United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

December 2012

Decision Notice and Finding 

of No Significant Impact 

and 

Environmental Assessment

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer & Pennington County, South Dakota

T02S, R01E Sections 13, 14, 23-25, 36 

T02S, R02E Sections 30, 31 

T03S, R01E Sections 11-14, 23-26 

T03S, R02E Sections 3, 4, 7-10, 12-24, 27-34 

T03S, R03E Sections 7, 8, 16-20

T04S, R02E Sections 4-6, 24-26, 35, 36 

T04S, R03E Sections 30, 31

T05S, R2E Sections 1, 12

T05S, R03E, Sections 6, 7

For Information Contact: 

Gwen Lipp

330 Mt. Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-4853

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

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

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

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

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

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

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

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

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

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

opportunity provider and employer.
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

1

DECISION NOTICE

& FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

HELL CANYON MAINTENANCE BURN

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

HELL CANYON RANGER DISTRICT, BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST

CUSTER & PENNINGTON COUNTIES, SD

INTRODUCTION

A Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are provided 

here. The DN documents my decision and provides my explanation of the management 

and environmental reasons I used to make my decision in selecting an alternative to 

implement. The FONSI presents the reasons why I find this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment and therefore, why an environmental impact 

statement will not be prepared. The completed Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

Environmental Assessment (EA) is incorporated by reference. 

DECISION

Based upon my review of the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn EA and project file, I have 

decided to implement Alternative 3, which 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 issue #1, Alternative 3 defers all proposed treatments, prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments, within the 3 CSU study plots in the project area. Deferring these 

sites also addresses, issue #2, in part because more cover would be available for big game 

as structural stage 4B. Alternative 3 further addresses issue #2 by developing more stand 

diversity by using uneven-aged treatments. 

Acres of treatments in Alternative 3 are displayed in Table 1. All commercial treatments 

include sanitation. Refer to attached Maps which display treatment areas. Treatments 

are described in Chapter 2 of the EA.
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

2

Table 1: Vegetation Treatments in Selected Action

Treatment Type Alternative 3

(acres)

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed Burning 16,544

Mechanical Treatments - Commercial

Commercial Thin 50 (CT50) 199

Commercial Thin 60 (CT60) 64

Group Selection 391

Total Acres Commercial 624

Mechanical Treatments – Non-Commercial

Pine Encroachment 114

POL thinning* 624

Deadfall 624

*All POL Thinning occurs on acres with other commercial treatments.

No new road construction is authorized by this Decision. Alternative 3 would require 

maintenance on approximately 20 miles of road to facilitate implementation of the 

mechanical treatments included in this alternative. Table 2 displays estimated volume 

output.

Table 2: Estimated Timber Volume

 Selected Action 

Alternative 3

Sawlog volume 4,594 ccf

POL volume 556 cunits

Total 5,150 ccf

RATIONALE FOR DECISION

The purpose and need for action is to reduce long term fire hazard and improve health 

and vigor of forested stands in portions of the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. 

A total of three alternatives, including No Action (Alternative 1), were analyzed in detail 

in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project. Alternative 2 was the proposed action 

released for scoping prior to the analysis presented in the Environmental Assessment. 

Alternative 3 was developed to address both key issues identified during public scoping. 

First of all, I would like to clarify that I intend to continue to manage these fire areas as 

stated in the Forest Plan for the 3 Management Areas involved. Many (approximately

80%) of the forested stands in the project area were changed to a structural stage 1, 

grass/forb condition by these fires. This is an establishment phase of stand development 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

3

not a meadow condition. A change in suitable timber land can only be done through an 

Environmental Impact Statement that includes a Forest Plan amendment. These pine 

sites will continue to be managed as pine sites and not be converted to meadow by this 

Decision.

In considering whether active management is needed within this area, at this time, I 

reviewed the existing conditions within the project area and the expected effects. There 

are 2 main aspects to this project; reducing long –term fire hazard and improving health 

and vigor of forested stands. I considered each of these needs in my deliberations. 

The EA discloses the existing high fire hazard created by these massive fires and I have 

also surveyed the area in the field to gather firsthand knowledge of the situation. I find 

that there are heavy concentrations of fuels on the ground composed of broken tops and 

fallen trees. I viewed areas where the aerial arrangement of these fuels approached 5 feet 

above the ground and was so densely packed that it is impossible to walk through. These 

conditions are conducive to high intensity wildfires which threaten resources as well as 

the safety of the public and firefighting personnel called to contain such a fire.

Recent large fires on the Hell Canyon Ranger District; including Whoopup Canyon and 

the Barrell fire; confirmed to me that there is a need for action within these areas which 

have seen large fires in the past. The fire behavior associated with areas which have 

previously seen large fire is very complex as a result of the grass component as well as 

the heavy down and dead fuel component. I witnessed this specifically during the 

Whoopup Canyon Fire in July, 2011. A large portion of the Whoopup Canyon Fire 

burned within the Elk Mountain II Complex (2002), outside of the project area, but 

within similar conditions. The grass component was continuous enough to allow the fire 

to spread at rapid rates, and the down and dead component was extensive enough that the 

fires burned with high intensity and spot fire potential. These fires not only put the 

surrounding private in-holdings and communities at risk, but also put the firefighters who 

were fighting the fire at risk. This spring, the Apple fire burned under similar conditions 

in the 1988 Cicero Peak fire. 

The fire return interval in the southern Black Hills is approximately 10 to 12 years, 

according to the FEIS completed for the Forest Plan. This is consistent with the fact that 

many of these large fire areas are poised to reburn in this decade. 

In addition, the fuels report identifies fuel loadings present in the project area which are 

very similar to what existed in the Brewer Fire, on the Custer National Forest, 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, spot fire 

problems, and convective column development. Firefighters became entrapped and 

deployed fire shelters as a result (Kraft Springs EA, 2003).

The second aspect of this project involves improving the health and vigor of ponderosa 

pine stands. These forested stands occur entirely within the Jasper portion of the project 

area and account for approximately 20% of the whole project area. These are essentially 

islands of trees which escaped being entirely consumed by the fire, as most stands were. 

These are critically important trees from the point of view of producing new pine seed for 

future regeneration in the adjacent areas. 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

4

Mountain pine beetle infestations have been occurring at epidemic levels across the Black 

Hills National Forest. I have visited several stands within this project area and have seen 

the current infestation of mountain pine beetle. I believe it is important to reduce MPB 

risk within these stands. These remnant forest stands are of vital importance to the 

recovery and re-forestation of the project area. In addition, I further believe that active 

management is needed to create stand conditions which will provide for resource 

conditions defined in the designated Management Areas. 

Therefore, due to the existing fire hazard and the risk it poses to both the public and 

Forest Service employees, I have determined that active management is needed to reduce 

fuel loadings in the project area. I further find that active management is needed to 

improve the health and vigor of existing forested stands. For these reasons, I have 

rejected the No Action Alternative for this project. 

The next consideration I had in making my decision was specifically what combination 

of management actions would be most appropriate for this project and what level and 

type of treatment would best meet the stated purpose and need and be responsive to the 

key issues raised. My deliberations focused on the analysis in the EA, the 2 key issues 

identified through public scoping, and public comments received. Both action 

alternatives would meet the stated purpose and need for action within the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project and are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

I carefully considered how the alternatives addressed each of the 2 key issues, as 

discussed below.

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

(CSU) study plots

This issue was developed in response to concerns as to how treatments within these 

research areas would affect existing or future research potential in these sites. 

The proposed action, Alternative 2, would implement fuel reduction and forest health 

improvement actions within approximately 1,283 acres of research plots established by 

Colorado State University (CSU) to study post-fire conditions and recovery within the 

Jasper fire. Alternative 3 defers all treatments with these plots including commercial, 

noncommercial and prescribed fire, in response to this issue. 

To date, approximately 11 research manuscripts have been published based on studies 

conducted within these plots (Refer to Appendix I in the EA). The ponderosa pine type 

of the Black Hills is very unique compared to other ponderosa pine types across the 

country. These manuscripts have provided important local research specific to the 

vegetation response in the Black Hills after a fire. This research provides Black Hills 

specific data on grasses, forbs, shrubs and Ponderosa pine response, which is invaluable 

for future managers of the Black Hills to make the best decisions possible on the 

management of lands affected by wildfire. 

On October 6th, 2011, Dr. Skip Smith and Dr. Wayne Sheppard traveled to the Black 

Hills, along with several of their graduate students who have conducted this Jasper burn 

research, to present at the Dakota Society of American Foresters fall meeting at Crazy 

Horse monument. I met with them on October 5th to specifically discuss this project 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

5

Decision. I also attended the half day presentation of Jasper range and forestry research 

on the 6th, and the field visit to these plots in the afternoon. Even though there is currently 

no additional research underway, I was convinced that the long term opportunity to 

continue this research is important for how it can inform future management decisions in 

the many thousands of acres of old burns on the Black Hills National Forest.

There also is public support for deferring treatment in these plots. Two of the 4 comment 

letters received were in favor of retaining the integrity of the CSU study plots. 

Deferring all treatment within these identified plot areas will not only preserve the 

integrity of the existing research but will also allow future Black Hills specific research 

regarding important topics such as post fire recovery to continue. Therefore, I have 

decided that it is beneficial to defer all treatments within these study plots to retain the 

integrity of the plots to provide for current and future research potential.

Issue 2: Effects to big game habitat

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

and increased cover. 

Ninety three percent of the project area occurs in Management Area 5.4: Big game winter 

range. These areas are managed to provide high-quality winter and transitional habitat 

for deer and elk, high-quality turkey habitat, habitat for other species, and a variety of 

multiple uses. The Jasper and Rogers Shack fires provided plenty of forage in these 

areas, but left little cover. Wildlife biologists within our organization as well as those 

from South Dakota Game Fish and Parks expressed a need to create more diversity within 

pine stands to provide for habitat needs of cover, now and into the future. Alternative 3 

includes uneven-aged management (group selection) on 391 acres which is more than 

half of the mechanical treatments proposed. This treatment will provide for areas which 

encompass groups of trees which could serve as cover for big game animals. 

Additionally, these areas will have an opportunity to provide for multiple age groups into 

the future within an area which will predominately be one age class. 

In addition to the stand diversity discussed above, alternative 3 will retain 741 acres 

within structural stage 4B to provide for big game cover. I believe that this combination 

of treatments will provide for big game cover within these stands as well as encourage 

cover into the future. All green trees infested with mountain pine beetle may be removed 

in a sanitation treatment in all forested sites outside of the research plots. 

On a final note, there has been some concern raised regarding the impact of burning on 

advanced regeneration in the area. As I stated above, my intention is to manage the 

forested stands in this project area, as forest. Therefore, protecting advanced 

regeneration as well as those areas which have been planted, is of utmost importance. 

Project design criteria to avoid burning in areas where regeneration occurs is included as 

an integral component of the project. In addition, invasive weeds will be treated under 

both the prescribed burning and silvicultural treatments, as part of project design. 

To summarize, for all the reasons stated above, I have chosen to implement Alternative 3. 

I select this action because I believe it best meets the purpose and need for action, while 

also responding best to all of the identified issues and public comments received. 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

6

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

In addition to the selected action, I considered 2 other alternatives in detail. An 

additional five alternatives not considered in detail are briefly discussed in the EA. A 

summary of other alternatives considered in detail is presented below. Further 

information on the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA and in Appendix A, 

Maps. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

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

Alternative and that it be used as a basis for comparing the 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 alternative would take place in the project 

area. Actions analyzed under past projects or proposed by future projects may still occur. 

This alternative was not selected for reasons stated earlier. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action was developed in response to the purpose and need for action and 

was presented to the public during scoping. This alternative would implement active 

management treatments, prescribed burning and thinning, within the CSU study plots. It 

would also utilize even-aged silviculture treatments to improve health and vigor of pine 

stands. 

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 

the scoping period which started on December 19, 2008. A scoping letter was sent to 

approximately 150 individuals, tribes, groups and agencies. A total of 10 responses to 

scoping were received. 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. 

The Draft EA was completed and mailed to interested individuals, groups, agencies and 

Tribes in September, 2010. A 30-day comment period was provided in accordance with 

Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 215. The Legal Notice of opportunity to comment was 

published in the Rapid City Journal on October 1, 2010. There were 3 comment letters 

received and 1 office visit for the purpose of providing comments. None of these comments 

generated a need for re-analysis or required major substantive changes in the document. 

These letters are contained in the project file. Appendix J of the EA provides a table of 

these comments and the Forest Service response to each.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

I have reviewed the environmental effects of the selected alternative as disclosed in the 

EA. I have also evaluated whether the selected alternative constitutes a significant 

impact on the quality of the human environment or whether the environmental impacts 

would be significant based on their context and intensity, as defined by the National 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

7

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using the criteria in the implementing regulations (40 

CFR §1508.27).

After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I 

have determined that these actions will not have significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Therefore an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. 

CONTEXT

This project is limited in scope and duration. This project is local and would affect only 

the project area. The issues identified during scoping and considered in alternative 

development and analysis are local in nature. Effects are limited to the vicinity of the 

planned activities. The selected alternative is consistent with the requirements of the 

Forest Plan and contributes to moving toward or meeting the goals and objectives of the 

Forest Plan. None of the effects disclosed in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn EA are 

different from those anticipated in the FEIS for the Forest Plan or the FEIS for the Phase 

II Amendment.

INTENSITY

The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 

• Beneficial and adverse impacts of this decision were considered and are addressed 

in Chapter 3 of the EA. My decision is not biased by the beneficial effects of the 

action.

• Effects on public health and safety were considered. No significant public health 

and safety issues were identified during the analysis process. Public safety may 

be improved by the reduction of fire hazard and mountain pine beetle 

susceptibility. 

• There are no known unique characteristics in the area, such as proximity to 

historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and 

scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas located in the project area. No adverse 

direct and indirect effects will occur to wetlands, prime farmlands, wild and 

scenic rivers or ecological critical areas, as they are either not present or will be 

protected by project design features, as shown in Chapter 3 of the EA. Project 

design criteria (EA, Appendix B) include measures to protect riparian areas and to 

protect and monitor cultural resources. Archaeological sites will maintain their 

National Register eligibility characteristics. For these reasons, there will be no 

adverse effects on unique characteristics of the area.

• The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly 

controversial. The effects on biological diversity, water quality, soils and other 

elements of the environment have been described and design criteria have been 

included, such that this project contributes to maintaining habitat for viable 

populations of plant and animal species, as well as to maintaining water quality 

and soil productivity. No new or unusual methods or activities are proposed. The 

effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, are very unlikely to 

involve unique or unknown risks, and are not likely to be highly controversial 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

8

because effects of the project are expected to be similar to those of past projects 

and are well understood (EA, Chapter 3).

• The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant 

effects (EA, Chapter 1). The action does not represent a decision in principle 

about future considerations. Similar projects conducted in the future will have to 

be evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the 

significance of the effects of those specific actions.

• The cumulative actions considered in the environmental analysis are discussed by 

resource in Chapter 3 of the EA. The cumulative impacts of the proposed action, 

including connected actions, were considered with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions (see EA, Chapter 3).

• The potential effects on cultural resources have been considered in the analysis. 

No adverse effects are anticipated. A heritage resource inventory was completed 

for the project area; the survey protocol was concurred with by the South Dakota 

State Historic Preservation Office on August 01, 2010. In a letter dated August 

01, 2010, SHPO concurred that the project will have no adverse effect on heritage 

resources.

• The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its 

habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act 

of 1973, because federally listed species or designated critical habitat do not occur 

within the project area (EA, Chapter 3). A determination for Forest Service 

Region 2 sensitive species for the selected Alternative found that there will be no 

trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area, including 

fish, wildlife and plants (EA, Chapter 3). These BA/BEs are part of the project 

record and were used in preparation of the EA. In addition, a Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) analysis for this project was completed and it determined 

that the proposed action, and its relationship to MIS species and the habitat types 

they represent, is not expected to impact the viability of these species in the future 

(EA, Chapter 3).

• As described in more detail below, the selected action will not violate federal, 

state, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 

Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA (EA, Chapter 3). All 

state water quality requirements will be met as well as other federal, state, and 

local requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Effects on 

water quality, floodplains, and wetlands are documented in the EA and project 

file. Design criteria will be used to protect water quality and to meet standards 

imposed by the Forest Plan and the State. No violations of environmental laws 

and requirements were identified through the environmental effects analysis. The 

action is consistent with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan.
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

9

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as Amended

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies 

to consider the potential effects of undertakings on historic, architectural or 

archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Potential impacts to archaeological and historic resources have 

been evaluated in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. All surveyed and 

inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP will be 

avoided during resource management activities. New sites discovered during operations 

will be protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties will be protected. 

The South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was consulted concerning 

the proposed activities in the Norbeck Wildlife Project, project area. In a letter dated 

August 1, 2010, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred 

with the determination of No Adverse Effects for the proposed undertaking on the nonrenewable cultural resources of South Dakota. This letter is in the project file.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to analyze and disclose 

the effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. The Act’s requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement is 

designed to provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of the likely 

environmental effects of a proposed action prior to adoption and to inform the public of 

such effects. The Act establishes the format and content requirements of environmental 

analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn EA, DN and FONSI was completed in accordance with this Act.

The Endangered Species Act, 1973 

A Biological Assessment and a Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) have been prepared to 

document possible effects of any activities on endangered, threatened, proposed or 

sensitive species in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project, project area. A 

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

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

Therefore, the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project would have “No Effect” on 

threatened, endangered or proposed species and no impact on critical habitat. 

The effects of the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project on Region 2 sensitive species 

were analyzed and documented in both the Botany BA/BE and the Wildlife and Fish 

BA/BE for this project. These documents were summarized in Appendix D in the EA. A 

determination was made that the proposed activities may adversely impact individuals 

but are not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing.
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

10

The Clean Water Act

This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Due to 

the unique underlying geology of the project area, it is generally considered to be a 

groundwater recharge zone (Strobel, 1999). The project area does not contain any 

perennial streams and contains a few very short segments, less than 100 feet in length, of 

intermittent surface water associated with springs. None of the streams within the 

project area or water resources analysis areas are listed specifically for other beneficial 

uses due to the lack of continuous surface water. No water bodies within the project area 

are currently listed as impaired (SD DENR, 2010), nor have they been listed on previous 

years reports (SD DENR, 1998; 2002; 2004; 2006; 2008). 

Proposed timber and fuels management, and prescribed burning activities associated with 

Alternative 3 are not expected to degrade water quality or exceed state specified 

thresholds for the various water quality parameters associated with each beneficial use. 

This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring and 

implementation of design criteria associated with project activities.

Clean Air Act of 1970 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments provide for protecting and enhancing the 

nation’s air resources. Federal and state ambient air quality standards are not expected to 

be exceeded by implementing the selected action. This action is consistent with the 

Clean Air Act. 

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

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974: 

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

below.

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan

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

cooperative agreements, and other activities carried out on the Black Hills National 

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

that:

• Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan goals and objectives (Hell 

Canyon Maintenance Burn EA, Chapter 3). 

• I have reviewed the BHNF FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report and 

Region 2 MIS guidance for projects. The effects of planned activities on 

management indicator species are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

• Planned activities are consistent with management area direction

• Planned activities comply with Forest Plan standards (Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn EA, Chapters 1 and 3).
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

11

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act 

The 1982 and 2000 planning rules are no longer in effect. Pursuant to the 2012 planning 

rule, project decisions must be consistent with the Forest Plan. (36 CFR 219.17(c)). 

Consistency with Plan Direction 

The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan’s management indicator species is determined by 

the Forest Plan’s management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines 

(Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest, 

Forest Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project-specific monitoring or 

surveying for MIS. Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, 

Objective 238. The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that 

do not require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability 

relationships. Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238. 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project analyzed the following management 

indicator species (MIS) because habitat for these species is available in the project area: 

white-tailed deer, grasshopper sparrow, black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, and 

ruffed grouse.

Alternative 3 is consistent with the requirements in the Forest Plan because:

• It meets objective 103, for maintaining and improving long-term stream health. 

Existing stream condition is discussed on pages 101 of the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn EA. Direct and indirect effects are discussed on page 109. 

Cumulative effects are discussed on page 111. BMP effectiveness is discussed on 

pages 112-113. Design criteria which will be implemented to maintain and 

improve long-term stream health are listed in Appendix B under 

Geology/Soil/Water. 

• It moves toward meeting Objective 201, managing for a maximum of 92,000 

acres of aspen. Alternative 3 would provide opportunity for existing aspen stands 

to expand as pine cover is reduced in the project area (page 52, EA). No change to 

existing aspen stands would occur and existing aspen stands would be maintained 

(page 52, EA). 

• It is consistent with Objective 238a to maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed 

grouse, white-tailed deer and brown creeper. Refer to discussion of Objective 

201, above. Alternative 3 maintains meadow acres (objective 205), see page 52 in 

the EA for a discussion on meadows. The EA discusses snags (objective 211) on 

pages 55 and 56 as well as design criteria in Appendix B under “Snags/Dead 

Woody Material”. Management area objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-206 are 

discussed on pages 51-52 of the EA for Alternative 3. 

• It is consistent with objective 238b to maintain habitat for black-backed 

woodpecker. The EA discusses the snag objective 211 and standard 2301 on 

pages 55 and 56 as well as design criteria in Appendix B under “Snags/Dead 

Woody Material”. Management area objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-206 are 

discussed on pages 51-52 of the EA for Alternative 3. 

• It is consistent with Objective 10-04, to treat fuels commensurate with risks, 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

12

hazard and land and resource values. Refer to pages 29-32 for existing fire hazard 

and page 39 for the effects of Alternative 3 on fire hazard. 

• It is consistent with Objective 10-07, to reduce acreage of ponderosa pine in 

medium or high risk for infestation of mountain pine beetle. Refer to pages 42 

and 43 for existing condition of mountain pine beetle risk and page 51 for the 

effects of Alternative 3 on beetle risk acres. 

