as a BAER 

archaeologist. USFS experience in California and South 

Dakota. 

Jessica Gould Hydrologist – Bachelor of Science (2000) and Master of 

Science (2004) in Civil Engineering, focusing on water

resources, from the South Dakota School of Mines and 

Technology (SDSM&T). Master’s thesis conducted on the 

Black Hills NF, studying post-fire watershed responses after

the Jasper Fire of 2000. PhD candidate in Geology & 

Geological Engineering, focusing on hydrogeology 

(groundwater), also from SDSM&T. Doctoral research 

focuses on identification and characterization of peatforming, groundwater-dependent wetlands called fens in the 

Black Hills. Fourteen years of experience with the Forest 

Service at the district and SO levels, eleven in soil and water 

resources management, and 10 years working on the Black 

Hills NF. Nationally Registered and State licensed EMTIntermediate and volunteer fire fighter with Hill City Fire and 

Ambulance Services. Hydrologist on the DOI National 

Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

Team since 2003, lead Hydrologist since 2007. Assessed 

post-fire watershed conditions on over 5 million acres 

associated with fires in SD, WY, MT, ID, NV, and CA. 

David Pickford Recreation - Bachelor of Arts in Outdoor Recreation from 

Eastern Washington University, 1984. Eighteen years of

Forest Service experience as the District level in timber, 

firefighting, trails, recreation and wilderness on the Ottawa 

and Black Hills National Forests. USFS, NPS and USFWS

field experience in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, 

UP Michigan as well as NH State Parks. Former USAF 

Survival Specialist and USAF (civilian) Outdoor Adventure 

Program Staff. 

 

Jeff Tomac Range/Weeds- Rangeland Management Specialist – BS in 

Range Science, Minor in Soil Science from South Dakota 

State University, 1991; Nineteen years of Forest Service 

experience as a Rangeland Management Specialist on the

Grand River, Cedar River and Thunder Basin National 

Grasslands and Medbow/Rout and Black Hills National 

Forests. 

Meagan Buehler Lands/Minerals-Bachelor of Science, Forestry, minor in 

Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of Massachusetts-
Chapter 5 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

188 

Amherst, 1997. Eleven years experience with the Forest

Service at the district level for the Black Hills National Forest 

currently as District Lands Specialist . One season 

experience with the BLM in Oregon as a forester-stand

exams and timber sale preparation. 

Stephen Keegan Forest Landscape Architect - Bachelor of Science, 

Landscape Architecture & Environmental Studies, State 

University of New York (SUNY) - College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry, 1980; Bachelor of Science, Syracuse 

University 1980; Associates of Arts, Humanities, SUNY - 

Onondaga Community College, 1978. Twenty-eight years of 

Forest Service experience at the Forest and Zone level on 

the Helena, Clearwater, Malheur & Black Hills National 

Forests. Of which twenty-one years have been as a 

Landscape Architect conducting Scenic Resource 

Assessments for: vegetation and fuels management, 

watershed analysis, utility & facility construction, wild & 

scenic rivers, scenic byways, and burned area emergency 

rehabilitation. 

Margaret Farrell GIS/Database Management Specialist – Bachelor of 

Science, Geology, University of Wyoming, 1985. Eighteen 

years of Forest Service experience in database 

management, including fourteen years experience in ESRI 

GIS products. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 6 

189 

CHAPTER 6. CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this 

environmental assessment: 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Crook County Courthouse 

Custer County Courthouse 

Fall River County Courthouse 

Jewel Cave National Monument 

Lawrence County Courthouse 

Meade County Courthouse 

Pennington County Courthouse 

Pennington County Planning Department 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

South Dakota Department of Forestry 

South Dakota Division of Forestry 

South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks 

State of South Dakota Department of Transportation 

State Planning Coordinators Office 

Upton Branch Library 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Weston County Courthouse 

WY Stock Growers Association 

Wyoming Dept. of Game and Fish 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Wyoming State Forestry 

TRIBES: 

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Grey Eagle Society 

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor for Preservation 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Mandan Hidatsa & Arikara Tribes 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 
Chapter 6 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

190 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Santee Sioux Nation 

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS AND BUSINESSESS: 

BH Forest Resource Association 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Black Hills 4-Wheelers 

Black Hills Electric Cooperative 

Black Hills Group Sierra Club 

Black Hills Power and Light 

Black Hills Timbermans Association 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Boy Scouts of America 

Dakota Territory Cruisers 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Wildlife Federation 

Native Ecosystems Council 

Pacer Corporation 

Pope and Talbot INC 

Prairie Hills Audubon Society 

R E Linde Sawmills INC 

Richards, Hood, Brady and Nies 

Rushmore Forest Products 

South Dakota Association of Professional Archeologists 

South Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club 

The Fund for Animals 

Wind River Multiple Use Advocates 

Wyoming Association of Historians 

INDIVIDUALS: 

Alexander, Roy & Donna 

Andersen, Clay & Donelda 

Andersen, Wade 

Bauer, Robert D 

Berkemeier, Wouldiam & Donna 

Climenti, Kenneth P 

Davis, Russell & Lorraine 

Englebert, Evertett & Dawn 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Chapter 6 

191 

Foldenauer, Harrey & Floven 

Franklin, Charles & Tamela 

Hofer, Robert & Lori 

Hunt, Tracy & Donna 

Hunter, Sam & Tana 

Johnke, Dennis 

Kahler, Asher 

Laverick, Jim & Carol 

Mcmacken, Robert & Norma 

Meyer, Carol 

Morgenstern, Ross & Troy 

Morrison, Mike 

Muller, Robert & Gail 

O'donnell, Harold & Linda 

Patton, Dennis & Jean 

Pavelkey, Phyllis 

Peterson, Ronald 

Pitts, James & Charel 

Pitts, Virgil & Bena 

Rohest, John 

Ronston, Thomas 

Saathoff, Richard & Mary 

Sallee, Harold & Jana 

Sanders, Clayton 

Smith, Frederick 

Schriner, Margaret 

Tysdal, Garret 

Tysdal, Harold 

Wattsworth, James 
Chapter 7 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

192 

CHAPTER 7. APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Maps 

Appendix B – Design Criteria 

Appendix C – Monitoring Plan 

Appendix D – Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation 

Appendix E – Past, Present, Future Activities 

Appendix F – Silviculture Findings 

Appendix G – Treatment by Location 

Appendix H – Follow-Up Activities 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-1 

Appendix A: Maps 

 Map 1: Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Vicinity Map 

 Map 2: Alternative 2, Tile Legend 

 Map 3: Alternative 2, Tile 1 

 Map 4: Alternative 2, Tile 2 

 Map 5: Alternative 2, Tile 3 

Map 6: Alternative 2, Tile 4 

Map 7: Alternative 3, Tile Legend 

 Map 8: Alternative 3, Tile 1 

 Map 9: Alternative 3, Tile 2 

 Map 10: Alternative 3, Tile 3 

Map 11: Alternative 3, Tile 4 

Map 12: Management Areas 

Map 13: Watersheds 

Map 14: Streams
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-2 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-3 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-4 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-5 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-6 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-7 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-8 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-9 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-10 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-11 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-12 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-13 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-14 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix A 

A-15 
Appendix A Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

A-16 

This page left intentionally blank
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-1 

Appendix B: Design Criteria for the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project 

The following design criteria are listed by resource area and do not suggest any 

particular order of priority. All activities proposed in this project, including postsale activities and monitoring, require use of the design criteria. 

Botany 

 The district botanist will be consulted during burn planning to identify 

suitable habitat for R2 Sensitive and SOLC Species that will need 

special attention. 

 Areas that are probable habitat for Iowa moonwort and narrowleaf 

grapefern, as well as known occurrences (Dead Horse Flats area) will 

be burned in the fall rather than in the spring. 

 Any identified occurrences of Iowa moonwort and/or narrowleaf 

grapefern will be avoided by mechanized equipment – i.e. no new 

roads, skid trails, dozer lines, or timber landings. 

 Monitoring/surveying for sensitive species and SOLC plants will be 

ongoing. Management of any new occurrences as well as the existing 

known occurrences will be considered as burn plans are developed for 

the area. 

 Prescribed burning will occur prior to green-up in the spring or 

following curing in the fall. 

 Do not develop springs or seeps as water facilities where sensitive 

species or species of local concern exist unless development mitigate 

an existing risk. Standard 3104

 Riparian areas or wetlands, where populations of sensitive plants are 

located, should be protected during and after trail, road, and highway 

construction activities. Standard 3106

 A R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after 

contract or permit formation will be appropriately managed by active 

coordination between permittee, contractor or purchaser, Forest 

Service line officer, project administrator, and biologist and/or botanist. 

Solutions need to be based on the circumstances of each new

discovery and must consider the species need, contractual obligations 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-2 

and costs, and mitigation measures available at the time of discovery.

Standard 3115

Fire/Fuels 

• Promote revegetation of prescribed burned areas. Guideline 4106 

a) Following broadcast burning, seeding to initiate revegetation if 

ground cover is 60 percent or less and slopes are 30 percent or 

more. 

b) If piled and burned fuel creates ash piles deeper than three inches, 

the ash will be scattered, the piles scarified and the remaining ash 

mixed with mineral soil, or buried. 

• Slash piles that are scheduled for burning will be located out of meadows 

that contribute to Waters of the United States. Use a buffer distance 

designed to keep sediment, ash and debris out of channels. Guideline 

4111 

• All prescribed burn treatments will meet with the provisions of the Clean 

Air Act. District personnel will be monitoring burn conditions and the 

SASEM (Smoke Model), or an equivalent program would be used to 

assure provisions are being met. The impacts of burning on metropolitan 

areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at the time of burning. 

• Use the appropriate suppression response for each management area. 

Standard 4101

• Activity fuels will be treated along forest collector roads and forest 

development trails to meet the adopted SIO. Activity fuels along arterial 

roads will remove 70-90% of activity fuels up to 300 feet from roads edge. 

Debris piles will be burned as soon as practical after remaining on-site for 

at least 2 years (Guideline 4112 states that debris will be treated within 1 

year of harvest completion, which generally allows for at least 2 years of 

drying time for piles. The 2 year timeframe for piles to be on-site prior to 

burning is added to insure piles are dry enough for successful treatment). 

• Visual effects of prescribed fire will comply with the approved scenic 

integrity objective of the area. Standard 4104

• When feasible and appropriate use broadcast burning to dispose of slash 

in order to return the inorganic and organic chemicals in the foliage and 

small woody material to the soil, to reduce fire hazard, and to provide seed 

beds for natural regeneration. Guideline 4105 (Amended Regional Guide Silviculture 

Guideline).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-3 

• Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of 

the following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. Guideline 

4107. 

• Prescribed burn plans will identify acceptable levels of tree mortality for 

seedling/saplings, poles, and sawtimber; burning prescriptions will be 

established to meet these levels. In planning prescribed burns, consider 

how the potential loss of trees is offset by the beneficial effects of fire in 

terms of overall stand health and wood fiber production. Consider value 

recovery if tree mortality exceeds project objectives. Guideline 4108. 

• All sale activities would maintain snags and green tree replacement trees 

at levels determined to be non-detrimental to wildlife populations. This 

would include trees greater to or equal to 20” in diameter, or whatever 

representative DBH of the overstory is deemed possible to maintain 

potential population levels of cavity excavators. This is not intended to 

preclude the use of prescribed fire as an activity fuels treatment. Fire 

prescription parameters would assure that consumption of snags, as well 

as down woody material, meets viability requirements for wildlife use.

Geology/Soil/Water 

• All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be implemented. 

Water Influence Zone (WIZ) Design Criteria 

Protected stream courses have a Water Influence Zone (WIZ) which is 100 feet 

on either side of a stream (200 feet plus stream width). Activities can occur 

within WIZ areas with the following design criteria: 

• Limit skid trails within the WIZ 

• Designate skid trails when in the WIZ 

• Avoid crossing perennial and intermittent streams to the extent practical 

• Avoid creating low-water crossings or 'fords' of streams. 

• Avoid skidding through water. Install temporary crossing structures to 

keep equipment and logs out of water. 

• Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, rehabilitate landings 

by scarifying and seeding. Landings will be located outside the 100ft. WIZ 

buffer. 

• Build fire control lines with rolling grades and minimum downhill 

convergence. Outslope or blackblade, permanently drain, and revegetate 

firelines as soon as practical following the burn. 

• Install drainage control structures on all forwarding and skid trails upon 

completion of work. When rehabilitated, discharge would flow through a 

filter of vegetation. Guidelines for spacing water bars (drainage control 

structures) is as follows: 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-4 

 Table B-1. Spacing for Water Bars 

Road or Trail Grade Spacing Between Water Bars 

2 % 250 Feet

5 % 135 Feet

10 % 80 Feet

15 % 60 Feet

20 % 45 Feet

• Seed and brush any forwarding trail or skid trail within 50 feet of the 

stream course 

Roads 

• Use erosion control devices at road crossings to minimize the amount of 

sediment entering a stream. Some devices available include compost 

erosion socks or a sediment stop. 

• Temporary roads will be limited to the bare minimum needed to 

accomplish objectives. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated as soon as 

possible after activities are completed. Rehabilitation will include 

scarifying, seeding and slashing. Where temporary roads cross Forest 

System trails the temporary road would be slashed in for a distance of 100 

feet where possible. Recon touring will be done where necessary to 

prevent erosion. 

• Protected Stream Courses- At a minimum, the following will be identified 

as protected stream courses: Bear Spring Creek, Blacktail Springs, Buck 

Spring Canyon, Gillette Canyon, Hell Canyon, Water Draw, Dead Horse 

Springs, West Hell Canyon

Table B-2. Protected Stream Courses 

Stream Name 

Streamflow 

Regime Miles

Locations - Sites

Bear Spring Creek Intermittent 2.5 30801-15, 34; 30802-33; 30812-

15 

Blacktail Springs Ephemeral 0.2 41402-134, 138 

Buck Spring 

Canyon 

Intermittent 0.7 41202-17, 19, 56 

Gillette Canyon Intermittent 5.4 41301-59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 74, 76, 

78, 92, 96; 41302-95; 41303-26, 

88; 41305-10, 12, 41, 46, 53 

Hell Canyon Intermittent 0.4 30101-69, 389 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-5 

Water Draw Intermittent 0.7 30101-69, 72, 311, 320 

Dead Horse 

Springs/Draw 

Intermittent 0.2 41301-81, 82 

West Hell Canyon Intermittent 1.8 41501-10, 19; 41502-10 

Low Organic Matter Design Criteria 

Soils that have low organic material in the top-soil require the following design 

criteria to maintain long-term soil productivity. These design criteria do not apply 

to areas adjacent to arterial and collector roads, trails, summer home groups and 

non-Forest System land. 

• In sites identified as having low organic matter in the top-soil, and proposed 

for group-selection or variable density thinning to a 30 or 40 BA; retain 50 

percent or more of fine logging slash (less than three (3) inches in diameter). 

See table B-6 for a list of sites where this applies. 

Table B-3. Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Less than 2% 

Topsoil Organic Matter. 

Location Site Site Soil Map Soil % of Site

030813 3 39.4 SybC 15.3 39%

030813 55 11.8 SybC 7.8 66%

041101 24 110.2 VkE 19.9 18%

041101 25 48.9 VkE 32.7 67%

041101 29 30.9 VkE 11.4 37%

041101 29 30.9 SybC 4.9 16%

041101 40 26.6 VkE 11.9 45%

041101 40 26.6 SybC 7.1 27%

041101 41 131.0 VkE 32.9 25%

041101 41 131.0 SybC 21.5 16%

041302 63 87.3 VkE 45.5 52%

041302 126 61.0 VkE 27.4 45%

041302 127 70.0 VkE 42.0 60%

041302 128 20.9 VkE 13.0 62%

041302 136 34.8 VkE 11.3 33%

041302 138 19.5 VkE 16.1 82%

“High Erosion Hazard” 

 Soils with a Very High Erosion Hazard Rating (VHEHR), or soils with a high 

mass-wasting potential on slopes 20 to 40 percent. 

• Machinery operations only permitted during dry or frozen conditions. 

• No machinery operations will be allowed on slopes greater than 40 

percent. 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-6 

Table B-4. Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Erosion 

Risk. 

Location Site Site Soil Map Soil % of Site

030813 3 39.4 VcE 20.3 52%

030813 3 39.4 SybC 15.3 39%

030813 12 35.7 VcE 12.3 34%

030813 12 35.7 CkC 22.9 64%

030813 16 57.8 VcE 19.2 33%

030813 16 57.8 CkC 9.7 17%

030813 20 65.1 VcE 64.5 99%

030813 20 65.1 CkC 0.6 1%

030813 26 66.6 VcE 65.1 98%

030813 33 18.2 VcE 18.2 100%

030813 34 44.3 VcE 30.1 68%

030813 37 52.0 VcE 50.3 97%

030813 40 127.4 VcE 40.9 32%

030813 41 39.1 VcE 37.9 97%

030813 55 11.8 VcE 1.9 16%

030813 55 11.8 SybC 7.8 66%

030813 57 8.2 VcE 8.2 100%

041101 24 110.2 CkC 90.3 82%

041101 24 110.2 VkE 19.9 18%

041101 25 48.9 CkC 14.7 30%

041101 25 48.9 VkE 32.7 67%

041101 29 30.9 VkE 11.4 37%

041101 29 30.9 SybC 4.9 16%

041101 40 26.6 VkE 11.9 45%

041101 40 26.6 SybC 7.1 27%

041101 41 131.0 VkE 32.9 25%

041101 41 131.0 SybC 21.5 16%

041302 63 87.3 VcE 7.2 8%

041302 63 87.3 VkE 45.5 52%

041302 126 61.0 VcE 0.4 1%

041302 126 61.0 VkE 27.4 45%

041302 127 70.0 VkE 42.0 60%

041302 128 20.9 VkE 13.0 62%

041302 136 34.8 VkE 11.3 33%

041302 138 19.5 VkE 16.1 82%

041402 178 38.9 VcE 13.7 35%

041501 1 46.3 VcE 19.8 43%

041502 1 87.2 VcE 14.5 17%

041502 2 31.2 VcE 29.1 93%

041502 3 35.8 VcE 35.5 99%

041502 5 113.7 VcE 92.7 81%

041502 12 33.4 VcE 33.1 99%

041502 13 28.5 VcE 16.2 57%

041502 14 14.0 VcE 9.6 69%

041502 14 14.0 CkC 2.5 18%

041502 39 18.8 VcE 0.2 1%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-7 

Table B-5. Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Erosion 

Risk. 