Alternative 3 is further consistent with the Forest Plan because it meets the 

following standards: 

• 1101, 1102, 1103, 1301 regarding soil productivity, compaction, erosion, 

disturbance and stream health. Refer to the soil and water discussion on pages 

95-113 of the EA, as well as the Design Criteria listed under 

‘Geology/Soil/Water’ in Appendix B. 

• 2301a, to retain all snags which are not deemed a safety hazard. Refer to design 

criteria in Appendix B under “Snags/Dead Woody Material”.

• 4301 to determine the risk of noxious weed introduction or spread and to 

implement appropriate measures. The risk of introduction or spread of noxious 

weeds is discussed on pages 86-89. Refer to Appendix B under “Range and 

Noxious Weeds” for design criteria.

Resource Management Requirements

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

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

project decision comply with the NFMA law, as follows. 

• Irreversible resource damage will not occur. The project will not cause 

irreversible resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition. 

(EA, Chapter 3 and Silviculture findings, Appendix F). 

• Adequate restocking is assured (Silviculture findings, Appendix F). 

• No clearcutting is proposed. 

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

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

for timber harvest. (Silviculture findings, Appendix F)

• No created openings will be larger than 40 acres (Silviculture findings, Appendix 

F). 

• Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) requirements are met 

(Silviculture findings, Appendix F). 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

13

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11593 – PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE CULTURAL 

ENVIRONMENT

Executive order 11593 also includes direction about the identification and consideration 

of historic properties in federal land management decisions. The Order, issued May 13, 

1971, directs federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to 

nominate to the NRHP all federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use due 

caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that 

federal plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-federally 

owned properties. This project satisfies the requirements of E.O. 11593.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112 – INVASIVE SPECIES

Executive order 13112 directs that federal agencies not carry out actions that would cause 

the introduction or spread of invasive species, unless the agency determines that the 

benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm, and that all feasible and 

prudent measures to minimize risk to harm will be taken. In the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Project, the benefits of the selected action are to meet the purpose and 

need for action as discussed in Chapter 1 of the EA. The beneficial effects of the 

treatments are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Design criteria is included to limit the 

potential for establishment or spread of weeds (see Appendix B) and treatment of noxious 

weeds is included as described in Appendix H. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 - ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to focus attention on human health and 

environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. The 

purpose of the executive order is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. None of the counties in the study area contain 

low-income or minority populations as defined by Executive Order 12898. No additional 

outreach or analysis has been performed, as there would be no disproportionate negative 

effect on such communities under any of the alternatives.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

As outlined in the Soils and Hydrology section in Chapter 3 of the EA, floodplains will 

not be measurably, negatively affected by implementation. This project is in compliance 

and meets the requirement of this Executive Order. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 – PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

As outlined in the EA, there are approximately 4.4 acres of mapped wetlands in the 

project area. Alternative 3 is expected to maintain current conditions of wetlands and 

riparian areas through implementation of design criteria and WCPs/BMPs (see Appendix 

B of EA). No effects to wetlands would occur. The Selected Action, Alternative 3, is 

consistent with this order. 
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

14

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186 – MIGRATORY BIRDS

Migratory birds were fully evaluated in the Wildlife report and the Wildlife section of the 

EA. No adverse effects to habitat are expected as a result of the selected action, which 

includes implementation of design criteria in Appendix B. This project is in compliance 

and meets the requirement of this Executive Order. 

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 (June 2003). A written 

appeal must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal 

notice of this decision in the Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, South Dakota. It is the 

responsibility of the appellant to ensure their appeal is received in a timely manner. The 

publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the newspaper of record is the 

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on 

date or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Paper appeals must be submitted to: 

Black Hills National Forest Supervisors Office

Appeal Deciding Officer

Attn: Ed Fischer

1019 N. Fifth Street

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-9200

Fax: (605) 673-9350

Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-black-hills@fs.fed.us

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the office address above between the hours of 8:00 am 

and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 

For appeals filed electronically, the name of the project decision being appealed should 

appear in the subject line. Electronically filed appeals must be readable in either Word, 

Rich Text or .pdf formats. When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should 

normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. 

If the appellant does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the 

appeal, it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means (§ 

215.15(c)(3)).

It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity-specific evidence and 

rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a 

minimum, an appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 and include 

the following information:

(1) Appellant’s name and address (§ 215.2), with a telephone number, if available; 

(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for 

electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

15

(3) When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant 

(§ 215.2) and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; 

(4) The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name 

and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision;

(5) The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to 

appeal under either this part or part 251, subpart C (§ 215.11(d));

(6) Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks, and rationale for 

those changes; 

(7) Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation 

for the disagreement;

(8) Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider 

the substantive comments; and 

(9) How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation or 

policy. 

Notices of Appeal that do not meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 will be dismissed.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.9, if no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, 

implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the 5th business day 

following the close of the appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation 

may occur on, but not before 15 business days following the date of the appeal 

disposition. 

CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Lynn Kolund, District 

Ranger, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 330 Mount Rushmore Road, Custer, SD 57730. 

For further information on the Forest Service appeal process, contact Ed Fischer, 

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

57730.
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

16
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

17
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

18
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

19
 Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Decision Notice & FONSI

20
United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

December 2012

Environmental Assessment

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer & Pennington County, South Dakota

T02S, R01E Sections 13, 14, 23-25, 36 

T02S, R02E Sections 30, 31 

T03S, R01E Sections 11-14, 23-26 

T03S, R02E Sections 3, 4, 7-10, 12-24, 27-34 

T03S, R03E Sections 7, 8, 16-20

T04S, R02E Sections 4-6, 24-26, 35, 36 

T04S, R03E Sections 30, 31

T05S, R2E Sections 1, 12

T05S, R03E, Sections 6, 7

For Information Contact: 

Gwen Lipp

330 Mt. Rushmore Road

Custer, SD 57730

Phone: (605) 673-4853

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

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

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

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

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

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

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

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

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

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

opportunity provider and employer.
Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

Decision Framework ..............................................................................................................ii

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..............................................................1

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

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

Location....................................................................................................................................3

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

Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................4

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................5

Public Involvement...................................................................................................................5

Issues........................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................7

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................7

Alternative 1 – No Action.......................................................................................................7

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...........................................................................................7

Alternative 3............................................................................................................................9

Design Criteria..........................................................................................................................10

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail....................................................................................10

Comparison of Alternatives.....................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES.......................................................................................................................14

Fire and Fuels...........................................................................................................................14

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 14

Condition Class and Fire Regime.......................................................................................... 15

Risk/Value/Hazard ................................................................................................................ 18

Fire Risk ................................................................................................................................ 19

Values at Risk........................................................................................................................ 21

Fire Hazard............................................................................................................................ 22
Air Quality............................................................................................................................. 26

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................ 26

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION....................................................................................... 26

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................ 29

ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................................................................................................ 31

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives................................................................................. 33

Forest Vegetation..................................................................................................................... 34

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 34

Cover Types........................................................................................................................... 34

Ponderosa Pine ...................................................................................................................... 35

Regeneration.......................................................................................................................... 35

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk .................................................................................................... 36

Structural Stages ................................................................................................................... 37

Very Large Sized Trees.......................................................................................................... 38

Aspen..................................................................................................................................... 38

Shrubs.................................................................................................................................... 38

Meadows and Grasslands...................................................................................................... 39

Non-Vegetated Rock ............................................................................................................. 39

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................ 39

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION....................................................................................... 39

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................... 39

Ponderosa Pine ...................................................................................................................... 39

Regeneration.......................................................................................................................... 39

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk .................................................................................................... 40

Structural Stages ................................................................................................................... 40

Very Large Sized Trees.......................................................................................................... 40

Aspen..................................................................................................................................... 40

Shrubs.................................................................................................................................... 41

Meadows and Grasslands...................................................................................................... 41

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PURPOSED ACTION........................................................................ 41

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................... 41

Ponderosa Pine ...................................................................................................................... 41
Regeneration ......................................................................................................................... 42

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk .................................................................................................... 42

Structural Stages ................................................................................................................... 43

Very Large Sized Trees.......................................................................................................... 43

Aspen..................................................................................................................................... 43

Shrubs.................................................................................................................................... 44

Meadows ............................................................................................................................... 44

ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................................................................................................ 44

Direct and Indirect Effects.................................................................................................... 44

Ponderosa Pine ...................................................................................................................... 44

Regeneration ......................................................................................................................... 45

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk .................................................................................................... 45

Structural Stages ................................................................................................................... 46

Very Large Sized Trees.......................................................................................................... 46

Aspen..................................................................................................................................... 46

Shrubs.................................................................................................................................... 46

Meadows ............................................................................................................................... 46

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives................................................................................. 47

Ponderosa Pine ...................................................................................................................... 47

Regeneration ......................................................................................................................... 47

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk .................................................................................................... 48

Structural Stages ................................................................................................................... 48

Very Large Sized Trees.......................................................................................................... 48

Aspen..................................................................................................................................... 48

Shrubs.................................................................................................................................... 48

Meadows ............................................................................................................................... 49

Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................49

Snags and Dead Woody Material....................................................................................... 49

EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 49

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 49

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................ 50

ALTERNATIVE 3 ................................................................................................................ 50
Cumulative Effects for Snags and Dead Woody Material..................................................... 50

Management Indicator Species (MIS)................................................................................... 51

EXISTING CONDITION ..................................................................................................... 51

White-tailed Deer (MIS)........................................................................................................ 52

Big Game Screening.............................................................................................................. 53

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS)........................................................... 53

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS) .................................................. 54

Brown Creeper (MIS)............................................................................................................ 54

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)............................................................................................................. 55

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................ 55

White-tailed Deer (MIS)........................................................................................................ 55

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS)........................................................... 57

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS) .................................................. 58

Brown Creeper (MIS)............................................................................................................ 59

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)............................................................................................................. 60

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)........................................................................................ 60

EXISTING CONDITION ..................................................................................................... 63

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (SOLC)........................................................................................ 63

Callused Vertigo Snail (SOLC)............................................................................................. 63

Mystery Vertigo Snail (SOLC) ............................................................................................. 64

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC).................................................................................................... 64

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC)................................................................................................ 65

Cooper ’s Hawk (SOLC)....................................................................................................... 65

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC) ...................................................................................................... 66

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)................................................................................... 67

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC)................................................................................................ 68

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)................................................................................................... 68

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC) ................................................................................................ 69

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................ 70

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (SOLC)........................................................................................ 70

Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo Snails (SOLC)......................................................... 71

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC).................................................................................................... 71
Sharp Shinned Hawk (SOLC) ............................................................................................... 72

Coopers Hawk (SOLC) ......................................................................................................... 73

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)...................................................................................................... 73

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC), Small-footed Myotis (SOLC), Long-eared Myotis 

(SOLC), Long-legged Myotis (SOLC).................................................................................. 74

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) Conclusion..................................................................... 76

Threatened and Endangered Species..................................................................................... 76

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species ........................................................................................... 76

Migratory Birds..................................................................................................................... 77

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird)............................................................................................. 77

Prairie Falcon (Migratory Bird)............................................................................................. 78

Red-headed Woodpecker (Migratory Bird)........................................................................... 78

Upland Sandpiper (Migratory Bird)...................................................................................... 79

Demand Species.................................................................................................................... 79

Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer (Demand Species) ...................................................... 79

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Demand Species) .......................................................................... 79

Range/Noxious Weeds..............................................................................................................80

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 80

Range .................................................................................................................................... 80

Noxious Weeds..................................................................................................................... 81

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 81

Range/Noxious Weeds.......................................................................................................... 81

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 81

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3 .................................... 82

Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................. 83

Botany........................................................................................................................................84

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 84

Community Types ............................................................................................................... 84

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Plant Species................................................................................ 85

Plant Species of Local Concern (SOLC) ........................................................................... 85

South Dakota State Listed Species..................................................................................... 85

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 86

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...................................................................................... 86
ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3 .................................... 86

R2 (R2) Sensitive Species..................................................................................................... 86

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)........................................................................................ 88

South Dakota State Listed Species........................................................................................ 88

Cumulative Effects................................................................................................................. 88

Soils/Hydrology........................................................................................................................ 90

Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 90

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 90

Slope Stability ...................................................................................................................... 91

Soil Erosion and Displacement.............................................................................................. 91

Compaction............................................................................................................................ 91

Severely Burned Soils ........................................................................................................... 92

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling.................................................................................... 92

Overall Soil Productivity....................................................................................................... 93

Water Resources.................................................................................................................... 93

Water Yield and Flow Regime .............................................................................................. 94

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains............................................................................ 95

Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 96

Groundwater Quality............................................................................................................. 96

Surface Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 96

Connected Disturbed Areas................................................................................................... 97

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems.................................. 97

Wetlands................................................................................................................................ 97

Riparian Areas....................................................................................................................... 97

Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems.................................................................................... 98

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................ 98

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 98

Slope Stability ....................................................................................................................... 98

Soil Erosion ........................................................................................................................... 99

Soil Compaction .................................................................................................................. 100

Severely Burned Soils ......................................................................................................... 100

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling.................................................................................. 101
Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................... 102

Soils..................................................................................................................................... 102

Slope Stability ..................................................................................................................... 102

Erosion................................................................................................................................. 103

Compaction ......................................................................................................................... 103

Severely Burned .................................................................................................................. 103

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling.................................................................................. 103

Water Resources.................................................................................................................. 104

Water Yield and Flow Regime ............................................................................................ 104

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains.......................................................................... 104

Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 105

Wetland, Riparian, and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Condition........................... 106

Cumulative Effects to Water Resources .............................................................................. 106

Overall Watershed Condition and Processes....................................................................... 106

Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness.............................................................. 108

Heritage ...................................................................................................................................108

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 108

Prehistoric Context.............................................................................................................. 108

Historic Context .................................................................................................................. 109

Eligible Sites........................................................................................................................ 109

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

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................. 110

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION .................................................................................... 110

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3 .................................. 110

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................. 111

Lands and Minerals................................................................................................................111

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 111

Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................... 112

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................. 112

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................. 112

Recreation ...............................................................................................................................112

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 112

Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................... 113
Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................. 113

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION..................................................................................... 113

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3 .................................. 113

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................. 113

Scenery ................................................................................................................................... 114

Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 114

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

Direct and Indirect Effects................................................................................................. 115

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION..................................................................................... 115

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................... 115

ALTERNATIVE 3 .............................................................................................................. 117

Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................. 117

CHAPTER 4: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................... 119

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................... 130

CHAPTER 6: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................ 135

APPENDIX B: Design Criteria ............................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX C: Project Monitoring ........................................................................................ 1

APPENDIX D: Summary: Biological Assessment & Biological Evaluation....................... 1

APPENDIX E: Past, Present, and Future Activities............................................................. 1

APPENDIX F: Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Policy1

APPENDIX G: Treatment by Location.................................................................................. 1

APPENDIX H: Follow-Up Activities...................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX I: Colorado State University Research.............................................................. 1

APPENDIX J: Response to Comments .................................................................................. 1

List of Tables

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

Maintenance Burn ........................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Comparison of Vegetation Treatments (acres)................................................................ 11

Table 3: Effects to Key Issues by Alternative ............................................................................... 12

Table 4: Comparison of Structural Stages by Alternative ............................................................. 12

Table 5: Comparison of Mountain Pine Beetle Risk by Alternative............................................. 12

Table 6: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and All Alternatives .................................. 13

Table 7: Fire Regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service, 2005)...................................... 16
Table 8: Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating descriptions (Hann et al., 2003)............... 17

Table 9: Fire History Occurrences and the Size of the Fires from 1950-2008.............................. 19

Table 10: Area of Each Large Fire Falling Within the Project Perimeter..................................... 20

Table 11: Total Area and Percentage of the Project Area for the Current Fire Hazard................. 25

Table 12: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and the No Action- Alternative 1 in 

10-20 years.................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 13: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 ............. 30

Table 14: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and All Alternatives ................................ 33

Table 15: Cover Types in the Project Area ................................................................................... 35

Table 16: Existing Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages (SS) in the HCMB Project Area................ 35

Table 17: MPB Risk Rating by Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage ........................................... 36

Table 18: Current MPB Risk Rating ............................................................................................. 36

Table 19: Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Project Area ............................ 37

Table 20: Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.1 ................................ 37

Table 21: Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.4 ................................ 37

Table 22: Existing Percentages of Very Large Sized Pine Acres by Management Area (MA).... 38

Table 23: MPB Risk for Existing Condtion and Alternative 2...................................................... 43

Table 24: Alternative 2 - Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Project Area ............ 43

Table 25: MPB Risk for Existing Condition and All Alternatives................................................ 45

Table 26: Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Project Area for All Alternatives.... 46

Table 27: MIS List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis ....................................................... 51

Table 28: Current Screening Cover Along Arterial and Collector Roads in the Project Area...... 53

Table 29: SOLC List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis .................................................... 61

Table 30: Soil Map Units in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Area............................ 90

Table 31: HUC 7 Sub-Watersheds within the Redbird, Gillette, Tepee, Upper Hell Canyon, and 

Lower Hell Canyon HUC 6 Watersheds in which Management Activities are Proposed ............ 94

Table B - 1: Protected Stream Courses in the Project Area.......................................................... B-4

Table B - 2: Protected Springs/Wetland Areas in the Project Area........................................ B-4

Table B - 3: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Compaction Risk........... B-5

Table B - 4: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Erosion Risk.................. B-6

Table B - 5: Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Compaction Risk........... B-7

Table B - 6: Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils and Elevated Erosion Risk ................... B-7

Table B - 7: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Less than 2% Topsoil Organic Matter

...................................................................................................................................................... B-8

Table B - 8: Sites where Whole Tree Yarding is Required................................................. B-12

Table E - 1: Past Accomplished Activities................................................................................... E-1

Table E - 2: Present Activities...................................................................................................... E-2

Table E - 3: Reasonable Foreseeable Future Activities................................................................ E-3
Table F - 1: Acres of Treatments by Management Area (MA), Alternative 2 ............................. F-1

Table F - 2: Acres of Treatments by Management Area (MA), Alternative 3 ............................. F-1

Table H - 1: Definitions of Treatment Acronyms ........................................................................H-1

Table H - 2: Range of Total Acres of Treatments........................................................................H-1

Table H - 3: Specific Sites for Follow-Up Activities...................................................................H-2

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Post Treatment Fire Hazard Acres by Alternative ......................................................... 13

Figure 2: Typical Stand Structure for each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) ...................... 18

Figure 3: Fire History Occurrence from 1950-2008...................................................................... 20

Figure 4: At-Risk-Communities (ARC) and Structures................................................................ 22

Figure 5: Burn Intensities in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires .................................................. 23

Figure 6: Existing Fire Hazard Rating........................................................................................... 25

Figure 7: Alternative 1 Fire Hazard Rating................................................................................... 28

Figure 8: Alternative 2 Hazard Rating .......................................................................................... 30

Figure 9: Post Treatment Fire Hazard Acres by Alternative ......................................................... 32
Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE Area of Potential 

Effect 

AUM Animal Unit Months

BA Basal Area 

BABE, BA/BE Biological 

Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation 

BCC Birds of Conservation 

Concern 

BCR Bird Conservation 

Region 

BHNF Black Hills National 

Forest 

BHNF LRMP Black Hills National 

Forest Revised Land 

and Resource 

Management Plan 

BMP Best Management 

Practices

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet 

CDA Connected Disturbed 

Areas 

CEQ Council on 

Environmental 

Quality 

CFR Code of Federal 

Regulations 

CSU Colorado State 

University

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

CWPP Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan

DBH Diameter at Breast 

Height 

DENR Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources 

EA Environmental 

Assessment

EPA Environmental 

Protection Agency 

FDR Forest Development 

Road

FEMA Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

FPS&G Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines 

FRCC Fire Regime 

Condition Class 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

FSR Forest Service Road 

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic 

Information Systems

HCMB Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDT, ID Team Interdisciplinary Team 

LRMP Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

MA Management Area 

MBBH Monitoring Birds of 

the Black Hills 

MIS Management Indicator 

Species 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use 

Map

NEPA National 

Environmental Policy 

Act 

NFMA National Forest 

Management Act 

NFS National Forest 

System

NFSR National Forest 

System Road 

NHPA National Historic 

Preservation Act 
NRHP National Register of 

Historic Places 

OHV Off Highway Vehicle

POL Products Other than 

Logs 

R2 Forest Service Region 

2 (Rocky Mountain 

Region) 

RIS Resource Information 

System 

RMBO Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 

RMRS Rocky Mountain 

Research Station 

SD South Dakota 

SDDENR South Dakota 

Department of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources

SDGFP South Dakota Game 

Fish and Parks 

SDNHP South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program 

SHPO State Historic 

Preservation Office 

SHR Stream Health Rating 

SIO Site Integrity 

Objective 

SOLC Species of Local 

Concern

SOPA Schedule of Proposed 

Action

SS Structural Stage

SUP Special Use Permit

TES Threatened, 

Endangered, & 

Sensitive Species

THPO Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office

USC United States Code

USDA United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

USFS United States 

Department of 

Agriculture Forest 

Service

USFWS United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service

USGS United States 

Geological Survey

WCP Watershed 

Conservation Practice

WIZ Water Influence Zone

WUI Wildland Urban 

Interface
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Summary

i

SUMMARY

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

long term fire hazard and improve health and vigor of ponderosa pine stands within 

portions of the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. 

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

Counties, 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 in appendix A). The 

project includes prescribed burning as well as mechanical treatments. All proposed 

activities would occur on National Forest lands within all of portions of the following 

sections; T2S, R1E, Sections 13, 14, 23-25 and 36; T2S R2E Sections 30 and 31; T3S, 

R1E Sections 11-14, 23-26; T3S, R2E Sections 3, 4, 7-10, 12-24, 27-34; T3S, R3E, 

Sections 7, 8, 16-20; T4S,R2E Sections 4-6, 24-26, 35 and 36; T4S R3E Sections 30 and 

31; T5S, R2E Sections 1 and 12; T5S, R3E, Sections 6 and 7. 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 portions of the 

Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. The 2000 Jasper Fire and 2001 Rogers Shack Fire 

created extensive areas of dead and dying stands. Over time, the dead trees have broken 

or fallen to the ground, creating high fuel concentrations. In addition, mountain pine 

beetle infestations are occurring within a number of ponderosa pine 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. 