Location Site Site Soil Map Soil % of Site

030813 37 52.0 RnG 1.7 3%

030813 37 52.0 VcE 32.5 63%

041302 63 87.3 VcE 7.2 8%

041302 63 87.3 VkE 45.5 52%

041302 126 61.0 VcE 0.4 1%

041302 126 61.0 VkE 27.4 45%

041302 127 70.0 VkE 42.0 60%

041302 128 20.9 VkE 13.0 62%

041302 136 34.8 VkE 11.3 33%

041302 138 19.5 VkE 16.1 82%

041402 176 72.6 SrE 51.4 71%

041402 178 38.9 VcE 13.7 35%

041402 178 38.9 SrE 21.7 56%

041501 1 46.3 VcE 19.8 43%

041502 1 87.2 VcE 11.6 13%

041502 2 31.2 VcE 29.1 93%

041502 3 35.8 VcE 35.5 99%

041502 5 113.7 VcE 92.7 81%

041502 12 33.4 VcE 33.1 99%

Soil Compaction Design Criteria: 

“Dry, Frozen or Low Impact” - Soils that are subject to compaction when 

wet 

• Machinery operations only permitted during dry or frozen conditions, or 

using low-impact equipment (such as cut-to-length systems). 

Equipment operating on slash may be used with close monitoring. 

When soil is not dry, frozen or covered by compacted snow, skidders 

will remain on approved trails. Skid trails will average 100 feet apart 

center to center. Track-mounted felling equipment will be allowed to 

work off of approved skid trails. Trees will be “bunched” to allow 

skidders to reach them from approved skid trails. 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-8 

Table B-6. Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated 

Compaction Risk. 

Location Site Site Soil Map Soil % of Site

030813 3 39.4 VcE 20.3 52%

030813 3 39.4 SybC 15.3 39%

030813 12 35.7 VcE 12.3 34%

030813 12 35.7 CkC 22.9 64%

030813 16 57.8 VcE 19.2 33%

030813 16 57.8 CkC 9.7 17%

030813 20 65.1 VcE 64.5 99%

030813 20 65.1 CkC 0.6 1%

030813 26 66.6 VcE 65.1 98%

030813 33 18.2 VcE 18.2 100%

030813 34 44.3 VcE 30.1 68%

030813 37 52.0 VcE 50.3 97%

030813 40 127.4 VcE 40.9 32%

030813 41 39.1 VcE 37.9 97%

030813 55 11.8 VcE 1.9 16%

030813 55 11.8 SybC 7.8 66%

030813 57 8.2 VcE 8.2 100%

041101 24 110.2 CkC 90.3 82%

041101 24 110.2 VkE 19.9 18%

041101 25 48.9 CkC 14.7 30%

041101 25 48.9 VkE 32.7 67%

041101 29 30.9 VkE 11.4 37%

041101 29 30.9 SybC 4.9 16%

041101 40 26.6 VkE 11.9 45%

041101 40 26.6 SybC 7.1 27%

041101 41 131.0 VkE 32.9 25%

041101 41 131.0 SybC 21.5 16%

041302 63 87.3 VcE 7.2 8%

041302 63 87.3 VkE 45.5 52%

041302 126 61.0 VcE 0.4 1%

041302 126 61.0 VkE 27.4 45%

041302 127 70.0 VkE 42.0 60%

041302 128 20.9 VkE 13.0 62%

041302 136 34.8 VkE 11.3 33%

041302 138 19.5 VkE 16.1 82%

041402 178 38.9 VcE 13.7 35%

041501 1 46.3 VcE 19.8 43%

041502 1 87.2 VcE 14.5 17%

041502 2 31.2 VcE 29.1 93%

041502 3 35.8 VcE 35.5 99%

041502 5 113.7 VcE 92.7 81%

041502 12 33.4 VcE 33.1 99%

041502 13 28.5 VcE 16.2 57%

041502 14 14.0 VcE 9.6 69%

041502 14 14.0 CkC 2.5 18%

041502 39 18.8 VcE 0.2 1%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-9 

Table B-7. Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated 

Compaction Risk. 

Location Site Site Soil Map Soil % of Site

030813 37 52.0 VcE 32.5 63%

041302 63 87.3 VcE 7.2 8%

041302 63 87.3 VkE 45.5 52%

041302 126 61.0 VcE 0.4 1%

041302 126 61.0 VkE 27.4 45%

041302 127 70.0 VkE 42.0 60%

041302 128 20.9 VkE 13.0 62%

041302 136 34.8 VkE 11.3 33%

041302 138 19.5 VkE 16.1 82%

041402 178 38.9 VcE 13.7 35%

041501 1 46.3 VcE 19.8 43%

041502 1 87.2 VcE 11.6 13%

041502 2 31.2 VcE 29.1 93%

041502 3 35.8 VcE 35.5 99%

041502 5 113.7 VcE 92.7 81%

041502 12 33.4 VcE 33.1 99%

Soil Heating 

• Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while 

meeting the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are 

moist. 

Heritage 

Within the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project area there are 23 known 

cultural resources determined eligible or unevaluated for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) concurs with these determinations (Concurrence No. 091113007F 

09/01/2010). Furthermore, SHPO concurs with a finding of No Adverse Effect, 

provided that the design criteria and site specific recommendations are followed 

during project implementation as specified in the NHPA Section 106 report and 

Appendix B (BKF Report No. R2008020300120).

A District Archaeologist will be consulted prior to implementation to insure that 

the design criteria and site specific recommendations detailed in the specialist 

report are appropriately implemented. 

If during the course of any ground disturbance related to this project, any bones, 

artifacts, foundations, or other indications of past human occupation of the area 

are uncovered, all operations will cease within a 100-meter radius of the site 

location and a District Archaeologist notified immediately. The SHPO and 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-10 

regional THPOs will be notified of the discovery and provided an opportunity to 

comment. Any cultural resources located during project implementation will be 

protected based on the recommendations of the District Archaeologist and the 

SHPO. 

Mechanical Treatments: 

The following design criteria will be implemented to protect the known sites in the 

project area from adverse effects of mechanical treatments.

• All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted for avoidance. 

• No burn piles should be placed within the boundaries of eligible and 

unevaluated sites. 

• All vehicles, timber harvesting equipment, or other machinery should not 

be stored or parked within the boundaries of the above eligible or 

unevaluated sites. 

• All vehicles, timber harvesting equipment, or other machinery should be 

confined to existing and marked Forest Service roads if and when 

traversing through cultural resources, unless travel through site 

boundaries is specifically not allowed as stated in the specialist report. 

• No road maintenance, blading or modification of roads through the above 

eligible and unevaluated sites should be conducted without the specified 

clearance and on-site presence of a District Archaeologist.

Prescribed Fire Treatments: 

The following design criteria will be implemented to protect the known sites in the 

project area from adverse effects of fire. 

• All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted. In some cases, burning 

through sites may be allowed, but specified features must be avoided by 

ground disturbing effects (e.g. road cuts, dozer lines, handlines, staging 

areas, and mop-up). 

• Wetline through cultural resources instead of using ground disturbing 

handlines. 

• Fire retardant possesses a risk of damaging archaeological sites and is 

not allowed within site boundaries. 

Fire is allowed within the site boundaries of cultural resources provided that the 

following on-site fire behavior criteria are met: 

• Sites that will burn under 400°C < 1 hour without any preparation 

o (13 sites) 

• Rock shelter sites that will burn under 400°C < 1 hour 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-11 

o Require the cutting of shrubs within 10 meters to lower flame 

lengths and reduce smoke that may otherwise damage rock 

surfaces 

o (3 sites) 

• Sites that would burn greater than 400°for > 1 hour due with a limited 

amount of fuel loading, however: 

o Fire will burn under 400°C < 1 hour through the removal of large 

down woody debris by hand or the use of foam or water to prevent 

woody debris from burning 

o (3 sites) 

Cultural resources that contain material that is easily destroyed by fire or would 

burn greater than 400° > 1 hour were preparation is not feasible due to the 

amount of fuel loading cannot be burned through. (4 sites) 

Lands 

• White-winged Junco Research area should be avoided during summer 

months if permit continues. 

• Work with private landowners to grant an easement or issue a special use 

permit if required for legal access. 

 

• Adequate notice and signing during implementation activities to inform the 

public especially in the Tepee Canyon Agate Area. 

Range and Noxious Weeds 

• Utilize roads were practical for control lines, not constructing new line that 

creates further ground disturbance. This applies to grassland communities 

(meadows) also. Utilize the roads/trails in grasslands communities as a 

control line, while limiting the amount of grasslands burned by stopping or 

starting the fire on the edge of the grassland communities where practical. 

• All range improvements including, but not limited to, spring developments, 

pipelines, fences must be protected. 

• Allow no more than one pasture per allotment burned in a fiscal year. A 

pasture within an allotment should not be burned two years in a row. 

• Coordinate with rangelands management personnel on burning units to 

incorporate with existing rotations identified in the allotment management 

plans (AMP) and the annual operating instructions (AOI). Spring meetings 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-12 

with permittees along with development of AOI’s are completed March and 

April prior to grazing season. 

• Noxious weed infestations should be treated to prevent infestation of 

sensitive species habitat. Noxious weed infestations should be monitored 

and the effectiveness of the treatment measured. Areas will be retreated 

as necessary. 

• Initiate revegetation as soon as possible, not to exceed 6 months after 

termination of ground-disturbing activities. Revegetate all disturbed soils 

with native species in seed/plant mixtures that are noxious weed-free. 

Standard 1110

• For all proposed projects or activities, determine the risk of noxious weed 

introduction or spread, and implement appropriate mitigation measure.

Standard 4301

• Prescribed burn no more than 60 percent of any contiguous grassland 

area at a time and burn in early spring or fall. Standard 3125

• Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of 

the following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. 

Guideline 4107

 

Recreation 

● Ensure news releases and safety signing is posted to notify the 

public of increased traffic and prescribed fire and logging activities. 

This will aid in the public to plan their trip accordingly including the 

possibility they will choose an area of the forest that remains 

unaffected by these activities. 

● Use minimal disturbance for installing fire control lines to avoid 

building what the public may view as a motorized OHV travel route. 

● “Naturalize” areas where disturbed soil control fire lines intersect 

with open motorized roads. This could include seeding and 

spreading brush at these points. 

● Leave, where possible, openings less than fifty inches through 

cleared down trees or rocks where motorized access or fire lines 

intersect open motorized roads to help prevent illegal OHV travel 

through these areas. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-13 

Scenery 

• Skid trails should only be created / utilized during dry, or frozen, conditions 

to minimize soil disturbance, then seeded with native grasses after use. 

These techniques have been effectively used to reduce soil displacement 

and speed up the re-vegetation process along these skid trails – thus 

reducing highly visual evidence of skid trails. 

• Transition Zones – Treatments around private lands, in forested areas, 

should blend with the current condition on those lands, where possible. 

Avoid creating strong lines between private and Forest Service 

boundaries. Avoid creating an obvious edge between the treated and untreated areas, particularly where one boundary line, or more, runs straight 

up a slope (at a right angle to the contours) creating a very un-natural 

appearing form in the landscape. The transition zone width is dependent 

upon management and use of private lands, slope, and variety of 

vegetation. A feathered horizontal transition zone of 1.5 times the height 

of the overstory is recommended – at a minimum. Within this zone, 

reduce the tree density to transition from the treated to the un-treated. 

Units that create an obviously un-natural vegetative pattern will draw 

attention to it and not meet the LRMP or national handbook direction. 

• Fuel treatments along private land boundaries should transition into the 

surrounding forest. These areas are essential shaded fuel breaks. Avoid 

creating ‘corridors’ of cleared understory areas by laying out the outer 

(forest side) of the unit in a curvilinear layout. 

• When thinning dense stands, avoid creating a residual forested stand with 

evenly spaced trees. 

• Avoid creating strong lines between private and Forest Service 

boundaries. Remaining vegetation should be in a variety of sizes and 

spacing to maintain a more natural appearance. The transition zone 

width is dependent upon management and use of private lands, slope, 

and variety of vegetation. 

• Avoid creating geometric shapes when implementing proposed activities. 

Consider boundaries that follow vegetation types or sizes. 

• Overstory removal units: 030813-12 (35.7 acres) and 030813-16 (57.8 

acres) – portions adjacent to FSR 282 - retain clumps of 3-7 large trees 

(smallest of the commercial-sized trees) approx. every 100-250 feet along 

the foreground of the road. 

Design Criteria along the following public access routes US Hwy. 16:
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-14 

• When burning in the Foreground of the Highway, burn toward the highway 

to reduce scorch heights on the bole of the tree facing the highway. 

Maintain low fire intensity to minimize potential live tree mortality. 

Smoke Management 

Smoke impacts are minimized utilizing the following design criteria and are 

incorporated into the burn plan as appropriate: 

• Limit treatment area size 

• Specify wind directions and speed 

• Specify minimum mixing heights to ensure dispersal of emissions 

• Stagger ignitions 

Silviculture 

• Activity fuel should be removed, lopped, scattered or piled for later 

burning. Slash piles other than those created for wildlife habitat, should 

be burned within one year. This will reduce the risk of Ips beetle mortality. 

• Whole tree yarding shall be required within cutting units where prescribed 

burning will follow harvest. 

• All temporary roads used for logging should be closed as soon as practical 

following activities. 

• Prescribed Burning Mortality Limits: 

Broadcast prescribe burning should be designed to limit mortality in the 

following tree diameter sizes: 

20-inch + dbh: <5% 

9-19.9-inch dbh: 10-15% 

5-8.9-inch dbh: 25-30% 

1-4.9-inch dbh: 25-30% 

In areas with seedlings (less than 4.5 feet tall) exclude area from burn if 

possible, if can’t be excluded: 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-15 

>500 seedlings/acre: 50% 

300-500 seedlings/acre: 25% 

100-300 seedlings/acre: 10% 

In areas of high intensity wildfire, live lone pine trees or small groups (up 

to 10 trees) of pine (~9"+dbh) should be protected from fire in order to 

provide seed production and pine regeneration. Certified silviculturist 

needs to be notified prior to implementation of any units containing areas 

of green trees. 

• No burning in pine plantations. 

• Visual marking will be used within site distance of arterial and collector 

roads and private land with dwellings. 

• The practices outlined in “Best Management Practices for the control of 

Non-Point Pollution from Silvicultural and Related Road Activities” will be 

followed. 

• Within harvest units, trees identified as diseased or insect infested would 

be removed in order to prevent any future infestations. 

• During prescribed burning, fire should not be intentionally lit through an 

aspen stand or aspen clone during lighting operations. Lighting would be 

stopped approximately one aspen tree length (minimum 35”) from the 

aspen stand or clone, although fire may creep through the aspen on its 

own. Monitoring of aspen should occur during implementation and if the 

observed fire behavior is more intense than expected, lighting operations 

would be adjusted and/or wetline around aspen stands would occur to 

ensure protection of aspen stands. 

WILDLIFE

Sensitive Species 

• A R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after contract or 

permit issuance will be appropriately managed by active coordination 

between permittee, contractor or purchaser, Forest Service line officer, 

project administrator, and biologist and/or botanist. Solutions need to be 

based on the circumstances of each new discovery and must consider the 

species need, contractual obligations and costs, and mitigation measures 

available at the time of discovery. Standard 3115
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-16 

Snails 

 

Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern snail colonies to: 

• Retain overstory sufficient to maintain moisture regimes, ground level 

 temperatures and humidity. 

• Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter. 

• Avoid burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy 

equipment and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation 

composition and ground cover. 

• If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, 

usually below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to 

minimize effects to snails. 

• Control invasive weeds, but use herbicides when snails are not on the 

surface, and treat individual plants rather than broadcast application. 

Standard 3103

There are no known sensitive snail sites in the project area. However, there are 

two known sites that have had presence of species of local concern snails. 

These two Frest snail sites are within location-sites 041301-22 and 030101-69. 

The snail sites, not the whole sites (22 and 69), will be marked and deferred from 

any type of treatment including prescribed burning under both action alternatives. 

Snags/Dead Woody Material

• No snags will be cut unless deemed a safety hazard. Snags determined 

to be a safety hazard should be felled and left in place. prohibits cutting of 

soft snags unless they are a safety hazard. Existing snags >20” DBH will 

be protected by clearing away duff around the base of the snag during 

prescribed burning where safety permits. Standard 2301, Standard 2305

• Do not burn the pocket of large snags, including some replacement snag 

green trees, in the northern 2/3 portion of site 030813-7 (under Alternative 

2). Alternative 3 does not propose burning this site.

• The amount of dead woody material over 10” DBH needs to meet 

Standard 2308 in the HCMB Project Area following the proposed 

treatments, including timber harvest and prescribed burning. Harvested 

or thinned sites need to retain large woody debris to maintain microsites 

and provide habitat for wildlife (Guideline 2307). 

Small Mammal Habitat 

• In vegetation treatment units, leave 1 pile of woody material per 2 acres to 

create near-ground structure for small mammal species, except within 300 

feet of buildings. Standard 3117
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-17 

• If piles are created while accomplishing mechanical vegetation treatments, 

including mechanical fuel treatments, leave 1 pile per 2 acres for small 

mammal habitat. Piles do not need to be any particular size. As a pile 

size guideline, aim for approximately 10’ x 10’ and 6’ in height. – This will 

benefit small mammal predatory species by creating near-ground structure 

for prey species. 

Big Game – Screening Cover 

• Provide big game screening along at least 20 percent of the edges of 

arterial and collector roads. Consider vegetation, slopes, landform, etc. in 

evaluating available screening. Guideline 3203

• Under Alternative 2 leave (do not thin or burn pine trees) a 200-ft buffer 

along the arterial or collector road in these areas for wildlife screening 

cover: 031901-35/36 (east end-along 273) and 032001-47 (west endalong 273), 041101-24/41 (along 284), and 041302-63 (east end-along 

283). The following sites will also need a buffer under Alternative 3: 

031901-35/36, 032001-47 and 041302-63. Site 041402-143 is between 

collector roads 283 and 282. The south part of the site is covered with 

dense screening cover (pine regeneration). Do not burn the south half of 

the site under Alternative 2 or 3. 

Bats/Caves 

• Where caves are important nurseries or hibernacula for sensitive and local 

concern bat species protect the caves and maintain their microclimates 

when designing management activities (e.g., timber harvest, road 

construction, recreation facilities). Protect known bat day and night roosts.