Following is a brief summary of the alternatives considered in detail.

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 2 - Proposed Action

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

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

treatments in this alternative include; prescribed burning of 16,986 acres, commercial 

vegetation treatments on 1,645 acres and non-commercial treatments on 2,532 acres. 

Many of these treatments overlap and would occur on the same land area. The total land 

area which would receive some treatment is approximately 18,543 acres.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Summary

ii

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 Study Plots; 2) 

Effects to big game habitat. Proposed treatments in this alternative include; prescribed 

burning of 16,544 acres, commercial vegetation treatments on 624 acres and noncommercial treatments on 866 acres. As with the proposed action, many of these 

treatments overlap. A total of approximately 16,883 acres would be treated in this 

alternative.

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 Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

1

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 as 

follows:

Chapter 1: The section includes information on 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 proposed action and the key issues 

identified

Chapter 2: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed 

action as well as alternatives. These alternatives were developed 

based on key issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

chapter also includes a comparative summary of the alternatives 

and the expected environmental consequences associated with 

each. 

Chapter 3: 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: Literature cited in support of this analysis. 

Chapter 5: List of preparers 

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination 

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. This is 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 

rapid fire spread and fire intensities that overpowered suppression efforts. On the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

2

afternoon of August 26, 2000, the fire grew at an astonishing average rate of more than 

100 acres per minute. The massive fire was officially contained on September 8, 2000.

The following year, in July and August of 2001, the Rogers Shack fire burned a total of 

approximately 11,879 acres, 11,539 of which were on National Forest Lands. This fire 

occurred directly south of the Jasper fire (see Map 1, Vicinity Map, in Appendix A). 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 void of trees. These stands were 

converted to the grass/forb structural stage. Moderate intensity fire resulted in areas 

where much of the overstory was killed; however some of the fine fuels and trees 

remained. These stands were not converted to a grass/forb structural stage, but retained 

enough trees to be stocked as structural stage 4. 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 mountain pine beetle activity increased 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 

Jasper portion of the analysis area. Patches of dead trees ranging from two or three to 

several large patches of dozens of infested trees occur 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).

Post-fire activities included removal of hazard trees along system roads, planting of pine 

seedlings and the establishment of research plots, by Colorado State University (CSU) for 

the purpose of documenting post-fire conditions and recovery. Three of these research 

plots are located within the analysis area (See Map 2 in Appendix A).

The project area includes lands burned within the Jasper and Rogers Shack fire areas. 

The whole fire areas on the Hell Canyon District were reviewed. The actual project area 

boundary is a portion of the whole fire areas and was determined based on several 

criteria. First, the focus was on areas which experienced moderate to high fire behavior 

intensity in the previous wildfires which resulted in structural stage 1 stand conditions. 

These areas have heavy fuel loadings due to the extent of fire killed trees. This focus 

area was further refined by eliminating those areas which were planted or which have a 

high potential for noxious weed infestation or increase. The secondary focus is on areas 

within the fire boundary which were currently infested or at a high risk of being infested 

by mountain pine beetles. Total project area is 18,543 acres.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

3

Location

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

Counties, 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 in appendix A). The 

project includes prescribed burning as well as mechanical thinning. All proposed 

activities would occur on National Forest lands within all of portions of the following 

sections; T2S, R1E, Sections 13, 14, 23-25 and 36; T2S R2E Sections 30 and 31; T3S, 

R1E Sections 11-14, 23-26; T3S, R2E Sections 3, 4, 7-10, 12-24, 27-34; T3S, R3E, 

Sections 7, 8, 16-20; T4S,R2E Sections 4-6, 24-26, 35 and 36; T4S R3E Sections 30 and 

31; T5S, R2E Sections 1 and 12; T5S, R3E, Sections 6 and 7. 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 Highway 16.

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 (See Map 12 in Appendix A).

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 highquality 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

4

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 1,030 6%

5.4 Big Game Winter Range 17,273 93%

3.7 Late Successional Forest 

Landscape 240 1%

Total (NFS lands) 18,543 100%

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 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.

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

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

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

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

management objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that

are in medium or high risk for infestation.

Objective 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 portions of the 

Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire areas. The 2000 Jasper Fire and 2001 Rogers Shack Fire 

created extensive areas of dead and dying stands. The dead trees have fallen to the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

5

ground, creating high concentrations of fuels on the ground. These fuel concentrations 

create a threat to firefighters, the public and forest resources. 

In addition, much of the fire areas were reduced to SS1 thus limiting the amount of seed 

source within the project area. Some planting of seedlings has occurred and is 

anticipated within portions of the project area. There is a need to protect this 

regeneration. The high fuel concentrations could present a threat to their survival. Also, 

mountain pine beetle infestations are occurring within a number of forested stands of 

ponderosa pine which survived the Jasper fire. 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 move the project area toward desired conditions described in that 

plan (USDA Forest Service, 2006a).

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 Environmental Assessment (EA). After careful consideration of 

this information, the District Ranger will decide the following: 

• 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, which started on 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 received during the scoping period, key issues were identified.

Issues

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

whether additional action alternatives or design features are necessary, and frame the 

analysis of environmental issues. A total of 10 individuals, groups and agencies provided 

scoping input. All scoping comments received and the Forest Service response to these 

comments are available in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project record, located at 

the Hell Canyon District Office in Custer, SD. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 1

6

The Forest Service identified the following key 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. 

Measurement indicator: 

o Acres treated within CSU study plots

Key Issue 2: Effects to big game habitat 

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 a vegetative 

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

and more cover (structural stage 4B). This diversity would improve habitat 

needed to effectively provide big game with forage, solitude and cover. 

Measurement indicators: 

o Acres of uneven-aged management

o Acres of 4B Structural Stage (cover)
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

7

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project. 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 Considered in Detail

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 – Proposed Action

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

the agency’s recommendations prior to public scoping. See Table 2 under ‘Comparison 

of Alternatives’ below and Maps 2-6 in Appendix A. 

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 in 

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

8

Mechanical treatments proposed as part of this alternative include:

• Commercial Thinning - 1,241 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 acres) or 

60ft2/ac (904 acres) 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 over-story 

trees in stands which have been successfully regenerated. The objective is to 

release existing regeneration.

• Shelterwood Seed Cut - 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 mechanical treatments proposed as part of this alternative include:

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

maintain meadow habitat. This is proposed in meadow sites only. In this project 

area, only small, non-commercial sized trees occur in these meadows and would 

be removed. 

• 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. All overstory removal sites 

include PCT also. 

• Products other than Logs (POL) Thinning - 1,280 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 - 1,645 acres: Mechanical treatment of existing slash within structural 

stage 4 stands, 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. 

• Sanitation - removal of green trees currently infested with mountain pine beetle. 

This is a suppression method which directly removes beetles from the forest. 

Sanitation is included on all pine sites.

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 would need to be maintained as 

part of the mechanical treatments proposed in this alternative. Refer to Maps 2-6 in 

Appendix A for maps of the treatment areas.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

9

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed to respond to 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. See Table 2 in ‘Comparison of Alternatives’ below and 

Maps 7-11 in Appendix A. 

To address key issue #1, Alternative 3 eliminates all treatments; mechanical treatments as 

well as prescribed fire, from 1,283 acres within the established CSU study plots (see 

Maps 7-11 in Appendix A). To address key issue #2, Alternative 3 provides for more 

ponderosa pine stand diversity by including uneven aged management silviculture 

techniques (group selection) on 391 acres. In addition it retains more structural stage 4B 

pine stands which provide for additional big game cover. The 4B pine stands result from 

deferring treatments in CSU plots and also because group selection results in 4B 

structural stage. 

Prescribed fire proposed as part of this alternative includes:

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

described in Alternative 2. The reduction in acres is a result of deferring all 

treatments within the CSU study plots.

Mechanical treatments proposed as part of this alternative include:

• Commercial Thinning - 233 acres: This treatment would be implemented as 

described in Alternative 2. 

• 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 two 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 over story 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 - 624 acres: This treatment would be implemented as described in 

Alternative 2. 

• Sanitation - removal of green trees currently infested with mountain pine beetle. 

This is a suppression method which directly removes beetles from the forest. 

Sanitation is included on all pine sites, except those within the CSU study plots, in 

the project area and may occur for up to five consecutive years. 

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

10

mechanical treatments. In addition, 20 miles of roads would need to be maintained to 

facilitate the mechanical treatments proposed in this alternative. Refer to Maps 7-11 in 

Appendix A for maps of the treatment areas.

Design Criteria

Design criteria include 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.

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail

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

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

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to 

the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the 

purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the 

project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be 

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

summarized below.

• An alternative that limits logging and deadfall treatments to 1⁄4 mile from 

structures.

- This alternative would not contribute toward meeting the purpose and 

need for action. There are approximately 31 structures within the project 

area and another 250 within a three mile radius of the project boundary. 

Fire hazard more than 1⁄4 mile from structures is still a threat to those 

structures, and beyond, as noted in the effects analysis. Mountain pine 

beetle activity is occurring outside of 1⁄4 mile of existing structures. 

Beetles can fly much further than 1⁄4 mile to infest live trees.

• An alternative that uses mechanical treatment of slash only, including brush 

mowing around private lands.

- This alternative could contribute toward meeting the purpose and need for 

action. However, at nearly 17,000 acres, such an alternative would be cost 

prohibitive.

• All alternative that includes all commercial treatments be logged to no less than 

60 ft2

/acre of basal area.

- The proposed harvest treatments are site specific and are those 

recommended by the project silviculturist to achieve the purpose and need, 

and to address key issues. Pine stands in the project area are not uniform 

in condition. Using a limit of basal area, as suggested, would limit the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

11

potential to manage these stands. Mountain pine beetle activity is 

expanding within the project area. Proposed treatments address MPB risk 

on a site specific basis. The decision maker could select to only 

implement those treatments which do not reduce stand BA lower than 60 

ft2/ acre.

• An alternative that does not include pine encroachment.

- Tree stands and meadow sites naturally occur on different soil types. The 

proposed pine encroachment removal would occur on meadow sites, 

where there are meadow-type soils only. There is a relatively small 

amount of encroaching pine in these sites, at this time.

• An alternative that eliminates prescribed burning in all forested stands. 

- Prescribed burning in pine stands is proposed only where needed to 

facilitate burning by using existing roads as burning boundaries and 

control lines. None of the proposed burning in pine stands is for the 

purpose of achieving stand objectives. Mortality limits in pine stands are 

included as design criteria in this project. In addition, a certified 

silviculturist will be included in development of any burn plan. These 

measures are in place to insure pine stands are protected. Such an 

alternative would require additional ground disturbance as holding lines 

would need to be created to eliminate pine stands from the burn.

Comparison of Alternatives

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

for a visual display of where activities are proposed.

Table 2: Comparison of Vegetation Treatments (acres)

Treatment Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed Burning 0 16,986 16,544

Mechanical Treatments - Commercial

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

Mechanical Treatments - Non-Commercial

Pine Encroachment 0 159 114

Precommercial Thin (PCT)* 0 308* 0

POL thinning** 0 1,280** 624**

Deadfall 0 1,645 624
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

12

*All PCT thinning occurs on acres with OR treatment.

**All POL thinning occurs on acres with other commercial treatments.

***Sanitation is proposed on all pine sites in Alternative 3 except those in the CSU study plots

Table 3: Effects to Key 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 1,283 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

 Table 4: Comparison of Structural Stages by Alternative

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alternative 2 Alternative 3

SS 1 13,009 13,009 13,009

SS 3A 0 307 0

SS 4A 2,553 3,104 2,713

SS 4B 901 42 740

Total 16,462 16,462 16,462

Table 5: Comparison of Mountain Pine Beetle Risk by Alternative

Mountain 

Pine Beetle 

Risk

Existing 

Acres

Existing 

Percentage

Alt. 2 

Acres

Alt. 2 

Percentage

Alt. 3 

Acres

Alt. 3 

Percentage

Low 15,562 95% 16,420 100% 15,722 96%

High 901 5% 42 <1% 740 4%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 2

13

Figure 1: Post Treatment Fire Hazard Acres by Alternative

 Table 6: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and All Alternatives

Fire Hazard 

Rating

Existing 

Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Low 2,393 13 1,759 10 16,986 92 16,544 90

Moderate 5,707 31 634 3 1,235 7 624 4

High 8,284 45 13,991 76 0 0 1,003 5

Unclassified 2,025 11 2,025 11 188 1 238 1
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

14

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 offhighway vehicle use, developed recreation, timber harvest, fuel-wood 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.

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 & 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

15

to differing intensities, varying from a high intensity stand-replacing fire to a low 

intensity under burn. In the areas that burned with low intensity the over story was 

unchanged by the fire, with mortality being limited to the small trees. In areas that 

burned with moderate intensity both the understory and over story experienced mortality 

with the over story 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 (tpa). Recent transects north of 

the project show fuel loadings to be over 35 tpa. 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 over story and thermal cover has opened up the 

forest to an increase in grass production. Grass fuel loadings are estimated at 3 tpa 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 re-burn 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 during a fire, similar to that of heavy slash burning. (Brown et al., 2003)

Condition Class and Fire Regime

Currently, there are three general types of fire regimes in the Black Hills (see Table 7 and 

USDA Forest Service, 2005a). 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 regime has been changed to one 

characterized by less frequent fires of stand replacing magnitude (Hunter et al., 2007).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

16

Table 7: Fire Regimes in the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service, 2005)

General 

Characteristics

Major Controlling 

Variables Distribution

Frequent, 

Low-Severity 

Fire Regimes

Fires recur within any 

stand at relatively

short intervals (10-50 

years), burning at low 

severity in the canopy 

and soil, and variable 

severity in the 

understory.

Weather (fires occur during 

dry periods), Climate

(extensive fires tend to 

occur in dry years that 

follow 1-3 wet years), and 

Fuels (fuels gradually 

accumulate during the 

intervals between successive 

fires).

Evidence of surface fire in 

ponderosa pine forests 

throughout the Black Hills, 

most frequent at the PrairieForest ecotone and less 

frequent in interior forests at 

mid to high evlevations 

(Fisher et al. 1987, Brown 

and Sieg 1999, Brown et al. 

2000, Wienk 2001, Brown 

2003, Wienk et al. 2004).

Infrequent, 

High-Severity 

Fire Regimes

Fires recur within any 

stand at long intervals 

(100-500+ years), 

burning at high 

severity in the canopy 

and understory, and at 

variable severity to the 

soil.

Weather and Climate are 

the primary controllers 

(most ignitions extinguish 

by themselves because of 

wet conditions; extensive 

fires occur only in very dry 

summers; variability in fuels 

usually has little influence 

on fire frequency, extent, or 

severity).

Large areas of even-aged and 

dense forest and of closed 

canopy, mature or old-growth 

forest at the time of 

settlement are evidence of 

stand-replacing disturbance 

(Graves 1899, Shinneman 

and Baker 1997).

Mixed 

Severity Fire 

Regimes

These fire regimes are 

intermediate between 

the Frequent, LowSeverity and the 

Infrequent, HighSeverity Fire Regimes. 

Fires occur at variable 

intervals (10- >100 

years), and burn at 

variable severity 

(patches of high 

severity intermingled 

with patches of low or 

intermediate severity).

Weather, Climate, and 

Fuels all influence fire 

frequency, extent, and 

severity, in complex ways 

that are not well understood, 

with enormous variability 

over time and space.

Proposed as the dominant 

model for fire regimes in 

ponderosa pine forests of the 

Black Hills. Under this 

model, surface fire forms the 

background process creating 

forest structure and landscape 

pattern. However, fires 

sometimes burn with mixed 

severity, with both a surface 

fire and a stand-replacing fire 

component, and may 

sometimes create large areas 

of high severity burns. Forest 

patches are variable in size 

and within patch structure 

(Lentile et al. in press)

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 8: 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 Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

17

Table 8: 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

18

Figure 2: 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 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. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

19

Fire Risk

Risks are defined as those uses or human activities which have the potential to result in a 

wildfire ignition. 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 9). 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 9: Fire History Occurrences and the Size of the Fires from 1950-2008

Fire Size Class Fire Size 

(acres) Number of Fires

A 0-1⁄4 215

B 1⁄4-9 172

C 10-99 13

D 100-299 3

E 300-999 2

F 1,000-4,999 0

G 5,000+ 5
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

20

Figure 3: Fire History Occurrence from 1950-2008

Table 10: 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 escaped initial 

attack have also remained constant. However, these escaped fires have become larger 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

21

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. 

Values at Risk

Values are defined in the Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2005, Appendix E-80) 

as any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values that may be jeopardized if a 

fire occurs. 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, power lines, 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 4). 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.

Under 97th percentile weather conditions, a fire in these fuel models can spread over 1 

mile per hour. (Scott & Burgan, 2005) The Jasper Fire experienced rates of almost 15 

miles per hour on the first day and during its largest growth period over 20 miles per 

hour. (USDA Forest Service, 2000) Under the 97th percentile weather conditions, 

spread rates of up to 4 miles per hour can be expected with higher rates during gusts and 

increased spotting. (USDA Forest Service, 2008) Under these conditions, all the values 

listed above could be impacted by fire originating within the project area within the first 

12 hours from a fire start.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

22

Figure 4: At-Risk-Communities (ARC) and Structures

Fire Hazard

Fire hazard is defined as a fuel complex that determines the ease of ignition and the 

resistance to control. Hazard is an expression of what kind of fire may potentially occur 

and how it affects human values. The fire hazard rating increases as the amount and 

continuity of surface and canopy fuels increases. As the amount of fuel on a given 

landscape increases and fuel profiles become more horizontally and vertically 

continuous, the intensity of a wildfire in that landscape is expected to increase. Areas 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

23

with high fire hazard rating have the potential to exhibit more extreme fire behavior with 

more severe effects than those with a low hazard rating.

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. 

Figure 5: Burn Intensities in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

24

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. The unclassified areas are a result of poor imagery or in areas which encompass 

many different intensity types and could not be specifically identified as one type. 

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 branches and few 

surface fuels. Mortality in these areas was estimated to be 50-100 percent (USDA Forest 

Service, 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 over story 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 (USDA 

Forest Service, 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 (USDA Forest 

Service, 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.

The forest plan assesses fire hazard rating by structure stages. Fire hazard is estimated 

using the Fire and Fuels Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE- FVS) and 

the torching and crowing indices of representative stands. These methods are described 

in Appendix B of the Black Hills National Forest LRMP, Phase II. The fire hazard rating 

increases as the amount and continuity of surface and canopy fuels increases. As the 

amount of fuel on a given landscape increases and fuel profiles become more horizontally 

and vertically continuous, the intensity of a wildfire in that landscape is expected in 

increase. 

This measurement of fire hazard is appropriate to use in live stands however, it is not 

appropriate to use in stands which previously contained an overstory which have been 

affected by wildfire. When an overstory is not present the model will only account for 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

25

the horizontal profile and does not acknowledge a vertical profile. Even though the 

model does not account for a vertical profile it is evident with CWD loading which exist 

in the project area that a vertical profile is in fact present, it just happens to be dead 

versus living.

Therefore, additional modeling was conducted to better explain fire hazard in the project 

area (Phase II Amendement FVS runs strata P6LALXD01.yde, P7LALXD01.yde). After 

looking at stands which contained an overstory prior to being affected by a stand 

replacing wildfire, it was shown that the fire hazard rating in these stands were high due 

to the continuous grass understory coupled by the levels of CWD present. The increased 

levels of CWD results in increased fire intensity, flame-lengths, and spotting potential all 

of which makes resistance to control very difficult. Therefore, based on the availability 

of fuels to sustain a fire and increased resistance to control, an overall hazard rating of 

high to very high exists in approximately 90% of the project area. Those stands which did 

not have an overstory prior to the stand replacing fire event do not possess the increased 

levels of CWD and therefore the fire hazard rating for these stands are low. Table 11

displays estimated fire hazard ratings for the whole project area.

Table 11: Total Area and Percentage of the Project Area for the Current 

Fire Hazard

Current Fire Hazard Acres

Percentage of 

Project Area

Low 2,393 13%

Moderate 5,707 31%

High 8,284 45%

Unclassified 2,025 11%

Figure 6: Existing Fire Hazard Rating
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

26

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. (USDA Forest Service, 

2005a).

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

sheds; Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park and five communities, 

Argyle, Pringle, Custer Highlands, Ferguson Canyon, and Custer. The project area is 

designated as a Class II area allowing higher concentrations of pollutants than the Class I 

Air sheds. 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 Air sheds.

Environmental Consequences

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

In the 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 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. 

Fire Risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not 

expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

27

enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not 

expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to 

change. 

The value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area.

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

continued increase in grass production due to the reduction in over story. 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 over story 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 flame lengths, 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 flame lengths 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

28

Figure 7: Alternative 1 Fire Hazard Rating

Table 12: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and the No ActionAlternative 1 in 10-20 years

Fire Hazard 

Rating

Existing Conditions Alternative 1

Acres % of Project Area Acres % of Project Area

Low 2,393 13% 1,759 10%

Moderate 5,707 31% 634 3%

High 8,284 45% 13,991 76%

Unclassified 2,025 11% 2,025 11%

Qualitatively, in the absence of mechanical treatments or the use of prescribed fire, the 

fire hazard is expected to worsen across the project area. The only action that could 

improve the fire hazard in this alternative is a wildfire and the longevity and reduction of 

fire hazard would be directly associated to the fire intensity. 

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

resistance to control and a greater likelihood of wildfire escape leading to an increased 

risk of loss of natural forest resources as well as private property, and decreased 

firefighter and public safety. The high intensity would also cause consumption of the 

remaining duff layer and soil heating as well as other resource damage. Without 

treatment the fire hazard would continue to move toward very high. The greatest 

potential for wildland fire growth exists with this alternative.

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 air sheds. A large wildfire has the potential to make a 

much greater impact on adjacent communities and Type 1 air sheds, possibly exceeding 

National Air Quality Standards. The EPA addresses smoke from wildland fire under 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

29

their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf. 

(USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

The no action alternative would not contribute toward 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 – PROPOSED ACTION

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 non-commercially, 

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 MPB as well 

as the possibility of crown fire spread. 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. 

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. 

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 risk would not change because the probability of an ignition occurring would not 

change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to 

significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected 

to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change. 

The value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area. 

This alternative would move 12,717 acres, or 69%, from a fire hazard rating of high- to 

moderate to low consistent with objective 10-01 of the Forest Plan. This alternative 

treats fuels commensurate with risks, hazard, and land and resource values, consistent 

with Objective 10-04. 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

30

Figure 8: Alternative 2 Hazard Rating

Table 13: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2

Fire 

Hazard 

Rating

Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Acres

% of Project 

Area Acres

% of Project 

Area Acres

% of Project 

Area

Low 2,393 13% 1,759 10% 16,986 92%

Moderate 5,707 31% 634 3% 1,235 7%

High 8,284 45% 13,991 76% 0 0%

Unclassified 2,025 11% 2,025 11% 188 1%

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 which 

resulted from past wildfires. The result of these treatments would be a decrease in flame 

length, intensity, duration, spotting, probability of ignition, and crown fire potential. This 

would create more strategic and tactical firefighting opportunities resulting in greater 

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

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

decrease. 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.

Resistance to control would decrease, enabling firefighters to perform direct attack safely 

and successfully. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

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 Air 

Sheds; Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park and three communities, 

Argyle, Pringle and Custer. The HCMB project area is designated as a Class II area 

allowing higher concentrations of pollutants than the Class I Air Sheds. 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 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 crown fire 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% - 75% percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in the 

wildland-urban interface, reducing hazardous fuels, inhibiting MPB 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 (Table 13). 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

This alternative would treat 624 acres commercially, 866 acres non-commercially, and 

16,544 acres through prescribed fire. This alternative would reduce fire hazard rating 

consistent with Objective 10-01 of the Forest Plan. It would contribute toward Goals 10 

and 11 of the Forest Plan.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

32

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fire regime condition class, 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 Risk is not expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not 

expected to change. The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial 

enough to significantly alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not 

expected to change because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to 

change. 

The value rating would also remain unchanged unless a wildfire occurred and destroyed 

values in the project area. 

Similar to Alternative 2, fire hazard would improve substantially across the project area. 

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. 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. See Figure 9 and Table 14 for a comparison of posttreatment fire hazard by alternative.

Figure 9: Post Treatment Fire Hazard Acres by Alternative
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

33

 Table 14: Fire Hazard Rating for Existing Conditions and All Alternatives

Fire Hazard 

Rating

Existing 

Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

Low 2,393 13 1,759 10 16,986 92 16,544 90

Moderate 5,707 31 634 3 1,235 7 624 4

High 8,284 45 13,991 76 0 0 1,003 5

Unclassified 2,025 11 2,025 11 188 1 238 1

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 HCMB 

project area is in the vicinity of two Class 1 Air Sheds; Badlands National Park and Wind 

Cave National Park and three communities, Argyle, Pringle and Custer. Smoke effects 

and mitigation techniques are the same for Alternative 3 as they were for Alternative 2.

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 crown fire 

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 50-75% moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildlandurban interface, reducing hazardous fuels, and maintaining the fuel loading mosaic that 

resulted from the wildfires. This alternative treats fuels commensurate with risks, hazard, 

and land and resource values, consistent with Objective 10-04. 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. 

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 MPB spread 

to occur. 

Past mechanical treatments which took place in the project area between 2000 and 2004 

generally improved the fuels condition and fire hazard depending on activity type. 

Sanitation and hazard tree removal of fire killed trees directly reduced fuels from the site, 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

34

and added to fire hazard reduction resulting from this project. Other 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. 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. 

Grazing occurs within the project area and is expected to continue into the future. 

Livestock grazing can also contribute to reducing available fuels. 

Natural regeneration of ponderosa pine is starting to occur. Some tree planting within 

and adjacent to the project area has also taken place. As regeneration of pine continues to 

occur in the stands that experienced low to moderate severity, fire hazard would continue 

to increase. 

Some of these values are also threatened by the secondary effects of wildfire, such as soil 

erosion, and the spread of non-native species (Graham et al., 2004). 

Under the No Action Alternative, cumulative fire hazard would be expected to worsen in 

the future. The existing fuels concentrations would be added to by additional down 

material from MPB killed trees, the development of regenerating ponderosa pine, and an 

increasing grass component under open stands. 

Both action alternatives are expected to have positive long term cumulative effects to fire 

hazard. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to be reduced following treatment. 

Beetle killed trees would continue to occur and be added to existing fire hazard, although 

treatments are expected to reduce MPB risk thereby reducing the amount of dead fuels 

added. Other mechanical treatments that have occurred generally add to improved fire 

hazard as well. 

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. 

Forest Vegetation

Existing Conditions

Cover Types

Vegetation in the project 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 denser 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

35

ground to 50-60% in the southern end. Approximately 83% of the area has a slope 

between 0 and 25%.

Table 15: Cover Types in the Project Area

Cover Type Acreage Percentage

Meadow 1,759 10 %

Aspen 243 1 %

Ponderosa Pine 16,462 89 %

Shrubs 64 <1 %

Non-Vegetated Rock 15 <1 %

Totals 18,543 100

Table 16: Existing Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages (SS) in the HCMB Project 

Area

Structural Stage Ponderosa Pine 

Acres

SS1 - grasses and forbs 13,008

SS2 - seedlings and saplings 0

SS3A - young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover <40% 0

SS3B - young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover 40-70% 0

SS3C - young forest, trees <9” dbh, crown cover >70% 0

SS4A - mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover <40% 2,553

SS4B - mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover 40-70% 901

SS4C - mature forest, trees at least 9” dbh, crown cover >70% 0

SS5 - late succession 0

Total Acres 16,462

Ponderosa Pine

Ponderosa pine cover type dominates (89%) the HCMB project area. Of the pine stands, 

80% (13,009 acres) are in the grass/forb stage due to the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires. 

The grass/forb structural stage (SS) results from disturbance events, such as wildfire, and 

is dominated by grasses and forbs prior to the establishment of tree seedlings. The 

remaining pine stands (20%) are in the sawtimber size class (9-inches dbh and larger) 

which is structural stage 4 (SS4).

Regeneration

Because of the vast extent of overstory tree mortality in this area, existing seed sources 

are lacking. Ponderosa pine seed generally disperses fairly close to the parent trees (1 to 

1.5 tree height) (Shepperd & Battaglia, 2002). In the Black Hills regeneration generally 

occurs within 100 feet of a parent tree. Natural regeneration is therefore, absent or sparse 

through much of the pine sites in the project area. Stand exam data collected in 2009 on 

all timber sites shows that 0-4 seedlings/saplings are present per acre in the SS 1 sites. 

This amount is not sufficient for these sites to be considered adequately stocked per 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

36

Forest Plan direction (Standard 2416b). A minimum level of 150 seedlings/saplings per 

acre is necessary to be adequately stocked, per this standard. 

Approximately 364 acres within the project area have been planted with ponderosa pine 

1-0 container stock. These plantations will be avoided during burning. Once these sites 

are certified as established, generally 1-3 growing seasons, they will be coded as SS2 in 

the database.

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk 

Mountain pine beetle (MPB) activity is increasing in the SS4 pine stands within the 

project area. Patches of dead trees ranging from four to five to several large patches of 

dozens of infested trees can be seen. There is potential for additional MPB caused 

mortality. 

The risk of MPB caused tree mortality is predicted from pine structural stages. The 

Black Hills National Forest Insect Rating Guide (revised August, 2011) identifies risk as 

either High or Low, as summarized in Table 17.

Table 17: MPB Risk Rating by Ponderosa 

Pine Structural Stage

Structural Stage Insect Rating

1 Low

2 Low

3A Low

3B Low

3C High

4A Low

4B High

4C High

5 High

In this project area, only those stands in SS4 could potentially experience mortality. 

Based on this guide, 95% of pine sites are at low risk and 5% are at high risk for MPB

caused mortality (see Table 18). Recent observations within this project area show MPB 

activity is occurring within the high risk stands. Most of the mortality is in trees that are 

greater than 7-inches in diameter, with lesser amounts in smaller trees. Mortality is also 

typically concentrated in stands where tree density is highest, typically over 100 basal 

area (Allen, 2011).

Table 18: Current MPB Risk Rating

MPB Risk Rating Current Acres Current Percentage

Low 15,562 95

High 901 5

There are 1,070 acres of Colorado State University (CSU) study plots within the project 

area. Most of these acres (736 acres) are within SS4A structural stage (69%). This is 

considered a low risk to MPB; however SS4A stands that are at the high density end of 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

37

SS4A may be closer to a high rating. There is 20% in SS4B (218 acres) and 11% in SS1 

(116 acres).

Structural Stages

As previously discussed, the vast majority (80%) of pine sites in the project area are in a 

grass/forb, SS1, condition due to these fires. Only 20% of pine sites are stocked. All of 

these stocked stands are mature, in either a SS4A or SS4B condition (see Table 19).

Table 19: Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural 

Stages in the Project Area

Structural Stage Acres

SS1 13,009

SS4A 2,553

SS4B 901

Total 16,462

The project area contributes to structural stage objectives for Management Areas (MA)

5.1 and 5.4 (Objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-206) within the ponderosa pine cover type. 

These objectives apply to the whole management area, forest-wide. The current 

condition of the structural stage percentages for ponderosa pine cover type throughout 

these two management areas is derived from the 2009 Black Hills Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report (USDA Forest Service, 2010) and is displayed in Tables 20 & 21

below.

Table 20: Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.1

Structural 

Stage

Forest Plan 

Objective 

Percentages

Existing Condition 

Pine Acres

Existing Condition 

Percentages

SS1 5% 26,760 6%

SS2 5% 16,673 4%

SS3A 10% 24,236 5%

SS3B 15% 17,047 4%

SS3C 5% 10,269 2%

SS4A 25% 185,062 39%

SS4B 25% 142,228 30%

SS4C 5% 50,437 11%

SS5 5% 1,227 0.3%

Total 100% 473,939 100%

Table 21: Existing Pine Structural Stage Acres and Percentages in MA 5.4

Structural 

Stage

Forest Plan 

Objective 

Percentages

Existing Condition 

Pine Acres

Existing Condition 

Percentages

SS1 5% 45,616 13%

SS2 5% 10,152 3%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

38

SS3A 10% 17,454 5%

SS3B 15% 22,227 7%

SS3C 5% 15,763 5%

SS4A 25% 86,487 25%

SS4B 25% 87,864 26%

SS4C 5% 52,865 16%

SS5 5% 1,066 0.3%

Total 100% 344,172 100%

Very Large Sized Trees

These same MA objectives also state: “10% of the structural stage 4 ponderosa pine 

acreage in the management area will have an average tree size of very large. Again, this 

applies to the whole management area, not the project area. Table 18 displays current 

percentage of SS4 pine acreage with an average tree size of very large within each 

management area, per the 2009 Black Hills Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 

Forest Service, 2010). Based on this data the objective is currently exceeded in MA 5.1 

and is near achievement in MA 5.4.

Table 22: Existing Percentages of Very Large Sized Pine Acres by 

Management Area (MA)

Forest-Wide MA 

Objective

MA 5.1 

Existing

MA 5.4 

Existing

10% 13% 9%

The project area does not contribute to these forest-wide percentages. Currently, there are 

no areas with an average tree size of very large in the project area.

Aspen

One percent of the area (243 acres) is in the aspen cover type which is the only hardwood 

tree species found in the analysis area. All aspen is located in the Jasper portion, north of 

US Highway 16. There are also inclusions of aspen in the draw bottoms, meadows or 

pine stands. A few scattered individuals may be found mixed within the remaining pine 

stands. All aspen is in a seedling/sapling size class due to past regeneration cutting in 

these sites. 

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.

Shrubs

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. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

39

Five sites (64 acres) are coded with a cover type of shrub lands. One site (36 acres) is 

mountain mahogany and four sites (28 acres) are snowberry. Within the stocked conifer 

stands the amount of shrubs present depends on the density of the tree canopy. The 

denser the tree canopy the less shrubs are present. This is due to shading and competition 

for moisture and nutrients. In areas of under stocked conifer stands or areas of SS1 

(grass/forb), the shrub vegetation is denser due to lack of competition for sunlight, 

moisture and nutrients from overstory trees.

Meadows and Grasslands

There are 1,759 acres of meadows and grasslands in the project area.

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. Small pine has 

encroached into about 159 acres of meadow sites.

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.

Environmental Consequences

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

Effects to ponderosa pine from the no action alternative would be limited to disturbance 

events and natural tree growth and development. 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.

Regeneration

The no action alternative would have no impact on regeneration. Natural regeneration 

will continue to occur where seed sources occur. Planting of seedlings is expected to 

occur for another decade in small areas within the project area. Heavy fuel 

concentrations could pose a threat to advanced regeneration if a wildfire were to occur. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

40

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 larger 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 mortality caused by MPB would 

open up pine stands and create openings.

Structural Stages 

No change to existing structural stages is anticipated to occur within the project area in 

the short term (approximately <10 years). 

The forest wide structural stage percentages are not expected to change for either 

management area as a result of this alternative in the short term (approximately <10 

years). There is a potential for disturbances such as the MPB infestation or wildfire to 

change stand structure. Natural regeneration and planting of seedlings would continue in 

the SS1 areas. 

In the long term (> 10 years), structural stages would change as trees grow and regenerate 

or mortality occurs. These changes could take decades, or depending on the event, could 

happen overnight. Structural stage 1 (grass stage) would grow into SS 2 as the stand 

regenerates naturally or is planted with seedlings. As trees grow in height and diameter, 

SS 2 (seedling/sapling) would grow into SS 3 (poles) and SS 3 would grow into SS 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 manmade disturbances within the stand. 

Natural disturbances such as wildfire, wind events, or insects and disease 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 set back the stand structural stage from a 

SS 4C (dense sawtimber) to SS 1 (grass) by burning up the entire stand. 

Very Large Sized Trees

There would be no effect to pine stands with a size class of very large because none occur 

in the project 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

41

Shrubs

Within stocked conifer stands, shrubs 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 shrubs where MPB has caused mortality in pine allowing sunlight, moisture, 

and nutrients to become available to the understory vegetation creating more forage for 

wildlife. 

In areas with under stocked stands or open grown trees, shrubs 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.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PURPOSED 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. In addition, prescribed 

burning would occur over approximately 16,986 acres.

Direct and Indirect Effects

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) is proposed 

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 (FDR 283). A 60ft2/ac 

basal area (904 acres) is proposed in the remainder of commercial thinning sites.

Other proposed treatments include; 308 acres of overstory removal to release established 

seedlings and 96 acres of shelterwood seedcut to regenerate mature pine stands. The sites 

proposed for overstory removal would also include precommercial thinning (308 acres) 

of trees up to 5 inches in diameter. Up to 1,280 acres of POL (Products Other than Logs) 

thinning of trees up to 9 inches in diameter would also occur in stands proposed for 

commercial treatments. Both precommercial and POL thinning would improve the 

residual stand by increasing the quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, 

diseased, and poorly formed trees. 

The proposed mechanical treatments discussed above would result in an increase of 

individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition. Thinning 

would improve the residual stand by removing damaged, diseased, and poorly formed 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

42

trees. After treatment, residual trees would increase in yield as the size of existing trees 

increases due to reduced competition. 

Most of the stands to be prescribed burned are in SS 1 (grass/forb) where the overstory 

trees were destroyed by fire. Some areas to be prescribed burned have scattered mature 

green trees but because they are so open grown, mortality due to the burning is expected 

to be minimal. Pine stands of SS 4A or SS 4B 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. Design criteria in Appendix B include mortality limits for all size trees. 

The Black Hills has been in drought conditions for several years, which has caused 

drought stress in the trees. Before broadcast burning within stocked pine stands takes 

place, the area to be burned would need to be evaluated as to the drought condition of the 

trees to avoid unexpected mortality in larger trees. Design criteria in this project require

that a certified silviculturist review such area prior to burning.

Regeneration

Stands with an overstory greater than 60ft2 per acre will be thinned to allow more light to 

the forest floor and create a better environment for regeneration to occur. Pine seedlings 

can establish under a variety of overstory densities, ranging from 0 to 60ft2 per acre and 

in some cases above that density where gaps occur in the forest canopy (Shepperd & 

Battaglia 2002).

Alternative 2 would open up the stands on 1,337 acres through commercial thinning and 

shelterwood seed cuts. Natural regeneration would occur within the harvest units 

depending upon the amount of precipitation that is received during the growing season. 

Ponderosa pine seed is produced almost every year, with abundant crops every 2 to 5 

years (Shepperd & Battaglia, 2002).

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. Both natural 

regeneration and planted seedlings would benefit. Burning would be accomplished prior 

to any planting of seedlings. No burning is proposed within areas already planted. 

Burning in areas where natural regeneration is present would be implemented in a 

manner necessary to minimize mortality. Design criteria in Appendix B includes 

acceptable mortality limits within proposed burn areas containing regeneration. 

Prescribe burning would not affect regeneration in these areas. Areas with regeneration 

present shall be avoided if possible and design criteria would be implemented to 

minimize mortality to seedlings present within the burn areas. No burning would occur 

within areas which have been planted. 

This alternative contributes to meeting Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 2416 and 

2418 for stocking and primary use silviculture systems which utilize natural regeneration. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk

Following harvest, 859 acres of ponderosa pine with a high-risk rating would be reduced 

to low risk. The shelterwood seed cut and the commercial thin to a 50 or 60ft2/ac basal 

area would move 820 acres of high risk to a low risk. Overstory removal treatment 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

43

would reduce 39 acres currently at high risk to low risk. Approximately 42 acres would 

remain at a high risk for MPB. These are small isolated, scattered pine stands, not 

proposed for treatment. This alternative contributes to meeting Forest Plan Objective 10-

07. A summary of pine acres by MPB risk is shown in Table 23.

Table 23: MPB Risk for Existing Condtion and Alternative 2

MPB Risk 

Rating

Existing 

Acres

Existing 

Percentage

Alt 2 

Acres

Alt 2 

Percentage

Low 15,562 95% 16,420 100%

High 901 5% 42 <1%

Structural Stages 

There would be no change to pine structural stages resulting from prescribed burning. 

The mechanical treatments would be affecting SS 4A and SS 4B. All other structural 

stages would remain the same. Mechanically treated SS 4B stands would be less dense 

and therefore, would move into SS 4A or 3A structural stage. Approximately 42 acres of 

SS 4B would remain. These areas are not proposed for treatment.

Table 24: Alternative 2 - Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in 

the Project Area

Structural Stage Existing Acres Alt 2 Acres

SS1 13,009 13,009

SS3A 0 307

SS4A 2,553 3,104

SS4B 901 42

Total 16,462 16,462

This alternative would result in no change to forest-wide structural stage percentages for 

management areas 5.1 and 5.4 in the short term (<10 years). This alternative contributes 

toward meeting Objectives 5.1- 202 and 5.4-206 over the long term (>10 years).

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 (USDA Forest Service, 1997).

Very Large Sized Trees

There would be no effect to pine stands with a size class of very large because none occur 

in the project area.

Aspen

No mechanical treatment is proposed within existing aspen stands. Aspen clones that 

occur within pine stands proposed for thinning could benefit where pine is removed 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

44

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. This alternative 

contributes to meeting Objective 201 in the Forest Plan.

Prescribed burning would not affect aspen stands. Areas where aspen stands and clones 

occur have site conditions which are more moist than the surrounding area. Therefore, 

fire generally does not carry through aspen under conditions conducive to prescribed 

burning. While aspen stands and inclusions occur within the boundary of proposed burn 

areas, no fire will be dropped within those stands or through inclusions. Lighting would 

be stopped approximately one aspen tree length from the stand or clone. Fire may creep 

through the aspen with a very light intensity, but is not expected to affect the aspen 

stands. Design criteria are included to monitor burn intensities within aspen and if 

unexpected burn intensities are observed during burning, operations will cease. 

Shrubs

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. 

The understory shrubs within the stands, both with SS 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 re-sprout.

Meadows

Meadows would be maintained by this alternative. Approximately 159 acres of existing 

meadows would have mechanical treatment to remove encroaching pine seedlings. No 

mature trees occur within meadow sites. Prescribed burning in meadows would also 

maintain meadows by removing pine seedlings. This alternative contributes to meeting 

Forest Plan Objective 205 and Guideline 2107.

ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative was designed to create more uneven-aged stands and to preserve the 

integrity of the Colorado State University (CSU) study plots by deferring them from 

treatment. In this alternative, 624 acres would be commercially harvested with an 

estimated volume of 4,594 CCF (2,130 MBF) and 556 CCF of POL. In addition, 

prescribed burning would occur on approximately 16,544 acres.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Ponderosa Pine

All proposed treatments would occur in ponderosa pine stands as in Alternative 2 but this 

alternative would harvest 1,021 acres less and prescribe burn 442 acres less than 

Alternative 2 in response to the key issues identified. All treatments were deferred from 

the CSU study plots to response to issue #1. Elements of uneven-aged management were 

incorporated into proposed treatments to respond to issue #2. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

45

Group Selections are proposed as a regeneration treatment rather than shelterwood 

seedcuts. Group Selections are proposed on 391 acres to create more uneven-aged 

stands. However, because these stands are currently even-aged it may take decades to 

achieve the desired uneven-aged structure. Commercial thinning is proposed on 

approximately 233 acres and would be designed as stated above under the Alternative 2 

discussion. Up to 624 acres of POL thinning are proposed and would also be 

implemented as discussed under Alternative 2. No precommercial thinning is proposed.

This alternative would have similar effects to growth and yield as described in 

Alternative 2, but to a lesser degree because fewer acres are treated. Alternative 3 would 

harvest 62% fewer acres than Alternative 2.

The expected effects from prescribed burning would essentially be the same as 

Alternative 2. The only difference is that approximately 2% (442 acres) fewer acres 

would be burned. All design criteria pertaining to burning remains the same.