Standard 3102

• Where caves or abandoned mines serve as nurseries or hibernacula for 

bats, vegetative changes within 500 feet of the opening are allowed only if 

needed to maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features protect 

the openings from disturbance. Standard 3207

• Any caves or mines discovered during sale layout, sale operations, or post 

sale layout will be reported to the District Wildlife Biologist and District 

Archaeologist for evaluation. 

• If caves or mines with bats are found, refer to FS Standards 1401, 3102, 

3207, 3208 (seasonal closure) and 3209 (mine and cave closure). These 

standards apply to known caves and mines. There are known cave bat 

hibernacula in the HCMB Project Area. Prescribed burning is planned in 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-18 

the vicinity of the small caves. A timing restriction for burning will be in 

place for two locations: 041501 and 041502. There should be no burning 

from November 1 to May 15. Ensure there is good smoke dispersal on 

day of burn. Contact a District biologist prior to burning these locations for 

consultation. 

Raptors 

• Protect known raptor nests. Consider potential effects of disturbance, 

nesting phenology, human activities existing at onset of nest initiation, 

species, topography, other R2 sensitive species and plant species of local 

concern, forest cover, nest protection standards and recommendations 

used by state or federal agencies, and other appropriate factors when 

designing protection. Standard 3204

• During 2008 summer surveys, several red-tailed hawks (Buteo 

jamaicensis) were observed. On occasion pairs did scream at surveyor. 

However, no nests were found. Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks were 

also observed. If raptor nests are observed prior to treatments, contact a 

District biologist for consultation. 

Butterflies 

• Consider habitat needs (survey as appropriate) of regal fritillary and 

Atlantis fritillary butterflies prior to prescribed burning on prairies or 

meadows. This is especially important for prescribed burns scheduled 

from September through April. Design the project to conserve important 

habitat components of known sightings. Guideline 3105

• There are no recorded sightings of the regal fritillary butterfly within the 

project area. Habitat for the Atlantis fritillary is lacking. The project area 

will be burned in stages. This means portions will remain intact for 

butterfly habitat throughout the timeline of this project. 

General Burning Design Criteria 

• Burn with restrictions in the following sites: 041302-124, 135, 136, 137, 

138; 041305-1, 24, 26, and SE part of 23. Try to burn as cool as possible. 

There will be 0% mortality on all green trees, including saplings. Green 

trees are providing wildlife some hiding cover and dead woody material in 

these sites is impeding off road travel in the area. The current condition is 

desirable and needs to be maintained as is. 

• Protect all guzzlers (four in treatment area) and all fenced water sources. 

Do not cut or burn green trees within 50 feet of fenced water sources. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix B 

B-19 

• Protect 20” DBH snags by removing duff from the base.

• Any dozer lines created while burning should be closed and re-vegetated. 

• Prescribed burning should not be considered earlier than September or 

later than April as this could impact species during fawning, calving and 

nesting. 

Timber Harvest 

• In sites where overstory removals are proposed, retain green trees 18” or 

greater DBH. The following sites have proposed overstory removal 

treatments under Alternative 2: 030813-3, 12, 16, 20; 041101-24. No 

overstory removal is proposed under Alternative 3. These large green 

trees are important raptor perches. They also are seed sources for future 

pine regeneration, which can provide future screening/hiding cover for 

wildlife. Retaining some of the largest trees adds diversity to a stand. In 

time, these retained large green trees can become large snags which can 

be utilized by numerous wildlife species. 

• If any old road prisms are opened up during treatments they should be 

closed and re-vegetated following treatments. 

• Where commercial and/or non-commercial treatment is accomplished and 

burning is not prescribed, it is preferred that slash be left on the ground 

where possible to provide cover and moist conditions for ground dwelling 

species. 
Appendix B Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

B-20 

This page left intentionally blank
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix C 

C-1 

Appendix C - Project Monitoring 

The Forest Plan identified specific items to be monitored, and the Monitoring 

Implementation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2005) describes monitoring 

protocols that have been established for numerous resources, as directed by the 

Forest Plan. The Monitoring Implementation Guide identified frequency and 

methods of data collection, unit of measure, sampling design, expected precision 

and reliability, reporting frequency, data storage location, and costs for each 

monitoring item identified by the Forest Plan. This guide is subject to periodic 

adjustments. For additional information, refer to the Forest Plan (Chapter 4), and 

the Monitoring Implementation Guide. 

The ID Team compiled additional monitoring objectives/items summarized below 

to provide emphasis and specifics regarding particular resource monitoring 

needs in the project area. All monitoring objectives/items will be prioritized by the 

responsible line officer if funding is not available to implement all objectives/items 

listed or referenced in the Monitoring Plan. 

Fuels

Prescribed burn evaluations would be conducted prior to and following burning to 

ensure objectives are being met. 

Prescribed burning shall occur around the aspen stands but no burning should 

be taken directly through the aspen stands. Monitoring of aspen would occur 

during implementation and if the observed fire behavior is more intense than 

expected, lighting operations would be adjusted and/or wetline around aspen 

stands would occur to ensure protection of aspen stands.

Fuels treatments would be entered in the FACTS database. 

Monitor smoke conditions during burning operations to meet with the provisions 

of the Clean Air Act. District personnel will utilize the SASEM (Smoke Model), or 

an equivalent program would be used to assure provisions are being met. The 

impacts of burning on metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed 

at the time of burning. 

Lands/Minerals

Note conflicts or impacts between the vegetative management and prescribed 

burning programs and lands, special uses and minerals programs and correct as 

necessary.
Appendix C Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

C-2

Sensitive Plants

Monitor the effects of noxious weed control, prescribed fire and fuels treatments 

on sensitive plant species habitat and populations. Monitor for additional 

Botrychium species that may be discovered post-treatment. It is expected this 

will take one person 3 days for 5 years. District personnel will conduct the 

monitoring. 

Noxious Weeds

Areas of weed infestation will need to be monitored and the effectiveness of the 

treatment measured. Areas should be retreated as necessary. 

Heritage

Post project site monitoring is a useful method for determining the effectiveness 

of avoidance measures and understanding the actual effects from prescribed 

burning on cultural resources. Twenty percent (20% rounded up to the nearest 

whole number) of eligible and unevaluated cultural resources in the vicinity of 

treatment areas will be revisited and monitored for effects from the project 

following implementation. The selection of sites to be monitored is at the 

discretion of a District Archaeologist, and results will be sent to SHPO in the form 

of a site monitoring report. 

Hydrology and Soils

Soil disturbance and effective soil cover 

Federal land managers are directed to manage forest and rangeland ecosystems 

to maintain or improve soil quality (FSM 2550); and to manage land treatments to 

limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and 

displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area (FSH 2509.18 and 

Region 2 supplements). Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) 

Handbook requires this monitoring as part of Management Measures 2 and 13. 

Black Hills National Forest supplement to FSM 2520 stipulates at least 50% 

ground cover requirements. This monitoring also meets the Forest Plan 

Monitoring Item 2: SOILS – Soil Productivity and Item 3: SOILS – Revegetation; 

and addresses Forest Plan Objective 104, Standards 1103 and 1112, and 

Guideline 4106. 

Quantitative soil transects, ocular methods, cover-frequency method, or other 

accepted monitoring methods as outlined in the Forest Service Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Not all units on this particular 

project may be selected for monitoring This will occur prior to and following 

burning and thinning activities. Inspect sites at one and three years following 

initial seeding/revegetation, and five years after if necessary. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix C 

C-3 

Organic Matter and Nutrient cycling: Fines and Coarse Woody Debris 

Federal land managers are directed to manage forest and rangeland ecosystems 

to maintain or improve soil quality (FSM 2550); Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook requires this monitoring as part of 

Management Measures 14. Monitoring of this item addresses Forest Plan 

Objective 212 and 10-04, Standards 1102 and 2308, and Guidelines 1102a, 

2307, 4105. 

Transects tied to Soil Monitoring Item #1 (Forest Service Soil Disturbance 

Protocol) or photo-estimation of representative harvest and prescribed burn units. 

Not all units on this particular project may be selected for monitoring. This will 

occur prior to and following burning and thinning activities. 

Spring ecosystems

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook requires this monitoring 

as part of Management Measure 6. This item also addresses Forest Plan 

Objectives 104, 213, and Standard 1302. 

Monitoring will follow Forest Service Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE) 

Assessment methods (USDA Forest Service, 2009 DRAFT). Spring monitoring 

may also be combined with BMP assessments. This will occur prior to, during, 

and following project implementation. 

Implementation and Effectiveness of Forest Service Watershed Conservation 

Practices (WCPs), also referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

The Forest Service shall monitor WCP implementation to ensure that WCPs are 

properly applied, and WCP effectiveness to ensure that State water quality 

standards are met and classified uses of water are protected (Region 2 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH 2509.25, May 2006). Forest 

Plan Monitoring Item 4: WATER, Sub-item: Non-point source water pollution 

control (i.e. BMP Monitoring). Addresses Forest Plan Objective 104. 

Visual certification that Design Criteria and WCPs have been applied as 

Prescribed and that they are effective in preventing erosion and non-point 

pollution to water resources, following State BMP field audit methods. Inspection 

reports would be completed as part of the annual BMP monitoring program. Not 

all of the activity units associated with this project may or may not be selected in 

the District-wide or Forest-wide BMP sampling. 