Regeneration

Alternative 3 would open up stands on 624 acres by use of commercial thins and group 

selections. Natural regeneration would occur within the harvest units depending upon the 

amount of precipitation that is received during the growing season (Shepperd &

Battaglia, 2002). Since Alternative 3 would harvest 1,021 fewer acres than Alternative 2, 

natural regeneration would also be expected to occur over fewer acres in the harvest 

units.

The impacts to regeneration would also be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2, 

but would occur over less acres. Alternative 3 would prescribe burn 442 acres less (2%) 

than Alternative 2. The mortality limits noted in Appendix B apply to Alternative 3 as 

well. 

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk

Approximately 1,021 fewer acres of mechanical treatment is proposed in this alternative 

than in alternative 2. In addition, the proposed group selection treatment would retain 

MPB risk as High rather than reduce them to Low risk. Therefore, overall MPB risk 

remains higher than Alternative 2, but is lower than Alternative 1. Table 25 displays 

MPB risk. 

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: MPB Risk for Existing Condition and All Alternatives

MPB Risk 

Rating

Existing 

Acres

Existing 

Percentage

Alt 2 

Acres

Alt 2 

Percentage

Alt 3 

Acres

Alt 3 

Percentage

Low 15,562 95% 16,420 100% 15,722 96%

High 901 5% 42 <1% 740 4%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

46

Structural Stages

The harvest treatments would be affecting SS 4A and SS 4B in MA 5.4 only. All other 

structural stages would remain the same. Impacts to structural stages would be as 

described in Alternative 2 for all treatments other than group selection. The uneven-aged 

group selection treatment is projected to retain stands in a SS 4B condition. 

This alternative would result in no change to forest-wide structural stage percentages for 

MA 5.1 and 5.4 in the short term (<10 years). This alternative contributes toward

meeting Objectives 5.1- 202 and 5.4-206 over the long term (>10 years).

Table 26: Acres of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Project Area for 

All Alternatives

Structural 

Stage Existing Acres Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres

SS1 13,009 13,009 13,009

SS3A 0 307 0

SS4A 2,553 3,104 2,713

SS4B 901 42 740

Total 16,462 16,462 16,462

Very Large Sized Trees

There would be no effect to pine stands with a size class of very large because none occur 

in the project area. 

Aspen

The impacts to aspen from Alternative 3 are the same as those described under 

Alternative 2. This alternative also contributes to meeting Objective 201 in the Forest 

Plan.

Shrubs

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 shrubs. The result would be an increase in forage for 

cattle and wildlife but over fewer acres than Alternative 2. 

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. 

Meadows

The effects to meadows are similar to those described under Alternative 2, but would 

occur over fewer acres. Approximately 114 acres of existing meadows would be 

maintained by removing encroaching pine. This would be 45 acres less than Alternative 

2. Prescribed burning in meadows in Alternative 3 would occur on 31 less acres than 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

47

Alternative 2. This alternative contributes to meeting Forest Plan Objective 205 and 

Guideline 2107.

Cumulative Effects for All Alternatives

The time boundary for this analysis 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 2015. Allowing two

years for the sale to be harvested and five years for post-sale activities to be 

accomplished all activities should be completed by approximately 2022.

The analysis area boundary is used for this 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 SS 1. It left areas 

of scattered green trees and a few large areas of fully stocked green stands. Following 

the Jasper fire, some salvage sales harvested dead and dying trees and hazard tree 

removal was accomplished along the main roads to prevent dead trees from falling across 

the roads. 

At the present time, MPB 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 MPB

infestation. Currently, the number of dead and fading trees is expanding within this area.

Regeneration

The Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires resulted in profound impacts to pine regeneration. 

The direct effects of killing advanced regeneration occurred, but the indirect effect of the 

vast loss of potential seed source is the most substantial impact the fires had on 

regeneration. Because natural seed sources were lost over thousands of acres, it will 

likely take generations for this area to naturally regenerate. 

Planting has occurred on 364 acres to supplement natural regeneration. Future planting 

will occur in this project area and within other parts of these fire areas. 

The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to regeneration and 

therefore, no cumulative effects. 

The action alternatives would benefit regeneration by protecting seed sources, preparing 

seedbeds, and opening up dense overstory canopy to allow natural regeneration to occur. 

The proposed harvest treatments would reduce MPB risk and fire hazard, thereby 

providing some protection to the remaining mature trees which can provide seed. The 

harvest treatments which would reduce basal area below 60 ft2

/acre would allow for 

natural regeneration to occur (Shepperd & Battaglia, 2002). Prescribed burning would 

benefit regeneration by preparing the seedbed. These benefits would help to offset the 

negative impacts of the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires and the MPB infestation to 

regeneration in the project area.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

48

Mountain Pine Beetle Risk

There would be no direct or indirect effects to mountain pine beetle risk from the No 

Action alternative and therefore, no cumulative effects. Because no change to MPB risk 

would occur, MPB caused mortality is expected to continue to increase in the project area 

under the No Action alternative. 

There would be positive cumulative effects to MPB risk under the action alternatives. 

The Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires reduced MPB risk to low on the majority of acres 

within the project area. The proposed treatment of pine stands to lower stand density 

would also reduce the susceptibility of stands to MPB caused mortality. Therefore, the 

cumulative effect is an overall reduction in MPB risk within this project area. 

Mountain pine beetle-caused mortality is occurring within high and low risk stands in the 

project area. The impacts of MPB caused tree mortality are expected to continue but, 

lessen with the action alternatives. 

Structural Stages

The No Action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to structural stages and 

therefore no cumulative effects.

The action alternatives would have direct effects to structural stages as noted under the 

direct and indirect effect section above. The fires had substantial impact to structural 

stages by changing vast acres of pine to SS 1. The action alternatives would not result in 

additional acres of SS 1. 

The action alternatives would reduce acres of SS 4B and increase acres of SS 4A, but no 

other structural stages changes would occur. No past, present or future actions would 

have additional impact to acres of pine structural stages. 

Very Large Sized Trees

There are no pine stands with an average tree size of Very Large within the project area 

so there are no direct or indirect effects and therefore no cumulative effects.

Aspen

Since the Jasper and Roger’s Shack Fires aspen has increased within the fire boundaries. 

The wildfires stimulated the aspen into suckering and reduced or eliminated pine 

competition. There would be no direct or indirect effects to aspen from the No Action 

alternative and therefore, no cumulative effects. The action alternatives would have 

indirect effects by opening pine stands and reducing competition to aspen. This would 

contribute to a positive cumulative effect when combined with the effects of the Jasper 

and Roger’s Shack fires on aspen. No additional effects from burning are expected 

because design criteria is included to avoid aspen stands and clones when burning. 

Shrubs

There would be no direct or indirect effects to shrubs from the No Action alternative and 

therefore, no cumulative effects. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

49

The direct and indirect effects to shrubs from the action alternatives would be an increase 

in shrubs within conifer stands by opening up the canopy after harvest increasing the 

amount of light, nutrients, and moisture available to the shrubs. Over the entire prescribe 

burn area, shrubs would be set back but the shrubs would re-sprout. Cattle, deer and elk 

browsing of the shrubs would be expected to remain at the same levels. 

Meadows

The meadows have had very little impact since the Jasper and Roger’s Shack Fires. The 

no action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects to meadows and therefore, 

no cumulative effects. The action alternatives would help to maintain meadows by 

removing encroaching pine. This combined with the effect of the Jasper and Roger’s 

Shack fires would have a positive cumulative effect to meadows.

Wildlife

Vegetation habitat conditions are discussed under the ‘Forest Vegetation’ section in this 

document. Additional discussion of some specific habitat components, snags and down 

woody material is presented below. 

The analysis boundary was used for all wildlife cumulative effects analysis. The 

cumulative effects analysis area considered includes the project area and activities that 

have occurred since 2000 (year of Jasper Fire) and those that will occur until 2019 (year 

when planned activities should be completed). This allows for an adequate length of time 

to record vegetation changes and impacts to wildlife. This applies to all cumulative 

effects for all species throughout this report and will not be repeated.

Snags and Dead Woody Material

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Due to the wildfires, current snag densities exceed levels noted in Forest Objective 211, 

across the project area. Many of these snags have snapped off and may not be >25 feet in 

height. Mountain pine beetles have created additional snags on the landscape, although 

trees killed by MPB are only expected to remain intact on the landscape for about 5 years 

(Schmid et al., 2009). Few, if any, snags are greater than 20 inches in diameter. Large 

diameter snags that are remaining are desirable for wildlife (especially those in groups) 

and are expected to remain on the landscape. 

The wildfires and MPB caused mortality have created substantial amounts of dead woody 

material. The project area meets or exceeds dead woody material levels noted in Forest 

Objective 212.

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

50

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 and bats. The 

No thinning or burning would occur in this alternative. Therefore, there would be no real 

change in dead woody material from the existing condition. It is expected that dead 

woody material would increase as existing dead trees continue to fall to the ground.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

This alternative treats the most acres and opens up forest canopy in the treated stands. 

Insect risk and fire hazard are reduced which in turn, reduces the potential for natural tree 

mortality. This alternative would be expected to result in the most potential for loss of 

existing snags during implementation from burning or removal of safety hazard snags. 

However, no snags would be cut unless they are deemed a safety hazard, consistent with 

Standard 2301. Mechanical treatments which remove large trees would result in fewer 

large diameter trees that may serve as replacement snags in the future. 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. However, mortality limits are included as part of the 

design criteria for this project. All burning would follow mechanical tree removal, which 

would also reduce potential for snag creation from burning. This alternative would 

continue to meet or exceed Forest Plan Objective 211. 

Alternative 2 would reduce dead, down woody material. However, sufficient dead 

woody material would remain following project activities to meet Forest Plan Objective 

212.

ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative would have similar effects to snags and dead, down woody material as 

described under alternative 2 above. However, because fewer acres are proposed for 

burning or mechanical treatments, it is expected that fewer snags would be lost during 

treatments and more dead woody material would remain on site. This alternative would 

continue to meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives 211 and 212.

Cumulative Effects for Snags and Dead Woody Material

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

51

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

EXISTING CONDITION

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 Project Area (Table 27). Some MIS species have dual designations as also Region 2 

(R2) sensitive or species of local concern (SOLC), as noted in the analysis. Those R2 

sensitive species are included in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation 

(BA/BE) completed for this project.

Table 27: MIS List and Rationale for Project-level Analysis

Species

Analyzed in 

Report 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 flow 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 

In the Black Hills, white 

spruce and late successional 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

52

within the project 

area.

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 

woodlots, 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).

White-tailed Deer (MIS)

White-tailed deer were selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of forest conditions, including the presence of understory shrubs, to meet 

their needs (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

During field surveys in 2008 white-tailed deer were commonly observed. The wildfires 

reduced the amount of adequate hiding and thermal cover, but increased forage (grasses, 

forbs and shrubs). Available forage further increased after treatment of noxious weeds; 

however there are still scattered pockets of Canada thistle and other noxious weeds. 

This area contains important fawning grounds/habitat for white-tailed deer, and other 

ungulates. Downed material provides some hiding cover and shade (Steve Griffin, SD 

Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Biologist, personal communication).

Ninety-three percent of the project area is big game winter range, MA 5.4. Deer will 

utilize other portions of the project area when winter snow depths are low (<6”). 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. 

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 population estimate for 2009 was 43,000 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

53

(Huxoll, 2010). 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, 2010). 

The Forest-wide habitat trend is stable or increasing. Open habitat that provides forage is 

increasing and screening cover is stable. The Forest is meeting Objective 217 and 

Objective 238a based on white-tailed deer habitat and population trends (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010).

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 seven 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 (FSR 668) and Custer Limestone 

road (FSR 284).

Table 28: Current Screening Cover Along Arterial and Collector Roads in the 

Project Area

Road 

Numbers Functional Class

Percent (%) 

Screening Cover Cover Provided By:

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

Grasshopper Sparrow (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS)

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).

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, the Jasper and Rogers Shack fires have created suitable 

habitat for the grassland sparrow and they have been recently recorded in the Jasper 

(Panjabi, 2005) and Rogers Shack Burn Areas (White & Giroir, 2009). Observations by 

the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) tripled from 2004 to 2006 (Giroir et al.,

2007).

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; 2008; 2009b).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

54

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS)

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).

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; 2003; 2004; 2005; Giroir et al., 2007; White & Giroir, 2009). In 2008, a blackbacked woodpecker was observed in the project area (personal observation).

Throughout the Black Hills National Forest, a total of 7,672 acres of burned forest habitat 

was created and largely retained over the last five years (USDA Forest Service, 2010). 

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 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). This 

species’ Forest-wide population trend is likely to decline in the future as vegetation 

management efforts to reduce the fire-hazard and insect-risk continue (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010).

Brown Creeper (MIS)

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). 

This small forest bird is associated with mature and late succession forest conditions. 

Optimal habitat is SS 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. 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;
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

55

2005). Forest-wide habitat is stable. Preferred habitat (SS 4C and SS 5) decreased 

slightly, however SS 4C with very large trees (>16”) has increased (USDA Forest 

Service, 2010). It appears that Objective 238a is being met (USDA Forest Service, 2010). 

Continued effort and additional time is needed to increase the acres of SS 5 (USDA 

Forest Service 2010).

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

The ruffed grouse is selected as a Forest MIS to be an indicator of aspen quantity and 

vigor in pure and mixed stands. It was selected to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan 

implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely 

on a variety of conditions in aspen to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

Ruffed grouse 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). 

The long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline given the reduction of 

aspen acreage compared to historic condition. It is likely there has been an associated 

population decline. However, there has been a slight increase in aspen acres during the 

past five years. The Forest continues to meet Objective 238a by maintaining aspen 

habitat. More time and effort will be needed to increase aspen acreage in the future. 

Implementation of a ruffed grouse monitoring protocol should allow for the detection of a 

long-term population trend (USDA Forest Service, 2010).

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. 

Implementation of the ruffed grouse monitoring protocol should detect a long-term 

population trend (USDA Forest Service, 2009b).

Environmental Consequences

White-tailed Deer (MIS)

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

In forested stands, trees would eventually become larger and more dense, providing more 

cover. Pine regeneration would eventually provide some additional hiding cover along 

the roads. 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. The trade-off is that forage would decrease with the 

increase in pine regeneration. No change to screening, hiding and thermal cover and 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

56

fawning grounds for white-tailed deer would occur. Noxious weed abundance would not 

change.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action would benefit shrub and herbaceous vegetation (forage) and reduce 

cover habitat. Under this alternative 902 acres of pine, considered cover, would be 

reduced to 224 acres. 

Prescribed burning may reduce fawning value of the project area by reducing downed 

woody material. Vegetative treatments proposed under this action alternative may cause 

temporary displacement of individuals. This action alternative would not significantly 

reduce the amount of screening cover habitat along the roads. None of the arterial or 

collector roads above 20% cover would be reduced below 20% cover in this alternative. 

Cover percentage along FSR 284 and FSR 668 would not be reduced because design 

criteria would insure existing screening cover is retained. This alternative is consistent 

with Guideline 3203.

ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative would also increase forage and decrease cover, but to a lesser extent than 

in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would retain 742 acres of cover (SS 4B pine) for whitetailed deer. Under this alternative there would be 442 acres less prescribed burning than 

in Alternative 2. Therefore, less impact to fawning cover would occur. Screening cover 

impacts would be similar to Alternative 2, consistent with Guideline 3203.

Cumulative Effects 

Past timber harvest and fires have produced large 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 habitat 

within and adjacent to the project area. These activities include recreation, grazing and 

continued mountain pine beetle caused tree mortality. The No Action Alternative 

(Alternative 1) would have no adverse cumulative effects. The Action Alternatives 

would reduce cover habitat (currently limited) but would provide additional foraging 

habitat.

Summary of Alternative Effects to White-tailed Deer 

None of the alternatives would contribute to a Forest-wide loss of summer habitat 

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; 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

57

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 & MIS)

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

No change to existing habitat would occur. Conifer encroachment would slowly continue 

to occur within grassland habitat.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

The alternatives would enhance habitat for the grasshopper sparrow through burning and

removal of pine encroachment. Alternative 2 would result in more enhanced habitat than 

Alternative 3 as it proposes 45 more acres of pine encroachment and 442 more acres of 

prescribed burning. 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.

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 fires should enhance habitat for the 

grasshopper sparrow within the project area. 

The No Action Alternative would have no cumulative effects on this species as no direct 

or indirect effects would occur.

Summary of Alternative Effects to Grasshopper Sparrow 

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 

action alternatives contribute to 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 2009b). 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

58

Black-backed Woodpecker (R2 Sensitive Species & MIS)

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

This alternative would allow natural successional changes to occur. Pine stands would 

remain on the landscape. Trees would continue to become larger and denser and MPB 

activity would 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. No 

change to existing snags would occur. This alternative would provide for the greatest 

increase in woodpecker habitat in the short term due to MPB caused mortality.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

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.

The proposed 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 MPB caused tree mortality. Proposed treatments may decrease snag habitat for 

this species. Prescribed burning could also create new snags if mature trees are killed as 

a result of the burning.

Cumulative Effects

Large wildfires have created habitat for this species in the project area. Mountain pine 

beetle activity is affecting black-backed woodpecker habitat, within and adjacent to the 

project area, and is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. 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 cumulative 

effects from the No Action Alternative.

Summary of Alternative Effects to Black-backed Woodpecker

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. Phase II Forest Plan Objectives 211 (snags), 221 

(sensitive and SOLC species) and 238b (MIS) would be met by the action alternatives. 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

59

Brown Creeper (MIS)

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

This alternative would allow natural successional changes to occur. Dense pine stands 

would remain on the landscape to provide habitat for brown creepers. Trees would 

continue to become larger and denser, but MPB activity would increase which may 

reduce available habitat.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Both alternatives would reduce acres of dense, mature pine stands, preferred by brown 

creepers. Alternative 3 would retain more habitat for the brown creeper than Alternative 

2. 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 temporary displacement of individuals or 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.

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. Habitat would be 

maintained and the project meets Objectives 221 and 238a. 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 

1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population 

viability across the planning area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest 

standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these 

standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Cumulative Effects

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 areas of dense pine 

stands; however, natural succession and tree growth, coupled with fire suppression, can 

replace these dense stands. Currently the mountain pine beetle is affecting brown creeper 

habitat in the project area. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to continue into the 

future.

The No Action Alternative would not have cumulative effects on this species as no direct 

or indirect effects would occur.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

60

Ruffed Grouse (MIS)

Direct and Indirect Effects

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.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

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. 

The action alternatives may increase the amount of hardwoods and therefore would 

enhance ruffed grouse habitat, consistent with Forest Objectives 221 and 238a. 

Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 

1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population 

viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this species if pertinent Forest 

standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed alternatives would meet these 

standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest.

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. Livestock grazing and mountain pine beetle are currently affecting aspen 

habitat and are expected to affect ruffed grouse habitat in the foreseeable future. The No 

Action Alternative would not have cumulative effects on this species as no direct or 

indirect effects would occur.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

Black Hills Supplement “r2_bh_2600-2011-1” to Forest Service Manual 2600 became 

effective September 6, 2011 and provides direction for the management of SOLC (USDA 

Forest Service, 2011). As defined by this supplement, a species of local concern is a 

plant, fish or wildlife species (including subspecies or varieties) that does not meet the 

criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with declining trends in only a 

portion of R2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local area. The

local area is defined as Forest Service lands within the Black Hills National Forest. This 

supplement also provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria used to select

species of local concern and a current list for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service, 2011).

Table 29 lists potential SOLC for the Black Hills National Forest. Rationale is provided 

if the species is not analyzed in this report.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

61

Table 29: 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 welldeveloped understories 

(Frest & Johannes, 2002).

Sharp-shinned 

hawk

(Accipiter striatus)

Y Y Y

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 sawwhet owl

(Aegolius acadicus) N N N

The project area lacks 

mature forest and dense 

riparian woodlands 

(Cannings, 1993; Johnson &

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).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

62

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 longeared 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,

2011).

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).

Rocky 

Mountain 

bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis

canadensis) N N N

The Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep is a R2 

sensitive species and is 

listed in the HCMB BA/BE. 

It is not analyzed in the 

BA/BE due to lack of 

habitat within the project 

area.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

63

EXISTING CONDITION

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (SOLC)

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 & 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 2 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 two 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.

Callused Vertigo Snail (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitor 

357 sites for land snails (Frest & 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 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 shrub lands. 

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 & 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; 2008; 2009b), therefore data to assess the status of SOLC snails is not 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

64

available. Avoidance of known sites is currently the best available option for conserving 

and/or enhancing habitat at known snail colonies.

Mystery Vertigo Snail (SOLC)

In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a contract to inventory and/or monitors 

357 sites for land snails (Frest & 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 project area by Frest or during project field 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 

apparently secure globally and nationally and critically imperiled in South Dakota 

(NatureServe, 2011).

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)

Nekola (2003) considered this species a “duff-specialist.” Duff specialists were strongly 

affected by human activities, suggesting that protecting soil and surface characteristics 

are important in their conservation. In 2002, the Forest received the final report for a 

contract to inventory and/or monitors 357 sites for land snails (Frest & 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 &Johannes, 2002). The frigid ambersnail is currently ranked as 

critically imperiled globally, nationally and in South Dakota (NatureServe, 2011).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

65

There are no known frigid ambersnail sites in the project area. Potential habitat could 

exist in the shaded, limestone canyons.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (SOLC)

Sharp-shinned hawks nest almost exclusively in conifers, with the exception of some 

densely leafed deciduous trees that also provide nest concealment (Platt, 1976; Reynolds 

et al., 1982; Joy, 1990). On the Forest, nests occur in white spruce (Stephens &

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; 2005; Giroir et al., 2007). 

Sharp-shinned hawks occur in most forest types across their range (Bildstein &Meyer,

2000).

The association between nesting habitat and young seral stage has been noted by several 

authors (Bildstein & Meyer, 2000; Stephens & Anderson, 2002). On the Black Hills 

National Forest, one of the two documented sharp-shinned 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 & 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 & 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 & 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. Preferred nesting habitat does 

occur in the project area as SS 4B and SS 4C pine stands.

Cooper ’s Hawk (SOLC)

The Cooper’s hawk has been observed in a variety of habitats in the Black Hills, 

including ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrub lands, and burned areas (Panjabi,

2001; 2003; 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

66

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. Rangewide, 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 & 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, SS 4B (mature stands with 40 to 70% canopy closure), SS 4C (mature 

stands with >70% canopy closure), and SS 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).

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)

The pygmy nuthatch is a primary cavity nester that also uses secondary cavities 

(Ghalambor, 2003; Kingery & 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 & 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 & 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 &

Ghalambor, 2001). Suggested practices include managing for at least three to five snags 

(19 inches in diameter) per acre (Kingery & Ghalambor, 2001). 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

67

Structural stages 4C and 5 most closely resemble one component of preferred habitat (old 

or mature undisturbed forest). Structural stage 4A most closely resembles open, parklike, mature forest conditions. Phase II structural stage objectives are designed to 

manage for the various structural stages across the landscape in a diversity of sizes and 

shapes. Snags that are greater than 15 inches in diameter are an integral part of pygmy 

nuthatch nesting and roosting habitat. Snags do not occur evenly across the landscape. 

There 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 different habitat types (Giroir et al., 2007), and they have 

been observed within the project area by RMBO and a personal observation. Three 

pygmy nuthatches were recorded by RMBO in 2009 (USDA Forest Service, 2010).

Northern Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

At the western edge of its range, the northern myotis is found in the wooded riparian zone 

in badlands and prairies to higher elevation coniferous and deciduous woodlands. 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). 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). 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

68

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 (2011) reported records of this species from Meade and Lawrence 

counties as well. 

Sightings have occurred, and there are caves within the project area. The Forest is 

conserving habitat for this species through cave, mine and snag management.

Small-footed Myotis (SOLC)

The small-footed myotis is found in a variety of habitats ranging from arid desert and 

badland habitats to riparian zones and grasslands. It is usually associated with rocky 

areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, and major rock outcroppings within 

these habitats. In the Black Hills region, this species has been captured at elevations 

ranging from 3,800 to 6,000 feet (Schmidt, 2003b). 

Hibernacula for this species include mines and caves. Relatively warmer areas of caves 

with the least climatic fluctuations seem to be the preferred 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.

Long-eared Myotis (SOLC)

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 longeared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as summer and maternity roosts in other regions 

(Rabe et al., 1998; Vonhof & 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 & Barclay, 1997).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

69

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.

Long-legged Myotis (SOLC)

The long-legged myotis is primarily associated with montane forest. In the Black Hills, 

this species occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 feet (Turner, 1974). 

This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity 

roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al., 2001) and in other regions (Rabe et al., 1998). 

Cryan et al. (2001) found the long-legged myotis roosting in rock crevices in the Black 

Hills where they may be subject to disturbance by rock climbing activities. Snags used 

for roosting in the Black Hills were larger in diameter, in a greater state of decay, and 

were in higher densities when compared to random snags (Cryan et al., 2001). Roosts 

were generally on south-facing slopes within late-successional pine forests. Day roosts 

are usually under the bark of ponderosa pine and in snags. These bats prefer dead snags 

characterized by reduced needles and twigs, loose bark, broken tops, hard-to-spongy 

heartwood, and spongy-to-soft sapwood. Roost snags are generally taller than 

surrounding trees, close to other available trees, and surrounded by a relatively open 

canopy. Reproductive females have been found roosting in buildings, rock crevices, 

under the bark of trees, and in hollow trees (Schmidt, 2003d). Hibernating individuals 

are 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

70

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 & 

Stromberg, 1987; Turner, 1974).

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.

Environmental Consequences

Tawny Crescent Butterfly (SOLC)

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

No change to existing conditions would occur in the short-term (<10 years). 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. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality in pine stands would increase and 

could benefit this butterfly species.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Prescribed burning and pine encroachment removal from meadows proposed in the 

alternative would improve grassland vegetation for this species. Alternative 2 would 

have a greater benefit as it proposes more acres of prescribed burning and pine 

encroachment removal. 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 postharvest work could help with native plant restoration. These alternatives contribute 

toward meeting Forest Objective 221. This species is likely to persist on the Forest.

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires have created habitat for this butterfly species. Past encroachment of trees 

into meadows may have reduced habitat for this species. Livestock grazing has impacted 

potential habitat for this species. Livestock grazing has in the past and will continue to 

impact potential habitat for this species. Livestock may consume preferred plants needed 

by tawny crescent butterflies for foraging. Plant composition in meadows may also be 

altered by livestock grazing. These activities are expected to continue in the future. 

Drought conditions (past and present) may be affecting the habitat for the tawny crescent. 

The action alternatives would add to the beneficial effects for the tawny crescent 

butterfly. The No Action Alternative would not have cumulative effects on this species 

as no direct or indirect effects would occur.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

71

Callused Vertigo and Mystery Vertigo Snails (SOLC) 

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

Pine sites would eventually become more dense which would improve habitat for these 

species. However, fire hazard and MPB risk would increase, creating potential for a 

stand replacing wildfire or MPB infestation to 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 (a 

preferred habitat component) on the ground layer. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 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), and 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. 

Known snail locations, Frest snail survey sites #58 and #126, would be avoided during 

project activities (see design criteria, Appendix B). However, proposed activities could 

impact unknown snail colonies. 

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. These species are likely to persist on the Forest. 

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires have negatively impacted this snail species and its habitat by opening the 

forest canopy. Presently pine beetles are thinning some of the thicker pockets of pine 

trees and beetle caused mortality is expected to continue. 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.

No 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.

Frigid Ambersnail (SOLC)

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

There would be no direct effect to this species. Possible indirect effects include increased 

potential for loss of habitat from stand-replacing wildfires or MPB caused tree mortality. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

The action alternatives may have direct effects to this species during implementation, if 

the species is present in the area, although none have been observed. This species is not 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

72

able to disperse from activity, other than to retreat deeper in the soil. Prescribed burning 

would consume downed woody material that is important for maintenance of habitat for 

this species. 

If snail colonies of this species were detected prior to harvest, they would be protected 

per Standard 3103. Habitat would be conserved and the action alternatives may benefit 

this species in the long-term by enhancing preferred habitat. Therefore, this project 

would contribute toward meeting Objective 221.

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires may have caused mortality of this snail. The fires also may have created 

some preferred habitat within the project area. 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)

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. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

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 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 

implementation of Standard 3204. Known nests would be protected and suitable habitat 

retained and therefore, the action alternatives would contribute toward meeting Objective 

221.

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires 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. Mountain pine beetle caused tree mortality will continue, reducing 

mature pine trees. The No Action Alternative would not have cumulative effects on this 

species as no direct or indirect effects would occur.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

73

Coopers Hawk (SOLC) 

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 created. This 

condition may lead to an increased chance of stand replacing wildfire and MPB

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. 

BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Under both action alternatives, the preferred nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk, SS 

4B (there are no SS 4C or SS 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 – PROPOSED ACTION

Structural stage 4B acres would be reduced from 901 to 223 acres under Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3

Structural stage 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 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. 

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.

Pygmy Nuthatch (SOLC)

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

74

snags. The No Action Alternative provides the most potential pine nesting habitat for the 

pygmy nuthatch and therefore is the preferred alternative. 

BOTH 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 – PROPOSED ACTION

This alternative proposes to remove mature pine and reduce SS 4B down to SS 4A (Table 

24). 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 

26). 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.

Cumulative Effects

Past wildfires have reduced areas of dense pine stands in the project area. 

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), Small-footed Myotis (SOLC), Long-eared 

Myotis (SOLC), Long-legged Myotis (SOLC) 

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

75

hardwood site to be converted to a conifer site. The No Action Alternative should provide 

the most suitable roosting snags for this bat species. 

BOTH 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 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 short-term 

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 – PROPOSED ACTION

Under this alternative the resulting acreage of SS 4B pine would be 223 acres. 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 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. 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

76

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.

Threatened and Endangered Species

A list of federally threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and was last 

updated on October 4, 2012 (USFWS, 2012). The USFWS lists the following 

endangered, threatened and/or candidate species for Custer County, South Dakota: 

whooping crane, black-footed ferret and Sprague’s pipit. The following species are listed 

for Pennington County, South Dakota: whooping crane, least tern, black-footed ferret 

and Sprague’s pipit.

There are no endangered or threatened species that have potential habitat within the 

project area.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on 

June 10, 2011. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page (USDA Forest Service, 2011). 

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, 

and communication with District personnel, literature reviews, on-line databases, and 

South Dakota Natural Heritage Database. There are 12 R2 sensitive species which occur 

or could potentially occur (habitat may be present) in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn 

project area. 

Species Presence Confirmed and Habitat Present: 

• Bald eagle 

• Fringed myotis bat 

• Townsend’s big-eared bat

• Northern goshawk

• Lewis’s woodpecker

• Black-backed woodpecker
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

77

• Grasshopper sparrow

• Northern leopard frog

Species Presence Expected and Habitat Present: 

• Hoary bat

• Northern harrier

• Black Hills redbelly snake

• Regal fritillary butterfly

Two of these species listed, black-backed woodpecker and grasshopper sparrow, are also 

designated as MIS species. 

These R2 sensitive species were analyzed in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn BA/BE, 

which is available in the project file. A summary of this BA/BE is presented in Appendix 

D. All species which occur or have habitat within the project area have a determination 

of ‘May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing’, except for the bald eagle which 

has a determination of “No Impact”.

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 Forest-wide bird monitoring program, and (3) 

site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for identified species of concern.

The USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS, 2008) partitions North 

America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions. The Black Hills is included in BCR 17 –

Badlands and Prairies. Four of the bird species found in BCR 17, the golden eagle, 

prairie falcon, upland sandpiper, and red-headed woodpecker have the potential to occur 

within the project area

Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird)

The golden eagle is typically found in open country from desert grasslands to above 

timberline. It usually avoids densely forested areas. Typical habitat is grass-shrub, 

shrub-sapling and/or open coniferous forests (Johnsgard, 1990). This species prefers 

large trees and cliffs for nesting, roosting and perching. Additionally, cliffs overlooking 

grasslands serve as typical nest sites. They may use the same nest or alternate nests 

between years (DeGraaf et al., 1991). Golden eagles hunt by soaring-searching and using 

perch sites to identify prey (Johnsgard, 1990). Typical food items include: marmots 

(Marmota flaviventris), prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus spp.), weasels (Mustela spp.), lagomorphs (Sylvilagus and Lepus spp.), 

rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), and most medium-sized birds (DeGraaf et al., 1991). 

Golden eagles breed from western Alaska east through Canada, south to Baja California, 

northern Mexico, west-central Texas, western Oklahoma, Nebraska and the Dakotas. 

The species winters from south-central Alaska, southern Canada and throughout the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

78

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.

The 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 in this 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)

Typical habitat for this species includes open, treeless areas such as brush-desert, 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). 

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 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.

Pine encroachment, thinning, and prescribed burning treatments proposed in the 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 prairie 

falcon or its habitat.

Red-headed Woodpecker (Migratory Bird)

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). The project area contains sufficient snags in burn areas to 

support this species.

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

79

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.

Upland Sandpiper (Migratory Bird)

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 un-grazed 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). 

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).

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.

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 and Mule Deer (Demand Species) 

Elk and mule deer are common in the project area. Providing high-quality winter and 

transitional habitat for elk and big game on Forest Service lands is a theme in MA 5.4 

which comprises more than 90% of the project area.

The effects of this project to elk and mule deer would be the same as those discussed 

above under white-tailed deer.

Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Demand Species)

The species occurs in a wide variety of vegetation types, including foothill and montane 

riparian associations, pine-juniper shrub land, 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

80

ponderosa pine (structural stages 4C and 5) serves as winter cover and a source of mast 

(Rumble & Anderson, 1996). During the winter, turkeys also prefer south facing slopes 

where the sun melts the snow (Rumble & 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 project area in the summer. Turkeys also remain in this area 

during mild winters. Although preferred roosting habitat is lacking in the project area, 

turkeys are using the best roosting habitat that is available.

The project area provides little potential roosting habitat (<5%) for turkeys, due to the 

impacts of the Rogers Shack and Jasper Fires. The majority of the project area provides 

foraging habitat.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY

Roosting and winter habitat is limited in the project area for turkeys. Under the No 

Action Alternative, roosting habitat and winter habitat would not change, although MPB 

caused mortality is expected to reduce roosting habitat. Summer habitat may decrease 

under the No Action, however, it is in excess. The action alternatives would decrease 

winter and roosting habitat, in the short-term. These alternatives would also reduce slash 

for nesting turkeys and insect production. Design criteria is included to retain turkey 

roost trees as noted in Guideline 3205.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past 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 & Anderson, 1996). These 

activities would likely occur on private lands as well. All may affect turkeys through 

direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, and 

disturbance. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality is reducing roosting habitat and is 

expected to continue. This would be a cumulative effect for the action alternatives 

No cumulative effects are expected under the No Action Alternative.

Range/Noxious Weeds

Existing Conditions

Range

The project area includes portions of seven grazing allotments including; Hell Canyon, 

Limestone, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Porcupine, Tepee and Water Draw Allotments. 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

81

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 these fires. 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), 

leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale). 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. 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. In 2012 an increase of 

houndstongue was seen in the project 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.

Environmental Consequences

Range/Noxious Weeds

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 

forage for livestock. 

This alternative would have no direct impact on noxious weeds. An indirect effect is that 

the potential for wildfire would increase. It is assumed that an intense fire that might 

have high severity effects, such as deep soil heating, and could negatively affect native 

vegetation allowing for colonization of Canada thistle and other noxious weeds. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

82

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. 

There would be no impact on existing range improvements as a result of this alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

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% 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 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. 

Treatment of post-burn weed infestations is necessary to prevent a return to 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. In addition, the reduction of heavy fuels would also remove 

barriers, thus improving livestock distribution on the allotments. 

Grassland community types (i.e. meadows) do not have heavy fuel loading. Prescribed 

burning would reduce the fine fuels thus creating a seedbed for noxious weeds. There 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

83

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. However, design 

criteria are included to treat weeds and to monitor effectiveness of treatments.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative analysis area is the project area and the associated grazing allotments. 

The timing limit for the cumulative effects analysis is estimated at 25 years, fifteen years 

prior to present to include the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires, and ten years into the 

future, which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative changes. 

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 includes, but is not limited to: previous timber sales, fire (both planned and 

unplanned), legal and illegal off-highways vehicle use, and livestock grazing. This can be 

detrimental to rangeland resources as invasive species have the ability to out-compete 

desired native plants.

Treatment of weeds on both National Forest and private lands is occurring and would 

continue. These treatments would be beneficial in reducing weed infestations in the 

project area. 

Noxious weed infestations are expected to increase under both alternatives. Commercial 

and non-commercial timber harvest activities provide mechanisms for the introduction, 

establishment, and spread of noxious weeds. Anywhere there has been some form of soil 

disturbance, the potential for the establishment of noxious weeds exists. The potential for 

noxious weed establishment is even greater in disturbed areas adjacent to existing weed 

populations. The movement of vehicles, equipment, and other motorized vehicles in and 

out of these areas also facilitates weed establishment. Roads create a network of 

corridors through which seed dispersal can occur.

Recreational use of roads and trails would continue to be avenues for spread of noxious 

weeds. Off highway use of vehicles on roads and trails would continue to promote the 

spread of noxious weeds by providing a means of transport. Seeds can collect in wheelwells and grills of off-highway vehicles and may be dispersed as they travel. In areas 

where bare soil is exposed or natural vegetation is diminished, opportunities exist for the 

establishment of new infestations.

The grazing in the project area would continue as identified in the Allotment 

Management Plans for the grazing allotments within the project area. Under the action 

alternative, creation of transitory range would have a positive cumulative effect on those 

allotments by reducing the time livestock spend in preferred areas. Broadcast burning 

proposed under the action alternative would work against the cumulative effect of fire 

suppression by killing small trees and setting back succession, though it is expected to 

have limited effects on overstory canopy. All of the effects to rangeland resources 

presented here would be limited in intensity and duration. Any negative impacts would 

be minimal and are directly related to livestock management in the short term as they are 

impacted by treatment activities.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

84

All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration and therefore when combined 

with the alternatives analyzed, including the No Action alternative, do not result in 

adverse cumulative impacts to the range resource or noxious weeds.

Botany

Existing Conditions

Community Types

Prior to the wildfires, the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Analysis Area was dominated

by Ponderosa Pine Woodland community types (Marriot & Faber-Langendoen, 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 & 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 & FaberLangendoen, 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 (Pascopyrum smithii/Bouteloua gracilis/Carex filifolia) Prairie, 

Western Wheatgrass/Green Needle grass (Pascopyrum smithii/Nassella viridula) 

Mixedgrass Prairie and some Northern Great Plains Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium 

scoparium) Prairie (Marriot & 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/Side-oats 

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 buffalo berry (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 needle grasses (Nassella viridula, Hesperostipa comata, 

and Achnatherum richardsonii), and wheatgrasses (Pascopyrum smithii, Elymus 

trachycaulus and Pseudoroegneria spicata). Prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) and 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

85

sedges (Carex filifolia and Carex inops ssp heliophila) make up the majority of 

shortgrass component.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Plant Species

Region 2 (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). 

There are two species known to be present in the project area, Iowa moonwort 

(Botrychium campestre) and/or narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare). There are 

currently four known occurrences that contain Iowa moonwort and/or narrowleaf 

grapefern. No other R2 sensitive species occur or have suitable habitat in the project 

area. 

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 (SOLC)

There are no known occurrences of plant species of local concern (SOLC) within the 

project area; however suitable habitat is present for the pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis). 

No other SOLC plant species occur or have habitat present in the project area.

South Dakota 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

86

Environmental Consequences

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to any known or unknown R2 sensitive, SOLC or State 

listed plant species, because no activities would occur. 

The no action alternative may decrease grassland communities in the area as ponderosa 

pine continues to encroach upon meadows. Conifer encroachment is expected to present 

a risk to pleated gentian (USDA Forest Service, 2005a) a SOLC species. Iowa moonwort 

and narrowleaf grapefern (R2 sensitive species), 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 below ground and aboveground portions of Iowa moonwort 

and narrowleaf grapefern individuals (USDA Forest Service, 2005a).

Noxious weed infestations are a risk for all rare plants1, as exotics are often able to outcompete native vegetation for available nutrients. 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.

The effects to R2 sensitive species are discussed in detail in the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. In summary, 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 

two species known to be present in the project area, Iowa moonwort (Botrychium 

campestre) and narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare).

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

R2 (R2) Sensitive Species

There are 16,986 and 16,544 acres identified for prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 

3, respectively. 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 

 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 Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

87

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, 

landings (slash piles) or new roads through known occurrences.) 

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,

2005a). Wildfires 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, 2005a). 

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 mechanical 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 would be adjacent to more open, continuous 

grasslands or on loamy soils. Removal of ponderosa pine encroachment from meadows 

would likely enhance, expand, and/or improve habitat conditions for these two species. 

Negative effects may occur where large slash piles were created in suitable habitat.

Although specific data is lacking on the Black Hills National Forest, the earlier 

successional conditions that occur with opening the over story 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). 

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. 

The effects to R2 sensitive species are discussed in detail in the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. In summary, 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

88

two species known to be present in the project area, Iowa moonwort (Botrychium 

campestre) and narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare), for both action alternatives.

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

The proposed pine encroachment treatment in both alternatives would likely enhance 

habitat for pleated gentian as conifer encroachment is expected to present a risk to this 

species (USDA Forest Service, 2005a). Alternative 2 proposes 159 acres of pine 

encroachment and Alternative 3 proposes less at 114 acres. There is the potential for 

treatments to impact any unknown individual plants, but overall the pine encroachment 

treatments proposed in these alternatives 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.

Decreasing the ponderosa pine density and the proposed prescribed burning are expected 

to reduce the risk of wildfire, which would help protect species of local concern habitat. 

There are 16,986 and 16,544 acres proposed for prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 

3, respectively. Fire hazard is reduced more in Alternative 2, than in Alternative 3. 

Approximately 18,000 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. 

South Dakota State Listed Species

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 & Moore (2004). Thus the management 

activities proposed in these alternatives would be expected to have a beneficial effect on 

this species. Alternative 2 would have more of a beneficial effect than Alternative 3 

because more acres of habitat enhancement would occur.

Cumulative Effects 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

89

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 ponderosa pine may also create 

earlier successional conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by winddisperse, 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 above-ground 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 off-road 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.

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

90

Soils/Hydrology

Existing Conditions

Soils

Soils in the project area are relatively young and weakly developed, having formed from 

material weathered from underlying bedrock, alluvial and colluvial deposits, or various 

combinations of these materials. Parent materials are primarily limestone, sandstone, and 

shale from the bedrock formations exposed in the immediate vicinity. Major soil types in 

the area are loams, silt loams, and gravelly loams and are thin to absent on rock 

outcroppings; generally shallow on steep hill slopes; and relatively deep on the gentler 

hill slopes and in alluvial valleys. 

Nineteen different soil map units are present within the project area. Soil map units are a 

grouping of different soil types that may be individually too small to map separately or 

differentiate from other surrounding soils. Seven soil maps units (PbD, SrE, VkE, VcE, 

SycE, VoG, and VnC) are dominant and comprise 84% of the project area (see Table 30). 

The area is dominated by Vanocker soils in combination with various other soils. The 

remaining soil map units individually occupy less than 5% of the overall project area.