Implementation monitoring should be conducted during and immediately 

following completion of project activities. Effectiveness monitoring should take 

place within one to five years following project implementation to determine if the 

BMPs were effective. Monitoring immediately following the first major 
Appendix C Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

C-4

precipitation event if it happened less than one year after implementation may 

also be warranted. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix D 

D-1 

Appendix D: Summary of Botany and Wildlife Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

INTRODUCTION 

This is a summary of the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluations (BA/BEs), and is a review and analysis of 

actions proposed in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA). The full BA/BEs are in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project file. The purpose of a BA/BE is to determine how the proposed action 

and alternatives to the proposed action will affect federally listed species or 

sensitive species listed by the Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670, R2 2600-94-

2). The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn BA/BEs are prepared in accordance 

with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follow standards established in Forest Service 

Manual direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR S402). 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn BA/BEs tier directly to the EA for the revised 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

as amended, the BA/BE completed for the Forest Plan revision, and the BA/BE 

prepared for the Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service, 2006). 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 

The purpose for action in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area is to 

reduce long term fire hazard and improve health and vigor of forested stands in 

the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. The 2000 Jasper Fire and 2001 

Rogers Shack Fire created areas of dead and dying stands. In addition, 

mountain pine beetle infestations are occurring within a number of forested 

stands. In light of these conditions within the project area there is a need to 

reduce existing fuel loadings and to improve the health and vigor of existing 

forested stands. 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Area is located in Custer County and 

Pennington County, South Dakota and is entirely within the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District of the Black Hills National Forest. In general, this project is located 

approximately 10 miles west of Custer, SD and 18 miles east of Newcastle, WY 

(see map 1). The project includes burning as well as mechanical thinning and 

would occur in 3 distinct parcels (see map 2). The project includes 16,986 acres 

of prescribed burning and 3922 acres of mechanical thinning. All proposed 

activities would occur on National Forest lands. There are several arterial roads 

which access the project area including NFSR (National Forest System Road) 

282, 283, 284, 668, 221, 273, 277 and US Hwy 16. 

The following is a brief description of each of the action alternatives: 
Appendix D Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

D-2

Alternative 2- Proposed Action 

This alternative was developed to meet the Purpose and Need for action. This 

alternative represents the agency’s recommendations prior to public scoping. 

This alternative proposes commercial and non-commercial vegetative treatments 

including prescribed fire. 

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the 

following alternatives: 

Alternative 1- No Action 

The National Environmental Policy Act) requires the study of the No Action 

Alternative as a basis for comparing effects of the proposed action and other 

alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes no implementation of any 

elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives would take place 

within the project area. This alternative represents no attempt to actively 

respond to the purpose and need for action or the issues identified during 

scoping. For example, there would be no effort to modify existing vegetation or 

related fuels conditions in the project areas; current active timber sales, fire 

suppression efforts, noxious weed treatments and regular system road 

maintenance would continue on National Forest lands. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative was developed to address the key issues identified during 

scoping: 1) Maintaining the established post Jasper Fire, Colorado State 

University; 2) Increase stand diversity to provide for a larger range of big game 

habitat. 

PRE-FIELD REVIEW AND RECONNAISSANCE 

Botany

Federally listed plant species:

A list of Federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species has been 

provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via their South Dakota Field Office 

internet website (http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm ), last 

updated on September 9, 2008. No federally listed or proposed plant species 

occur on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Region 2 sensitive plant species:

The Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species listed was updated by the 

Regional Forester on June 9, 2009. (USDA Forest Service 2009) Appendix A 

provides a list of current R2 sensitive plant species found within the Black Hills 

National Forest. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix D 

D-3 

A prefield review of Region 2 sensitive plant species and potential habitat was 

completed using existing district data; communication with forest personnel; and 

the BA/BEs for the 1996 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP), the 2001 Phase 1 Amendment to the Forest Plan 

and the 2005 Phase II Amendment to the Revised Forest Plan. 

All R2 sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the Black Hills National 

Forest were considered in the evaluation. Based on the prefield review, habitat 

exists in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn for two R2 sensitive species. All 

other species were dropped from the analysis of effects portion of this document 

due to the lack of suitable habitat and therefore impacts to those species. 

Wildlife

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species

Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

A list of federally threatened, endangered and proposed species has been 

provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State 

Office, and was last updated on September 9, 2008 (USFWS 2009). The 

USFWS lists the following endangered and/or threatened species for Custer 

County, South Dakota: whooping crane and black-footed ferret. The following is 

listed for Pennington County, South Dakota: whooping crane, least tern, and 

black-footed ferret. 

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species 

considered on the Black Hills National Forest under Section 7 consultation (letter 

of concurrence from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, 

dated August 8, 2003). Although the black-footed ferret is listed for Custer 

County, it is listed as endangered, where they have been re-introduced within 

Wind Cave National Park, under a certain permit that includes provisions for 

take. Additionally, the black-footed ferret is listed for Pennington County, and it is 

an experimental population located in eastern Pennington County, where they 

have been re-introduced into Badlands National Park and the Conata Basin of 

Buffalo Gap National Grassland. Habitat for the black-footed ferret is not present 

in the project area. There are no prairie dog colonies present. It was determined 

that management activities on the Forest would have ‘no effect’ on these species 

because the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable habitat. 

 

As of August 8th, 2007 the bald eagle was removed from the list of threatened 

and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The bald eagle 

continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And, in accordance with Regional policy, upon delisting the bald eagle is automatically given sensitive species status for a period 

of at least 5 years to ensure recovery of the species is maintained over that 

period (R2 Supplement, FSM 2672.11 (6)). 
Appendix D Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

D-4

Region 2 Sensitive Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was 

renewed on June 9, 2009. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest 

are listed on the R2 threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page 

(USDA Forest Service 2009). There are now 26 species on the Region 2 

sensitive species list that could be present in the Black Hills. 

The pre-field review of Region 2 Sensitive Species and Federally Endangered 

and Threatened and Proposed species was completed using survey results, 

district records, communication with District personnel, literature reviews, on-line 

databases, and South Dakota Natural Heritage Database. Bald eagles, fringed 

myotis bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats, northern goshawks, Lewis’s 

woodpeckers, black-backed woodpeckers, grasshopper sparrows and northern 

leopard frogs have all been observed in the project area. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

Botany

Most of the known occurrences of Iowa moonwort on the Black Hills National 

Forest are outside this project area. In addition, design criteria are in place to 

protect the known occurrences inside the project area. While the full extent of the 

distribution of Botrychium campestre is currently unknown, the appearance of 

aboveground sporophytes at the confirmed sites is indicative of viable 

populations with extensive supporting underground biomass (including 

mycorrhizae). Therefore, while loss of unknown individuals may occur in this 

project area, the viable populations at the known occurrences will not be 

affected. Based on the information that is available, a determination of “May 

adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on 

the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

species viability range-wide” is made for B. campestre relative to 

implementation of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. 

While the full extent of the distribution of Botrychium lineare is currently unknown, 

the appearance of aboveground sporophytes at the known sites outside this 

project area is indicative of viable populations with extensive supporting 

underground biomass (including mycorrhizae) (Farrar 2004) Therefore, while loss 

of unknown individuals may occur in this project area, the viable population at the 

known occurrences will not be affected. Based on the information that is 

available, a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely 

to result in a loss of viability on the planning area, nor cause a trend toward 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix D 

D-5 

federal listing or a loss of species viability range-wide” is made for B. lineare

relative to implementation of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3. 

 

Wildlife 

The determination of effects on federally listed species and Region 2 Sensitive 

Species in this BA/BE were made as the result of the information gathered in the 

pre-field review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis. The basis for these 

determinations was potential habitat, distribution, effects from forest activities, 

and the Black Hills National Forest Plan, including the Phase II Amendment 

(Standards and Guidelines). The determination language is set forth in Forest 

Service Manual 2670 and by the USFWS. 

Objectives, standards, and guidelines have been identified in the Forest Plan that 

protect all federally listed species and conserve Region 2 sensitive species found 

in the Black Hills. In addition, the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment provides for 

additional direction for the protection of habitat for these species. This project’s 

action alternatives would follow the objectives, standards, and guidelines that are 

applicable to those species and habitats found in the HCMB Project Area. 

With implementation of Forest Plan and the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment a 

determination of ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in 

a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing’ is made for the following species: fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, northern harrier, Lewis’s woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, 

grasshopper sparrow, Black Hills redbelly snake and regal fritillary butterfly. A 

determination of ‘no impact’ is made for all other R2 sensitive species not listed 

here. 