Table 30: Soil Map Units in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Project Area

Soil Map Unit Soil Map Unit Name

Percent of 

Project Area

SrE Sawdust-Vanocker-Paunsaugunt Complex 25%

VkE Vanocker-Lakoa Complex 18%

VcE Vanocker-Citadel Complex 13%

SycE Stovho-Trebor Complex 7%

VoG Vanocker-Sawdust-Rock Outcrop Complex 8%

VnC Vanocker-Paunsaugunt Complex 8%

PbD Paunsaugunt-Gurney complex 5%

BrB Bullflat silt loam <1%

BsB Bullflat-Cordeston silt loams 2%

CkC Citadel-Vanocker complex 3%

CxC Cordeston-Winetti complex <1%

HtG Hopdraw-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex 4%

PcD Paunsaugunt-Rock outcrop complex <1%

RnG Rock outcrop-Sawdust complex 3%

SpE Sawdust-Hopdraw-Paunsaugunt complex <1%

SybC Stovho-Lail-Trebor complex <1%

TuG Trebor-Rock outcrop complex <1%

WtB Winetti cobbly loam <1%

Pt Pits and quarries <1%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

91

Total Percentage of the Project Area 100%

Soils within meadows are unique and different from soils that support timber stands. 

Soils that developed in grassland conditions cover 1,479 acres (8%) of the project area 

and include the Bullflat silt loam (BrB), Bullflat-Cordeston silt loams (BsB), CordestonWinetti (CxC), Vanocker-Paunsaugunt (PbD), and Winetti cobbly loam (WtB) soil map 

units. These soil units would generally represent historic or currently existing meadows 

within the project area and can be used to evaluate conifer encroachment into meadows. 

The remainder of the project area (92%) contains soils that developed under forested 

environments.

Slope Stability

Although the Limestone Plateau is generally considered to be stable, seven soil map units 

in the project area are rated as having mass movement potential. These soil map units 

occupy a total of 10,073 acres (54%) of the project area and include HtG, RnG, SycE, 

TuG, VcE, VkE, and VoG. All seven units contain areas associated with steeper 

drainages or canyons where side slopes are 30% or greater. The major concern with 

these map units is generally associated with road or trail construction across steep slopes. 

An increased risk of road failure exists where roads are located on soils with mass 

movement potential and slopes greater than 40%, especially if road drainage problems 

are present or road cuts parallel bedrock layers. No slope failures were identified during 

field reviews, with the exception of small, isolated talus and rock slide areas on canyon 

side walls. Only 243 acres (1%) of the project area has slopes that exceed 40%, with 

most of the area (95%) having slopes of 30% or less, thus making the area well suited to 

ground-based, land management operations.

Soil Erosion and Displacement

Erosion hazard is an indication of the risk of soil loss associated with disturbance. A 

total of ten soil map units are identified as having elevated erosion potential within the 

project area. These include HtG, PcD, RnG, SpE, SrE, SycE, TuG, VcE, VkE, and VoG, 

all of which cover 14,941 acres or 81% of the project area. A rating of “high” does not 

mean that erosion will indeed occur; it is an indicator of soil sensitivity to disturbance. 

Additionally, seven soil map units have wind throw hazard when forest stands are thinned 

such that individual trees are isolated and vulnerable to strong winds toppling them over, 

uprooting the tree from the soil. These include PcD, SpE, SrE, SybC, SycE, TuG, and 

VnC which total 7,882 acres or 42% of the project area. These units are located primarily 

in the northeastern portion of the project, on top of high, exposed ridgelines such as 

Antelope Ridge and around Bear Spring Creek. The majority of these units are currently 

in a grass/forb, SS1 condition due to impacts from the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fires.

Compaction

Compaction can occur on all soils when conditions are right, particularly if soil moisture 

is high, if excessive equipment passes are made, or if exceptionally heavy equipment is 

used. Five soil map units are rated as being especially susceptible to compaction, but can 

be operated on by controlling the season, location, or intensity of equipment operations. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

92

These include CkC, SybC, SycE, VcE, and VkE. Altogether, these five soil map units 

equate to 7,792 acres or 42% of the project area.

Severely Burned Soils

Severely burned soils are considered to have experienced physical, chemical, and 

biological changes resulting from high-intensity burns of long duration. Areas classified 

as high soil burn severity according to Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) 

techniques are considered a detrimental disturbance (USDA Forest Service, 1995). Areas 

of high soil burn severity retain very little, if any, duff and litter due to the complete 

consumption of the forest floor during a wildfire event. Soils often exhibit some level of 

water repellency caused by the intense heating of wildfires. Therefore, these sites are 

more susceptible to soil erosion and compaction because they no longer have the 

protection of the litter and duff layer to absorb water and reduce runoff, or to support 

equipment pressure. 

Soil burn severity was mapped during the BAER assessments for the Jasper Fire and the 

Rogers Shack Fire. 

Based on these post-fire assessments, nearly 4,707 acres were mapped as high soil burn 

severity, 8,122 as moderate, and about 5,445 acres as low within the previously burned 

portions of the project area. The remaining 269 acres of the project has not been 

involved in a wildfire. 

Soils in this area also have a certain degree of natural water repellency prior to fire 

disturbance. A thin layer of water repellent soil was identified during BAER field 

surveys across much of the burned areas, was typically less than 0.25 inch 

(approximately 5 millimeters) thick, and was found at the soil-ash interface (Gould, 2003; 

USDI-BAER, 2001). Current fire research points to the fact that soils tend to begin the 

recovery process within 3-5 years following wildfires as vegetation is established (Neary, 

2005). These particular areas have had approximately 11 to 12 years to begin this 

recovery, thus any fire-induced water repellency has long-since dissipated with the 

annual freeze-thaw cycles. Effective ground cover – live vegetation, litter, duff, and rock 

– has also increased significantly due to vegetative growth and recovery, accumulation of 

organic litter on the forest floor, and formation or thickening of organic layers. Ground 

cover in less rocky areas exceeded 90%.

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling

Four soil map units in the HCMB project boundary have components with low topsoil 

organic matter (less than 2% per BHNF Forest Plan, Standard 1102). These soil map 

units cover 4,335 acres (23%) of the project area and include HtG, SpE, SybC, and VkE 

map units. These soil groups contain two to three different soils that are lumped into one 

overall unit and it is usually only one soil that exhibits low organic matter. Within the 

HtG unit, the Hopdraw component is limiting with 0.5-1 organic matter. The Hopdraw 

soil comprises 40-50% of the overall HtG soil complex. The Hopdraw soil is also the 

limiting component in the SpE soil map unit, again with 0.5-1% organic matter and 

comprising 25-35% of the overall SpE soil complex. Within the SybC unit, the Lail 

component is limiting with 1-3% organic matter. The Lail soil comprises 25-35% of the 

overall SybC soil complex. Finally, within the VkE unit, the Lakoa component is 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

93

limiting with 1-3% organic matter. The Lakoa soil comprises 25-35% of the overall VkE 

soil complex. Within the area occupied by these soil map units, it is estimated that 

approximately 1,200-1,750 acres or f the project area truly contains areas with low 

topsoil organic matter.

Coarse woody debris, the larger component of forest nutrient cycling, is defined as 

woody material greater than 3 inches in diameter, excluding stumps, and is derived from 

tree limbs, boles, and roots in various stages of decay (Graham et al., 1994). 

Forest Plan Objective 212 prescribes that 5-10 tons/acre of down, dead woody debris be 

provided once during a rotation in conifer stands, providing there isn’t a conflict with fire 

or pest management objectives. Objective 212 is currently exceeded in this project area. 

Overall Soil Productivity

Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of vegetation. 

The most productive part of the soil occurs near the surface, at the contact between the 

forest litter and the mineral soil. Here the litter has been decomposed into an organic rich 

layer containing most of the soil nitrogen, potassium, and mycorrhizae that must be 

present for a site to be productive. However, this is also the part of the soil that is easiest 

to disturb by management activities. 

Results of field inspections indicate that residual impacts from past logging activities in 

the form of landings, compression tracks, and some minor compaction in highly-traveled 

areas (skid trails and landing areas) are present in the project area. These were generally 

associated with more recent management activities that have taken place since the Jasper 

and Rogers Shack Fires (i.e. post-fire salvage logging). However, sites with management 

that occurred prior to year 2000 exhibited few if any residual impacts. The impacts 

associated with the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires themselves are far more widespread 

and long-lasting than those associated with logging, due to the vast areas that experienced 

stand replacing wildfire and more severe effects to soil physical, biological, and 

hydrologic properties and functions. 

No slope instabilities were identified except for small, isolated areas on steep, canyon 

sidewalls that are a natural process of rock weathering. Displacement and mixing of soil 

layers is limited to landing areas that had been scarified following burning. Over 90% 

effective ground cover was observed throughout the area, with the exception of 

recovering log landings; areas where cattle tend to concentrate; areas that were severely 

burned during the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires; and areas with thin soils overlying rock 

outcrops.

Water Resources

The project area is within portions of five different 6th level watersheds. These include 

Redbird Canyon (HUC 101201070404), Gillette Canyon (HUC 101201070405), Upper 

Hell Canyon (HUC 101201070501), Lower Hell Canyon (HUC 101201070502), and 

Teepee Canyon (HUC 101201070503). Table 31 displays the HUC 6 and 7 watersheds 

along with the portion of the watershed within the project area. 

All of these watersheds are rated as Watershed Condition Class 2 – Moderate Concern. 

According to the Forest Plan (1997), “Class 2 watersheds are those which may have 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

94

streams and soils in disequilibrium; a change in the rate or nature of management 

activity, stricter implementation of Watershed Conservation Practices and BMPs, or 

minor structural projects should be able to return these watersheds to a Class 1 condition; 

some upland restoration may be necessary.” Class 1 watersheds are generally in robust 

health, the stream network is in equilibrium, and risks of human-caused deterioration are 

low (USDA Forest Service, 1997).

Table 31: HUC 7 Sub-Watersheds within the Redbird, Gillette, Tepee, Upper Hell 

Canyon, and Lower Hell Canyon HUC 6 Watersheds in which Management 

Activities are Proposed

HUC 7 Number HUC 7 Name

Total 

Watershed 

Acres

% of 

Watershed 

in Project

Redbird Canyon 52,049 2%

10120107040404 Middle Redbird Canyon 7,159 18%

Gillette Canyon 51,072 30%

10120107040503 Wildcat Draw 6,455 8%

10120107040504 Antelope Springs 8,792 61%

10120107040505 Buck Springs Canyon 9,432 50%

10120107040506 Hay Draw 8,081 61%

Tepee Canyon 48,199 12%

10120107050301 Upper Tepee Canyon 5,610 82%

10120107050304 Middle Tepee Canyon 7,237 15%

Upper Hell Canyon 31,534 30%

10120107050102 Upper West Hell Canyon 6,621 8%

10120107050103 Bear Springs Creek-Sourdough 

Draw 7,036 52%

10120107050104 Lower West Hell Canyon 6,394 71%

10120107050105 East Hell Canyon 2,847 22%

Lower Hell Canyon 26,946 22%

10120107050201 Hell Canyon-Lithograph-Water 

Draw 11,284 20%

10120107050202 Hell Canyon-Lyman Draw 9,464 38%

Total Watershed Analysis Area 209,800

Water Yield and Flow Regime

Stream flows throughout the Black Hills region have been reduced over the last century, 

primarily due to aggressive fire suppression tactics that have encouraged the growth and 

expansion of dense forest stands. Precipitation (both rain and snow) is intercepted or 

trapped in the canopy and thus evapo-transpiration of precipitation is increased and the 

volume of base flow in springs and stream channels is reduced. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

95

Stream channels in the project area are generally ephemeral and intermittent, carrying 

water only in response to intense rainfall events or rapid, seasonal snowmelt. Short, 

isolated sections of spring-fed streams exist in the project area. 

Following the Jasper Fire, runoff has increased but primarily in response to isolated, 

heavy thunderstorm events rather than an annual increase in water yield that would 

normally be associated with less trees present on the landscape. This is due to the area 

being an aquifer recharge area. Most excess moisture infiltrates deeper, into the Madison 

and Minnelusa formations, rather than appearing as surface water in channel bottoms. 

Additionally, sustained drought conditions have led to less water being available for the 

seeps and springs throughout the area and the short segments of surface water in channels 

that they support. 

The drainages in the watershed analysis area are in a stream flow regime dominated by 

spring snowmelt beginning as early as March and April, as well as runoff produced by 

intense summer thunderstorms. Since these thunderstorms generally occur between May 

and September, flash floods can and do occur throughout the Black Hills region during 

these months. Runoff from rapid snowmelt or rain-on-snowmelt can occasionally occur 

in the late spring months. Peak flows from this area are more rare and smaller in 

magnitude than other portions of the Black Hills, but do still occur. 

In fact, large flood peaks were observed the next summer following the 2000 Jasper Fire. 

These post-fire floods were caused by a series of intense thunderstorms that centered over 

the burned area in July of 2001 (Gould, 2003). These floods transported ash, sediment, 

debris, and rock through the normally dry drainage-ways and stream channels, clogging 

culverts, washing out roadways, eroding stream banks, scouring channels, filling ponds 

and reservoirs, clogging or damaging irrigation points, and threatening multiple 

residences and major roadways. These post-fire floods flowed all the way to Angostura 

Reservoir, over 120 miles downstream of the burned areas.

Another smaller, but still significant, flood event occurred in August 2001 during the 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) assessment of the Elk Mountain II and 

Rogers Shack Fires (Gould, 2003; USDI BAER, 2001), again transporting ash, sediment, 

debris, and rock through the system to Angostura Reservoir. Several smaller events have 

occurred in the summers since then, but are generally small in magnitude and cleaner due 

to the recovery of native vegetation since the fires in 2000 and 2001.

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains

The watershed analysis area does not contain any perennial streams and consists of 

intermittent and ephemeral streams only. There are a few, very short segments in which 

surface water can be found but these are generally less than 100 feet in length each and 

supported by springs. 

Numerous segments of channel instability exist throughout the stream network in the 

watershed analysis area due to the post-fire flooding following the Jasper and Rogers 

Shack Fires. Post-fire floods scoured material out of channels and stream banks, 

depositing this material in flatter stream segments where flood waters slowed, 

particularly at culverts. Scour and transport of debris has slowed significantly as the 

burned area recovered and very little occurs now, and only in response to the occasional 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

96

runoff created by very high-intensity summer thunderstorms. Overall, stream channels 

appear to be recovering well within the project boundary based on field investigations.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped 100-year floodplains 

within Pennington and Custer Counties (FEMA, 1998). A floodplain is the flat area on 

either side of a stream or river that is susceptible to inundation by floodwaters. 

Floodplains slow flood velocities and decrease erosion because they are by nature wide 

and flat, thus allowing for shallower and slower water. There are 837 acres of mapped 

100-year floodplains within the project area and 4,403 acres within the overall watershed 

analysis area. Mapped floodplains are located along the following streams and drainage 

ways: Buck Spring Canyon, Gillette Canyon, Hay Draw, Teepee Canyon, West Hell 

Canyon, Hell Canyon, Bear Spring Creek, Sourdough Draw, Water Draw, and Lyman 

Draw.

Water Quality

Black Hills groundwater and surface water are highly interconnected, and thus the quality 

of groundwater can affect the quality of surface water, and vice versa. The quality of 

water can change as it flows over the land surface into streams and lakes, as wells as 

through underground aquifers. Water quality standards for both groundwater and surface 

water have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

State of South Dakota depending on the identified beneficial use(s).

Groundwater Quality

The project area is located over two of the four major regional aquifers in the MontanaNorth Dakota-Wyoming-South Dakota region. These are the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers, both of which are also local aquifers for the Black Hills area, and thus used 

extensively for commercial and residential water purposes throughout the Black Hills 

region. 

Water from the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers tends to be hard to very hard because of 

the carbonate rocks making up these predominately limestone units. Hardness is 

determined by the amount of dissolved calcium and magnesium in the water. 

Groundwater pollution is most often associated with sanitary sewer systems and chemical 

spills. This particularly area is very susceptible to aquifer contamination if pollution or a 

spill were to occur due to the karst nature of the limestone and high connectivity of the 

openings and fractures within the limestone. The USFS does not have any sanitary sewer 

installations within the project area, however one such system does exist at the Tepee 

Work Center which is within the watershed analysis area. There are no known problems 

with this system and it is maintained and inspected routinely. Private sewer systems do 

exist on private in-holdings both within the project area, as well as throughout the 

watershed analysis area. No sewer system problems have been reported to the South 

Dakota DENR in this area, although some petroleum product spills have occurred along 

Highway 16 near Jewel Cave (SD DENR, 2009).

Surface Water Quality

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) 

assigns water quality standards based on the beneficial uses of each water body. All 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

97

streams in South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation and fish and 

wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering according to SD Administrative 

Rules Chapter 74:51:03:01 (SD DENR, 1999). None of the streams within the project 

area or watershed analysis area are listed specifically for other beneficial uses due to the 

lack of continuous surface water. 

No water bodies within the project area or watershed analysis area are listed as impaired 

(SD DENR, 2010). There are no formally identified Municipal Watersheds are located in 

the project area or within the watershed analysis area.

Connected Disturbed Areas

Connected Disturbed Areas (CDAs) are disturbed sites that are hydrologically connected 

to streams and other water bodies. Hydrologic connection exists where overland flow, 

sediment, or pollutants have a direct route to the stream network, lake, pond, wetland, etc. 

CDAs can lead to decreased physical habitat, impaired water quality, and increased risk 

of flood damage. CDAs can include roads, ditches, compacted soils, bare soils, mine 

spoils, and areas of severely burned soils. CDAs primarily associated with roads and 

cattle concentration in wet areas were identified during field investigations throughout 

the project area. Fixing CDAs is generally beyond the scope of the HCMB project, but 

can be accomplished under other projects as funding allows.

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems

Wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater dependent ecosystems are susceptible to 

degradation from land use activities such as livestock grazing, roads, land development, 

and recreation activities that inherently tend to be concentrated along streams and other 

water bodies. Cattle concentration and road-related problems are the primary impact 

sources to these resources within the project area. Nearly all wetlands, riparian areas, and 

particularly spring areas in the project area exhibit signs of cattle concentration including 

trampled and hoof-sheared banks; hummocky ground; over-utilization of willows, as well 

as grasses and forbs; excess sediment deposition; and extensive manure within and 

immediately adjacent to stream channels, seeps, springs, and other wet areas.

Wetlands

Wetlands have been mapped for the Black Hills region as part of the National Wetland 

Inventory (NWI) program. There are approximately 4.4 acres of mapped wetland areas 

and 26 miles of mapped linear wetlands within the project boundary. 

Linear wetlands generally correspond with stream channels, but do not match exactly. 

Linear wetlands in the project area are located in Gillette Canyon. All of the NWI 

wetlands within the project boundary are Palustrine and less than one acre in size. All 

but three are associated with impoundments used primarily for stock watering.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are a transition zone between permanently saturated wetlands and drier 

upland areas. Riparian areas have not been specifically mapped within the project area. 

However, linear wetlands mapped by the NWI most likely have riparian areas associated 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

98

with them. Other riparian areas are found along stream channels, regardless of flow 

regime, drainage-ways, and near seeps and springs.

Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems include seeps and springs, as well as peatlands such 

as fens and bogs. Numerous seeps and springs are present throughout the watershed 

analysis area. Fourteen springs are located within the project boundary. One in the 

Rogers Shack burned area and the remainder within the Jasper fire portion, 

No peatlands are currently known to exist in the project area, nor within the watershed 

analysis area, due to the highly permeable nature of the limestone parent material in this 

region that leads to deep aquifer recharge.

Environmental Consequences

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.

Slope Stability

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

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. 

Hill slopes will likely continue to adjust in response to natural weathering processes such 

as freezing and thawing. 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). These hill slope adjustments 

would continue to occur until vegetation is sufficiently dense enough to stabilize slopes 

and slopes have reached equilibrium. This generally occurs within 3-5 years following a 

wildfire for areas that experience low to moderate soil burn severity, but can take 15 

years or more for areas that experience high soil burn severity (Neary et al., 2005).

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

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. 

Project design includes avoiding mechanical treatments on slopes exceeding 40%. 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. 

Proposed prescribed burning in these alternatives would not disturb soils to a degree that 

triggers slope failures or increase the risk of mass failure. Additionally, while surface 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

99

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. 

Both Action Alternatives would indirectly reduce the risk of slope failures associated 

with wildfire and post-fire rain events. These alternatives would directly decrease 

existing CWD levels through mechanical fuels treatment and prescribed burning. This in 

turn reduces potential for 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. 

Soil Erosion

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

There would be no direct effects to soil erosion rates 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. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

The thinning, mechanical fuels treatment, and prescribed burning activities associated 

with the action alternatives are not expected to result in detrimental levels of soil erosion, 

directly or indirectly.

Mechanical treatments have the potential to expose bare soil to rainfall and snowmelt and 

create conditions with a greater likelihood of soil 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. Design criteria are included to limit 

disturbance on these particular soils (Appendix B) and where slopes exceed 40%. 

Full implementation of project design criteria, including USFS Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) and Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), 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) (USDA 

Forest Service, 2006c) and the Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18)

(USDA Forest Service, 1992). 

Prescribed broadcast burning was designed to use existing roads and trails as fire 

containment lines when possible. In addition, fire intensity would be low to moderate 

and would leave much of the litter, duff and below-ground root systems intact, providing 

for adequate ground cover to limit erosion. Low to moderate severity fire resulting from 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

100

prescribed fire will not increase soil erosion to those levels identified as detrimental by 

the Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18). 

Small, isolated areas of less than 1000 ft2

, may have higher intensity burning and result in 

moderate to high burn severity. These areas include dead tree stumps and roots that tend 

to burn completely and where downed wood has accumulated naturally or been purposely 

piled. These small, isolated areas of high burn intensity would be located within a 

mosaic of lower intensity burn, and soil erosion is expected to be negligible.

Soil Compaction

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

There would be no direct or indirect effects to soils from soil compaction with this 

alternative because no new activities would occur. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

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 compaction, directly or indirectly. 

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. Both alternatives propose mechanical operations on soils subject to 

compaction; 1,100 and 430 acres, respectively, for Alternatives 2 and 3. Design criteria 

related to operations on these soils is included in Appendix B to minimize potential for 

soil compaction. These criteria include use of designated and existing skid trails in 

sensitive areas, soil moisture limitations, and seasonal restrictions. 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, which include USFS BMPs 

and WCP practices, is expected to comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1110, and 1111 to minimize or rehabilitate soil 

compaction. 