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix E 

E-1 

Appendix E – Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Activities 

Table E-1: Past Accomplished Activities 

Date Of 

Activity 

Type of Activity Acres Associated Project Name(s)

2001-2006 Burning of Piled Material 264 Water, Limestone, Crawford, 

Gurney Timber Sale, Lyman 

Timber Sale, Dumbuk, 

McKenna 

2001-2008 Certification of Natural 

Regeneration without Site 

Preparation 

1,166 Sourdough, Bear Springs, 

Crawford, Elk Mt. Outside 

Sale, Tepee, McKenna, 

Schenk 

2001, 2004 Fuel Break 11 McKenna 

2008 Full Planting without 

Concurrent Site Preparation 

126 

2003 Individual Tree Release and 

Weeding 

49 McKenna 

2001, 2002, 

2004, 2006, 

2007 

Invasive Species Treatment 557 Water, Limestone, Crawford, 

McKenna, Schenk 

2001-2009 Livestock Grazing Tepee, Lower Beaver, 

Limestone, Hell Canyon, 

Water Draw 

2001, 2005 Overstory Removal Cut 858 Crawford, Fanny 

2003 Partial Removal 73 Crawford 

2001, 2002 Piling of Fuels 32 McKenna 

2008 Plantation Survival Surveys 103 

2003, 2004, 

2008 

Precommercial Thinning 170 

2003 Range Improvements 17 Schenk, McKenna 

2003 Release or Weeding 49 McKenna 

2001, 2002 Sanitation (salvage) 520 Dumbuk 

2001 Sensitive Species Survey 843 

2001 Shelterwood Cut 102 Crawford 

2001 Special Cut 12 Crawford 

2001, 2007 Stand Examination Data 

Collection 

3,584 
Appendix E Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

E-2

Date Of 

Activity 

Type of Activity Acres Associated Project Name(s)

2001, 2004, 

2006, 2007, 

2008 

Stocking Surveys 650 Sourdough, Crawford, 

McKenna 

2001 Tree Encroachment Control 7 McKenna 

2001-2004 Wildlife Habitat Grasses and 

Forbs Improvement 

171 Water, Limestone, Crawford, 

Gurney Timber Sale, Lyman 

Timber Sale, Dumbuk 

2006 Wildlife Habitat General 

Improvement 

5 

2002 Wildlife Habitat Inventory 36 Crawford 

Table E-2: Present Activities 

Date of 

Activity 

Type of Activity Acres Associated Project 

Name(s) 

2010 Livestock Grazing Tepee, Lower Beaver, 

Limestone, Hell Canyon

2009 Precommercial Thinning 91 Fanny 

2009 Stocking Surveys 2,475 Crawford 

2009 Tree Encroachment 

Control 

95 Fanny 

Table E-3: Reasonable Foreseeable Future Activities 

Date Of 

Activity 

Type of Activity Acres Associated Project 

Name(s) 

2010 Burning of Piled Material 198 Fanny 

2012 Tree Encroachment 

Control 

24 Spring 

2014 Certification of Natural 

Regeneration without Site 

Prep 

4,716 

2011-2020 Livestock Grazing Tepee, Lower Beaver, 

Limestone, Hell 

Canyon, Water Draw 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix F 

F-1 

Appendix F: Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, 

and Policy 

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn (HCMB) 

The following findings are made based on the environmental analysis and the 

silvicultural prescription: 

Consistency with plans [16 U.S.C. 1604 (i)]: 

1. Timber harvest would occur on lands suited for timber production or 

would occur in areas where timber harvest is permitted and is necessary 

to help achieve other resource management objectives. 

All areas to be harvested are in the 5.1 Management Area – Resource 

Production Emphasis. Theme: These areas are managed for wood

products, water yield, and forage production, while providing other 

commercial products, visual quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety 

of other goods and services. Numerous open roads provide 

commercial access and roaded recreation opportunities, while 

closed roads provide non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

-ORManagement Area 5.4 – Big Game Winter Range Emphasis

Theme: These areas are managed to provide high-quality winter and 

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

for other species, and a variety of multiple uses. 

Table F-1: Alternative 2 

Treatment Mgt Area 5.1 Mgt Area 5.4

Commercial 

Thinning 

170 1071 

Overstory Removal 110 198 

Shelterwood Seed 

Cut 

0 96 

Table F-2: Alternative 3 

Treatment Mgt Area 5.1 Mgt Area 5.4

Commercial 

Thinning 

0 233

Group Selection 0 391

2. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Forest Plan Standard 2408, Phase II Amendment page II-25 for 

acceptable silvicultural Systems. 

Timber Harvest [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]: 
Appendix F Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

F-2

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly 

damaged; 

HCMB Hydrology specialist report 

2. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within 

five years after final regeneration harvest. 

All stands within the project area that are to receive shelterwood 

removals can be adequately restocked within 5 years of harvest. The 

minimum tree stocking standards for Region 2 will be met. Region 2 

minimum stocking standards are described in FSH 2409.26b 

Reforestation HandbookR2 Amendment No. 2409.26b – 93-2. 

Regeneration surveys will be accomplished on all shelterwood seed 

cuts (3rd and 5th years), and on all selection cuts (5th year) to assure 

the stands have regenerated properly. There will be no clearcutting 

in the HCMB project area. 

3. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies 

of water are protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, 

blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are 

likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat. 

HCMB Hydrology specialist report 

4. The harvesting system to be used was not selected primarily because 

it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber. 

Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)]: 

1. For clearcutting, it is the optimum method. 

Clearcutting will not be used in the HCMB project area. 

2. Clearcuts, coppice cuts, seed tree, and shelterwood regeneration 

harvests are appropriate to meeting the objectives and requirements of 

the Forest Plan. 

Forest Plan Standard 2408, Phase II Amendment page II-25 for 

acceptable silvicultural Systems. 

3. An interdisciplinary review was completed and the potential 

environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts 

were assessed and the cutting methods are consistent with the multiple 

use of the project area. 

HCMB and specialist reports. 

4. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent 

practicable with the natural terrain. 

HCMB Visual Quality specialist report 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix F 

F-3 

5. Even-aged regeneration harvests made in one operation meet the 40-

acre maximum size limit requirement. 

Forest Plan Standard 2101, Phase II Amendment page II-17 

6. Harvest will be consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, 

wildlife, recreation, esthetic resources, cultural and historic resources, and 

the regeneration of timber resources. 

HCMB Botany BE and specialist report 

HCMB Wildlife BE and specialist report 

HCMB Hydrology specialist report 

HCMB Heritage specialist report 

HCMB Recreation specialist report 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment [16 U.S.C. 1604 (m)]: 

Stands of trees harvested have generally reached the culmination of mean 

annual increment of growth (CMAI). 

Page II-26 of the Black Hills Forest Plan Guideline 2411. 

Regeneration harvests of even-aged timber stands should not be 

undertaken until the stands have generally reached (or surpassed 

95% of the) culmination of the mean annual increment measured in 

cubic feet. 

CMAI occurs when the periodic annual increment equals the mean 

annual increment (MAI). MAI is calculated by adding the current 

stand volume with any mortality or previous removal and then 

dividing by the stand age. 

Findings prepared by: Date: 

 Nancy S. Bayne 

Findings recommended by: Date: 

 Nancy S. Bayne, Certified Silviculturist 

Findings accepted by: Date: 

 Lynn D. Kolund, District Ranger 
Appendix F Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

F-4

This page left intentionally blank
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-1 

Appendix G: Treatment by Location and Site 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

030101 69 91 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 72 48 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 73 117 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 88 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 89 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 90 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 91 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 311 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 313 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 320 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 323 1 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 324 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 325 1 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 326 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 327 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 328 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 329 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 330 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 333 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 334 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 335 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 336 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 384 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030101 389 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 8 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 10 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 13 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 14 34 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 15 60 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 16 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 18 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 19 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 20 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 21 99 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 23 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 24 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 25 52 RX_Fire 

030801 27 1 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 29 81 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 34 62 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 36 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 37 69 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 39 57 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 43 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 44 23 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 46 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-2

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

030801 47 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 49 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030801 50 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 1 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 2 82 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 4 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 5 25 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 6 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 7 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 8 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 10 51 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 11 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 12 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 13 52 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 14 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 16 49 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 17 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 18 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 19 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 20 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 21 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 22 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 23 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 24 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 25 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 26 64 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 27 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 28 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 29 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 30 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 31 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 32 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 33 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 34 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 35 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 36 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 37 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 38 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 39 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 40 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 41 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 42 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030802 43 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 1 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 2 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 3 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 5 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-3 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

030810 16 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 25 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 26 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030810 30 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030812 1 53 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030812 15 55 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030812 16 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

030813 2 31 RX_Fire 

030813 3 39 OR/CT60/POL NC RX_Fire 

030813 4 49 RX_Fire 

030813 5 100 RX_Fire 

030813 7 12 RX_Fire 

030813 11 17 RX_Fire 

030813 12 36 OR/SC/TSI NC 

030813 16 58 OR/SC/TSI NC 

030813 20 65 OR/SC/TSI NC 

030813 26 67 CT60/DEADFALL NC 

030813 33 18 PE NC 

030813 34 44 CT60/DEADFALL NC 

030813 37 52 SC/CT60/POL SC/CT60/POL 

030813 40 127 CT60/POL NC 

030813 41 39 SC NC 

030813 55 12 CT60/POL NC 

030813 57 8 SC/CT NC 

031901 1 88 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 2 74 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 3 72 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 4 30 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 5 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 6 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 11 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 12 92 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 13 62 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 14 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 15 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 16 247 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 32 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 34 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 35 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 36 110 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 37 69 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 38 74 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 39 50 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 40 61 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 41 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 42 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 43 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-4

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

031901 64 57 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 65 64 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 66 191 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 67 71 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 68 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 104 32 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 105 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 107 34 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 109 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 110 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 111 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 112 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 113 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 114 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 115 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 116 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 117 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 118 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 119 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 120 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 122 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 123 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 124 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 125 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 126 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 127 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 128 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 129 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 130 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 132 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 133 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 170 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 171 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 172 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 173 71 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 174 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 175 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 176 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 177 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 178 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 179 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 180 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 181 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 182 1 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 183 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 184 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 185 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-5 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

031901 186 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 187 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 188 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 189 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 190 25 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 191 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 192 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 304 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 309 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 310 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

031901 311 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

032001 47 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

032001 104 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

032001 105 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041101 24 110 OR/TSI/DEADFALL NC 

041101 25 49 

CT60/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041101 29 31 

CT60/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041101 40 27 

CT60/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041101 41 131 

CT60/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041201 33 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 41 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 47 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 51 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 52 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 69 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041201 76 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 1 60 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 2 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 3 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 4 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 5 58 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 6 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 7 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 8 91 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 9 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 10 50 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 11 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 12 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 16 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 17 92 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 19 53 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 21 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 22 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 24 128 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-6

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041202 25 108 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 26 103 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 27 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 35 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 38 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 44 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 46 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 47 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 52 25 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 53 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 56 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 57 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 58 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 59 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041202 60 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041203 30 67 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041203 90 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 2 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 8 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 10 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 11 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 13 60 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 14 51 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 15 70 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 16 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 17 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 19 114 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 20 23 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 22 50 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 23 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 24 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 25 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 26 53 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 30 69 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 35 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 41 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 44 30 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 51 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 53 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 54 291 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 55 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 56 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 57 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 58 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 59 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 60 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 61 50 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-7 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041301 62 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 63 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 64 48 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 65 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 66 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 67 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 68 100 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 70 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 71 88 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 72 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 73 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 74 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 76 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 77 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 78 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 79 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 80 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 81 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 82 58 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 83 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 84 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 85 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 86 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 87 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 88 58 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 89 52 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 90 47 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 91 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 92 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 96 5 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 98 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 99 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 100 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 101 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 102 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041301 103 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 1 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 4 108 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 5 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 6 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 7 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 8 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 9 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 10 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 12 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 13 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 15 53 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-8

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041302 16 79 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 21 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 24 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 26 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 29 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 50 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 51 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 52 79 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 53 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 54 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 55 84 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 56 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 57 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 58 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 59 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 60 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 62 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 63 87 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 65 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 71 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 72 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 74 48 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 75 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 79 88 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 84 63 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 86 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 91 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 94 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 95 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 96 96 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 98 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 100 70 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 101 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 103 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 106 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 108 44 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 109 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 111 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 112 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 113 78 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 114 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 115 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 116 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 117 99 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 118 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 119 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 121 94 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-9 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041302 123 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 124 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 125 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 126 61 CT60/POL/SC GS/SC RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 127 70 CT60/POL/SC GS/SC RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 128 21 DEADFALL DEADFALL 

041302 129 32 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 130 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 131 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 132 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 134 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 135 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 136 35 PE PE RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 137 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041302 138 20 DEADFALL DEADFALL RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 26 47 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 34 63 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 35 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 36 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 37 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 38 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 39 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 40 49 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 41 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 42 52 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 44 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 45 98 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 46 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 47 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 48 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 49 23 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 72 51 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 73 23 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 74 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 86 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 87 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041303 88 23 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041304 69 59 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041304 74 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 1 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 3 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 5 55 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 6 80 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 7 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 9 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 10 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 11 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-10

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041305 12 57 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 13 92 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 20 49 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 21 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 22 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 23 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 24 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 26 32 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 28 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 29 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 30 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 31 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 32 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 33 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 34 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 35 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 36 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 37 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 38 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 39 52 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 40 34 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 41 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 42 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 45 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 46 34 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 47 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 48 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 49 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 51 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 52 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 53 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 54 38 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 55 54 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 56 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 57 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 58 40 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 59 69 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 60 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 61 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 62 1 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 63 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 64 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 65 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 66 68 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 67 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 68 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 69 7 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-11 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041305 70 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 73 74 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 74 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 75 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 76 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 77 67 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 78 66 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 79 59 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 80 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 81 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 82 69 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 84 59 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 87 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 88 80 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041305 89 61 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 1 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 6 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 8 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 10 15 RX_Fire 

041401 11 66 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 13 39 RX_Fire 

041401 14 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 15 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 16 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 17 47 RX_Fire 

041401 18 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 19 37 RX_Fire 

041401 20 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 21 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 22 17 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 23 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 24 72 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 26 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 27 89 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 28 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 29 77 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 30 54 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 31 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 32 100 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 33 13 RX_Fire 

041401 34 20 RX_Fire 

041401 35 20 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 36 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 37 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 38 13 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 39 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 40 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-12

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041401 41 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 42 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 43 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 44 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 45 36 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 46 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 47 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 48 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 49 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 50 15 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 51 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 52 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 53 33 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 54 3 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 55 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041401 56 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 3 19 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 4 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 7 21 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 11 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 15 18 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 16 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 21 25 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 26 12 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 28 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 29 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 30 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 32 75 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 34 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 36 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 37 55 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 38 6 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 39 49 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 40 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 43 46 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 45 35 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 47 56 

CT60/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC RX_Fire 

041402 50 71 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 57 39 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 58 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 66 29 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 68 64 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 129 60 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 133 80 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 134 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 138 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 139 45 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix G 

G-13 

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041402 140 73 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 142 41 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 143 65 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 148 28 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 176 73 CT50/POL/SC CT50/SC/POL RX_Fire 

041402 177 31 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 178 39 CT50/POL/SC CT50/SC/POL RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 179 91 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 180 56 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 181 10 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 184 51 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041402 185 18 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041402 187 36 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041402 188 33 

CT50/POL/ 

DEADFALL NC 

041402 189 21 DEADFALL NC 

041402 191 11 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041402 193 8 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 1 46 CT60/POL GS RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 2 84 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 3 14 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 5 16 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 7 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 8 67 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 10 27 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 11 49 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 12 25 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 14 91 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 17 37 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 18 68 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 19 24 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 21 4 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 24 59 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 27 9 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041501 36 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 1 87 PE PE RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 2 31 CT60/POL GS RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 3 36 CT60/POL GS RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 5 114 CT60/POL GS RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 6 43 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 7 95 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 8 70 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 9 22 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 10 42 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 11 26 RX_Fire RX_Fire 
Appendix G Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

G-14

Location and Site Acres Alt. 2 Silv Alt. 3 Silv Alt. 2 Rx Alt. 3 Rx 

041502 12 33 CT60/POL GS RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 13 29 CT60/POL NC 

041502 14 14 DEADFALL NC 

041502 22 84 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041502 39 19 PE NC 

041502 50 2 RX_Fire RX_Fire 

041600 21 20 RX_Fire 

041600 71 82 RX_Fire 

041600 72 113 RX_Fire 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix H 

H-1 

Appendix H – Follow-Up Activities 

This appendix discusses and displays follow-up activities which are planned in 

the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project area. The majority of follow-up 

activities are site-specific and is listed in the main table in this appendix. Other 

activities such as weed treatments are not site-specific and are discussed below. 

Prescribed burning is discussed in Chapter 2 and is not displayed in this 

appendix. More information on these activities may be found in Volume 1 of this 

Environmental Assessment and in the project file. 

Table H-1. Definitions of Treatment Acronyms 

Acronym Definition

DF Deadfall 

PCT Pre Commercial Thin 

PE Pine encroachment 

POL Products Other than Logs 

REGEN Regeneration Surveys 

Noxious Weed Treatment 

Chemical treatments would occur throughout the project area depending upon

the conditions. Where chemical treatments are difficult due to access or where 

chemical treatments may adversely impact other resources biological treatments 

may be used. It is estimated that treatment would occur each year for 5 years. 

Actual acres of treatment may vary therefore a range of acreage depending on 

low to high infestation rates is provided. 

 Table H-2. Range of total acres of treatments. 

Estimated Acres 

(Low Infestation) 

Estimated Acres 

(High Infestation) 

Alternative 1 0 

Alternative 2

 Mechanical 

 Rx Fire 

139 

340 

636 

3,397 

 Total Alternative 2 479 4,033 

Alternative 3

 Mechanical 

 Rx Fire 

6 

331 

185 

3,309 

 Total Alternative 3 376 3,494 

The following table denotes only those specific sites where follow-up activities 

would occur. There are no post-sale activities planned in locations 30101, 
Appendix H Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

H-2

30801, 30802, 30810, 30812, 31901, 32001, 41201, 41202, 41203, 41301, 

41303, 41304, 41305, 41401, 41600. 

Table H-3. Specific sites for follow-up activities.

Location Site Acres Alt. 2 Post Sale Alt. 3 Post Sale

30813 3 39 PCT

12 36 PCT

16 58 PCT

20 65 PCT

26 96 POL, DF

33 18 PE

34 44 POL, DF

37 52 REGEN POL

40 98 POL

41 39 REGEN

55 12 POL

57 8 REGEN

41101 24 110 PCT, DF

25 49 POL, DF

24 110 PCT, DF

29 49 POL, DF

40 27 POL, DF

41 71 POL, DF

41302 63 87 POL, DF POL, DF

126 61 POL REGEN, POL

127 70 POL REGEN, POL

128 21 DF DF

136 35 PE PE

138 20 DF DF

41402 47 56 POL, DF

176 73 POL POL

178 39 POL POL

184 51 POL, DF

185 18 POL, DF

187 36 POL, DF

188 33 POL, DF

189 21 DF

41501 1 46 POL REGEN, POL
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Appendix H 

H-3 

Location Site Acres Alt. 2 Post Sale Alt. 3 Post Sale

41502 1 87 PE PE

2 31 POL REGEN, POL

41502 3 36 POL REGEN, POL

5 114 POL REGEN, POL

12 33 POL REGEN, POL

13 29 POL

14 14 DF

39 19 PE