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.

Severely Burned Soils

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

There would be no effects on severely burned soils resulting from past wildfires, nor 

would this alternative directly create conditions where adverse soil heating and associated 

effects would occur. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

101

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Both action alternatives have potential to directly impact soils through soil heating 

because of the proposed prescribed fire. However, proposed prescribed broadcastburning is not expected to result in severely burned soils within proposed activity areas. 

Both the degree and extent of soil heating resulting from prescribed burning 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. 

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

There would be no direct or indirect effect to soils organic matter or nutrient cycling with 

this alternative because no new activities are proposed within the project area. However,

the potential for more severe fire effects to soils is generally highest with this alternative, 

which could directly affect the amount of organic material and nutrient cycling in an area. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Long term soil productivity associated with organic matter and nutrient cycling is not 

expected to be negatively affected by management activities proposed under either action 

alternative, but rather to trend towards a net improvement following project 

implementation. 

Proposed thinning and fuel treatment activities associated with both action alternatives 

have been designed to reduce hazardous fuel levels, while maintaining desired down 

woody material levels necessary for both short and long-term nutrient recycling. Current 

down woody material levels greatly exceed desired levels suggested by Graham (1994)

and the Black Hills National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2006a) due to the 

intense burning experienced during the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires. Therefore, spot 

piling and broadcast burning of these downed fuels will not reduce down woody material 

levels below desirable levels. 

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.

Alternative 2 includes approximately 35 acres where proposed overstory and seedcut 

units will overlap soils with low topsoil organic matter. Alternative 3 does not propose 

overstory or seedcut treatments that overlap soils limited by topsoil organic matter. 

Appendix B includes specific Design Criteria related to these soils. 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. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

102

The proposed prescribed burning is designed to result in low-to-moderate fire intensity. 

No change in soil structure, organic matter or infiltration is expected.

Cumulative Effects 

The analysis area for cumulative effects to 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 soils were analyzed for the time period beginning in the year 2000 and 

extending through 2028. The year 2000 was chosen as a starting point for analysis 

because the Jasper Fire occurred in this year, impacting soils to such a degree, that it 

essentially “reset” the ecosystem to a new starting condition. The year 2028 was chosen 

as an ending point in time because project activities would not begin to be implemented 

until 2013, with proposed prescribed burning and harvest activities taking place over the 

course of the next 10 years through the year 2023. Scientific research has found that 

burned areas tend to recover within 3-5 years following a fire (Neary et al, 2005), so a 

buffer of five additional years was added to allow for recovery of soils following any 

prescribed burning activities.

Soils

The Jasper and Roger’s Shack wildfires occurred in 2000 and 2001, respectively. These 

fires had substantial impacts on the soils within the project area, essentially “resetting” 

the ecosystem to a new starting condition. Soils have recovered to a large degree, 

although some impacts remain. Any effects to soils from the alternatives would be very 

minor in comparison. The following summarizes an analysis of cumulative effects to 

long term soil productivity, consistent with Forest Plan Standard 1101.

The potential effects from a future wildfire could have substantial impact to the soils 

resource, particularly under the no action alternative. The action alternatives would 

lessen these potential effects.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as site specific design criteria would be 

implemented in the proposed action. When implemented as described, no adverse 

cumulative effects to soils are expected to occur. Past monitoring shows that when 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines are implemented this standard is met. Soil 

disturbance related to the propose actions under all alternatives is expected to remain well 

below the 15% detrimental disturbance threshold due to required design criteria, BMPs 

and WCPs, consistent with Forest Plan Standard 1103. Therefore, long term soil 

productivity in the project area is expected to be maintained or improved.

Slope Stability

There would be no cumulative effects from any alternative to slope stability because no 

direct or indirect effects would occur.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

103

Erosion

Any soil erosion that may occur related to implementation of the Hell Canyon 

Maintenance Burn project is expected to be localized, minor in both severity and extent, 

and thus well below levels that would be considered detrimental. Design criteria and 

appropriate WCP/BMP measures apply to all forest management activities and uses. 

Therefore, the risk of cumulative detrimental soil erosion is mitigated for typical storm 

events in the Black Hills. 

Soil disturbance associated with cattle grazing, wildlife high-use areas, OHV activity, 

recreation, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents or 

authorities in the project area (See Appendix E) have the potential to disturb soils. Both 

action alternatives will have areas that overlap these other activities and thus will have a 

greater potential for additive soil disturbance. However, Forest plan standards and 

guidelines, WCPs and BMPs also apply to these other activities and thus minimize their 

potential impacts to soils as well.

Compaction

There would be no cumulative effects to soil compaction from the no action alternative 

because no direct or indirect effects would occur. Compaction from past management 

actions using mechanical equipment have largely recovered at this time, with few, if any 

impacts remaining. Grazing management is not expected to cause detrimental levels of 

soils compaction because livestock naturally tend to road and the types of soils present. 

Dispersed recreation activities also do not tend to cause detrimental soil compaction due 

to the lack of concentrated use in this area. 

While soils compaction is possible under the action alternatives, any soil compaction 

would be minimal due to implementation of design criteria, WCPs and BMPs. The 

additive level of compaction would be within the limits of Forest Plan Standard 1103.

Severely Burned

There would be no cumulative effects of severely burned soils from the no action 

alternative because no direct or indirect effects would occur. The Jasper and Roger’s 

Shack fires did result in some severely burned soils. However, these soils have largely 

recovered and those impacts are no longer occurring. Additive effects of severely burned 

soils from the action alternatives may be possible in very small isolated areas where 

stumps or logs are consumed during prescribed burning. The additive level of severely 

burned soils would be within the limits of Forest Plan Standard 1103.

Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling

There would be no cumulative effects to organic matter or nutrient cycling from the no 

action alternative because no direct or indirect effects would occur. The Jasper and 

Roger’s Shack fires resulted in high levels of downed woody material throughout the 

project area. The action alternatives would reduce these amounts through prescribed 

burning. However, overall downed woody material would be at levels consistent with 

Standard 1102.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

104

Water Resources

Direct and indirect effects were considered for water resources at 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 impacts that may occur 

can be readily observed and quantified and linked to activities associated with the project. 

Effects that are observable at this scale are referred to as localized in their extent. 

The second scale encompasses the five 6th level watersheds (also known as HUC 12 

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; significant portions of these same five 

watersheds were involved in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires; and beyond this level, it 

is difficult to link impacts to water resources to activities associated with this project.

Water Yield and Flow Regime

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

This alternative would not contribute to changes in water yield or flow regime. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Although both action alternatives propose prescribed burning and mechanical removal of 

trees, there would be no direct or indirect effect on water yield. None of the proposed 

treatments involve removing enough forest canopy, and over a large enough area within a 

watershed, to have a measurable effect on water yield. 

Any activity or natural disturbance that removes trees from a forest has the potential to 

increase water yield. However, a very small percentage of trees would be removed from 

any of these watersheds and the growth of new seedlings and remaining trees would 

offset this. 

Spring flows will 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.

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

There would be no effect to stream channel stability or floodplains in this alternative 

because no activities would occur. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

No direct or indirect effects to stream channels and floodplains are expected as a result of 

either action alternative. Design criteria, BMPs and WCPs (Appendix B) are included to 

protect stream courses and floodplains from adverse impacts during management 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

105

activities. Implementing these measures 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

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

No management activities would occur under this alternative. Rates and volumes of 

sediment delivered to streams and other water bodies are expected to continue at current 

rates until a natural disturbance, such as a wildfire, occurs. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

Proposed timber and fuels management, and prescribed burning activities associated with 

both action alternatives would not degrade water quality or exceed State specified 

thresholds for the various water quality parameters associated with each beneficial use. 

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 as explained previously in the soil erosion discussion, and therefore no 

substantial increase in sediment transport to water bodies is anticipated. 

Design criteria measures designed to prevent sediment transport to streams apply to all 

proposed activities (Appendix B). These practices have been proven effective in 

preventing runoff, erosion, and sediment deliver to streams (Thomas, 2008) when 

implemented properly. These measures 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 will be 

minimal and organic matter will 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 will be protected through required buffers and thus will not be 

removed. Measures are also 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 (Appendix B). This is 

also required by Forest Plan Standard 1107. 

Additionally, streams and riparian areas have 100-foot vegetative buffers. 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, 2007; Thomas, 2008).
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

106

Wetland, Riparian, and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems Condition

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

This alternative would have no impact to wetlands or riparian areas because no new 

activities would occur within the project area. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

These alternatives include design criteria to protect wetlands and riparian areas which 

occur within the project area (Appendix B). No effects to wetlands or riparian areas are 

anticipated from proposed activities provided that WCPs, BMPs and design criteria are 

properly implemented and adhered to. Therefore this project will comply with all waterquality related Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and all State and National water 

quality regulations.

Cumulative Effects to Water Resources 

Cumulative effects were considered for water resources for the area encompassed by the 

five 6th level watersheds of Redbird Canyon, Gillette Canyon, Tepee Canyon, Upper 

Hell Canyon, and Lower Hell Canyon. This area was chosen because activities are 

proposed within portions of all five watersheds; significant portions of these same five 

watersheds were involved in the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires; and beyond this level, it 

is difficult to link impacts to water resources to activities associated with this project. 

Although post-fire flooding was observed to extend beyond this spatial analysis scale to 

Angostura Reservoir following the Jasper and Rogers Shack Fires, these flood events 

resulted from rain events that were extreme events by themselves or cumulatively 

combined in succession. For average precipitation events, the analysis area described 

will encompass all potential effects that may result from project implementation. 

Cumulative effects to water resources were analyzed for the time period beginning in the 

year 2000 and extending through 2026. The year 2000 was chosen as a starting point for 

analysis because the Jasper Fire occurred in this year, impacting watershed conditions to 

such a degree, that it essentially “reset” the ecosystem to a new starting condition. The 

year 2028 was chosen as an ending point in time because project activities would not 

begin to be implemented until 2013, with proposed prescribed burning and harvest 

activities taking place over the course of the next 10 years through the year 2023. 

Scientific research has found that burned areas tend to recover within 3-5 years following 

a fire (Neary et al, 2005), so a buffer of 5 additional years was added to allow for 

watershed recovery following any prescribed burning activities.

Overall Watershed Condition and Processes

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

No measurable change in water yield, flow regime, stream channel stability, floodplains, 

water quality, or wetland and riparian conditions would occur under this alternative. 

Therefore, no cumulative effects would occur. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

107

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

No measurable, negative change in water yield, flow regime, stream channel stability, 

floodplains, water quality, or wetland and riparian conditions is expected to result with 

either action alternative cumulatively combined with other activities. This project and all 

other Federal activities must adhere to Watershed Conservation Practices which prevent 

or minimize effects to water resources. Additionally, private lands are limited within the 

cumulative effects area and activities occurring on them must still comply with State 

water quality laws and standards, South Dakota State Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) for harvest and road building, and permitting for construction sites or alteration 

of wetlands.

Vegetation management and fuels treatment associated with both action alternatives 

provide an opportunity to improve watershed conditions, as well as prevent adverse 

effects should a wildfire occur. Management activities associated with Alternatives 2 and 

3 would reduce the amount of fuels, thus reducing fire temperatures and residence times. 

This in turn reduces adverse effects to soils which also would minimize 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 means that the risk of impairments to downstream water quality and 

beneficial uses would also be minimized.

Wetland and riparian areas are expected to remain in their current condition until grazing 

management changes are implemented to repair fences and prevent concentrated use in 

these areas. Although grazing management is beyond the scope and authorization of this 

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. Therefore, regardless of which action 

alternative is chosen for this project little improvement to these resources is expected at 

this time. 

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 high-severity 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 

these 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 high-severity wildfire. 

Disturbance associated with cattle grazing, wildlife high-use areas, OHV activity, 

recreation, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents or 

authorities in the project area have the potential to disturb water resources. However, 

design criteria and WCPs and BMPs also apply to these other activities and thus 

minimize their impacts as well. Strict adherence to WCPs and BMPS measures, 

including proper implementation and maintenance of runoff and erosion control 

structures would ensure protection of water resources.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

108

Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness

Best Management Practices (BMPs), by definition are “Common-sense actions required, 

by law, to keep soil and other pollutants out of streams and lakes. BMPs are designed to 

protect water quality and to prevent new pollution” (IFPC, 2007). BMPs are 

implemented to control or limit non-point source pollution. 

The “BMPs are developed by the State of SD...to ensure compliance with federal and 

state water-quality standards,” (USDA Forest Service, 2006a). They provide good 

guidance but are fairly general. WCPs are practices to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems. USDA Forest Service, Region 2, developed them. They are more specific with 

design criteria. “If used properly, they meet or exceed State BMPs,” (USDA Forest 

Service, 2006d). BMPs and WCPs are incorporated into the Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and provide more specific direction. 

The Black Hills National Forest completed a Forest Plan BMP Evaluation (USDA Forest 

Service, 2003b). Two studies done on the Black Hills National Forest by the Black Hills 

Forest Resource Association, 2001 and Wyoming Timber Industry Association, 2001, 

reviewed BMP effectiveness. The conclusion is “These results highlight the consistent 

application and effectiveness of BMPs in the Black Hills and other National Forests” 

(USDA Forest Service 2003b). The evaluation goes on to review other studies or reports 

and comes to the conclusion that “These studies highlight the effectiveness of BMPS in 

forests throughout the United States” (USDA Forest Service, 2003b). This evaluation 

shows that BMPs are effective. Since this evaluation has been completed field audits 

were completed in 2004 and 2009 in SD (Black Hills Forest Resource Association 2005, 

2009). Results showed application of BMPs were 92% in 2004, 95% in 2009, compared 

to 82% in 2001 and effectiveness of the BMPs was 95% in 2004, 95% in 2009, compared 

to 84% in 2001. This additional information shows the continued application and 

effectiveness of BMPs in SD. “The audit results from 2001, 2004 and 2009 have 

established a positive trend of on the ground BMP improvement” (Black Hills Forest 

Resource Association 2009).

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project would have WCPs and BMPs prescribed and 

implemented. This would protect the water quality of the streams and creeks in the 

project area and the activities that are planned would meet the requirements of the CWA.

Heritage

Existing Conditions

Prehistoric Context

The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern Plains 

(Sundstrom, 1989). Human occupation of this area dates back to 11,500 B.P. (Frison 

,1991). 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

109

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).

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 Euro-American prospectors and miners to the Black Hills. 

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

history of the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800’s 

through the 1920’s. Industries such as the ranching and logging industry became 

common in the early 1900’s. However, much of the land was not patented and remains 

public land.

Eligible Sites

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 these sites 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

110

Environmental Consequences

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 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 Forest Service, 

2003a). 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 Forest Service, 2003a).

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

The Forest Service developed site specific recommendations for all eligible cultural 

resources to avoid adverse effects from this alternative. Based on these 

recommendations, the Hell Canyon Ranger District determined that this project would 

result in No Adverse Effect and recommended that the project proceed as planned. 

Results of the field inventory, literature search and determination were reported to the 

South Dakota SHPO and affiliated Native American Tribes for comment and concurrence 

on August 3, 2010. The South Dakota SHPO concurred with the findings of this report on 

September 1, 2010 (SHPO Concurrence 091113007F).

Known cultural resources in the project area would be protected from the effects of fire 

or mechanical treatments through avoidance and implementation of design criteria noted 

in Appendix B. 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 Forest Service, 2003a). 

This project would have no direct effects to cultural resources from mechanical 

treatments or preparing and mopping up prescribed burns. Design criteria in Appendix B 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

111

are included for all alternatives to avoid ground disturbances associated with preparing 

and mopping up prescribed burns.

The action alternatives may have some effect to surface artifacts and features from 

prescribed fire; however the design criteria (Appendix B) would lessen those effects, 

prevent adverse effects to subsurface artifacts and features, and preserve site integrity.

The severity and degree of post-fire effects would be directly related to the burning 

prescriptions used to conduct each prescribed burn. Burning prescriptions would include 

design criteria (Appendix B) and would result in relatively few of the impacts described 

above. All of the alternatives would preserve the integrity of known sites.

Following the design criteria in Appendix B, the foreseeable benefit of the action 

alternatives would be reduced fuels in and around sites that would 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 year 2000 to 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 alternative 

provided that the design criteria are followed and the site specific recommendations are 

implemented.

Lands and Minerals

Existing Conditions

There is one Special Use Permit issued adjacent to and within the project area. Graduate 

Students with the University of Indiana are conducting research on the White-winged 

Junco within the Black Hills National Forest. Currently this permit has an expiration date 

of December 31, 2012. 

There are no Forest Service permits or easements issued in the project area. 

There are no active mines, issued mineral material permits or BLM Mining Claims within 

the project area, but the evaluation and analysis has been completed for the Sawmill 

Sandstone and Shale area to be designated as a community pit site. This site is open to the 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

112

public who possess an authorized mineral material permit to remove sandstone and other 

mineral materials as applicable.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

None of the alternatives would have direct or indirect effects on the lands, special uses, or 

minerals programs in the project area. Any special use permit holder would need to be 

notified prior to implementation of prescribed burning. 

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects on the lands, special uses, or minerals programs for 

any of the alternatives proposed as part of this project, because no direct or indirect 

effects would occur. 

Recreation

Existing Conditions

The project area does not contain any developed recreation sites. Opportunities for 

dispersed recreation include; hunting, dispersed camping, motorized recreation (OHVs 

and vehicles), hiking, biking, horseback riding and rock collecting. 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.

• 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. 

• 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.

• Motorized Recreation Use. This area is well roaded, easily accessed from a main 

highway (US 16) and provides good opportunity for motorized recreation use. 

There are no motorized off highway vehicle trails in the project area. Motorized 

use is restricted to open Forest Service roads noted on the Black Hills National 

Forest Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). 

• Hiking/Biking/Horse Riding. No system trails occur within the project area. 

Hiking, biking and horse riding occur in a dispersed manner throughout the 

project area. 

• Caving/Rock Collecting. Recreational caving and rock collecting are activities 

that have occurred in the project area. A cave closure order is currently in place 

for all caves in the Black Hills to reduce potential for spreading the fungus that 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

113

causes white nose syndrome in bats. The Boy Scouts of America has an outfitter 

and guide special use permit to lead and educate scouts in low-impact spelunking 

trips here during the summer months to earn a caving merit badge. Cave resource 

education and methods for preventing spread of white nose syndrome to bats from 

human contamination is part of the requirement for this special use permit. This 

cave entrance is signed for educating public users on methods to prevent 

spreading white nose syndrome to bats as well. White nose syndrome is a deadly 

fungal condition mainly prevalent in Eastern US caves and the Forest Service is 

involved in prevention measures to ensure the disease does not become 

established elsewhere. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION 

This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on the recreation resource. No 

changes to recreational opportunities would occur.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION & ALTERNATIVE 3

This alternative would have no effect to the types of recreational opportunities available 

in the project area. No changes to open roads or developed trails would occur. Dispersed 

recreation opportunities would continue. 

There would be short term affects during project implementation which include 

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.

The reduction of large woody material on the ground may improve opportunity for 

dispersed recreation in this area. Currently, there are no developed recreation, dispersed 

recreation, trailhead or trail facilities in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary is the project area. Effects to recreation are limited to 

the area of activity. The time period for the cumulative effects analysis is year 2000 

through 2020 which includes the Jasper fire and ends when the activities are expected to 

be completed. 

The No Action alternative would have no cumulative effects to recreation in the project 

area, because no direct or indirect effects would occur. 

The action alternatives would have the cumulative effect of increased noise and 

disturbance when added to current uses of driving, hunting, ATV use, hiking etc. This 

would be short-term and localized. No other cumulative effects are expected to occur to 

recreation uses.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

114

Scenery

Existing Conditions

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. 

Wetter conditions returned in 2009, 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, grasscovered, landscape in appearance.

There are no recreation areas or trails within the project areas, although there is a nonmotorized 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

115

treatments have approximately 3% at a High SIO, 25% at a Moderate SIO and 72% at a 

Low SIO.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION

There would be no direct effects to the scenic resource resulting from this alternative. 

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. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

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.

Skidding logs on, or across, steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil creating 

opportunities for noxious weeds and invasive plants to become established in treated 

areas. Burning piles of tree tops and limbs can sterilize the soil, also creating 

opportunities for their establishment. These invasive plants often have shapes that 

distinctive (i.e. – Mullen) and are recognized by the general public non-natives that are 

competing with native plants. These plants are often readily apparent in the Immediate 

Foreground. As the quantity of these weeds increase in the landscape, they out-compete 

native plants, resulting in the visual quality decreasing. Efforts are made to minimize this 

potential, so it is difficult to predict where, how wide spread, and the duration this 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. 

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 would increase. Previously hidden rock formations in 

the immediate foreground, foreground, and middle ground distance zones would be 

evident. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

116

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 

would be readily apparent as well. The diversity of vegetation structure, created for 

wildlife, would 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. Over story 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 Middle ground areas. 

Units: 030813-12 (35.7 acres), 030813-16 (57.8 acres), and 030813-20 (65 acres) are all 

contiguous, forming one large over story 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.

Effects of vegetation management would be evident; however they would replicate 

textural patterns that borrow from natural patterns in other portions of the planning area 

and the surrounding area. Except where noted in the above paragraph, these treatments 

should meet their assigned SIO and be consistent with the Black Hills National Forest 

LRMP for Scenic Integrity.

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 landscape – 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 

would meet a range of SIOs from Low to High after being completed. 

Prescribed burning is beneficial to the Scenic resource by removing dead plant material 

and slash, while stimulating plants, shrubs & hardwoods. This new growth normally 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

117

increases visual diversity and fall color in the landscape. Once the area is burned, ash 

and blackened tree bark are clearly evident across the landscape. Normally, these burn 

marks are no longer visible once new grasses and other vegetation grow up the following 

spring. However, there is always the potential for the fire to flare up - due to un-expected 

wind or a microsite of drier material – that can create negative visual impacts. Generally 

this happens when we have specific resource goals that require hotter temperatures to 

achieve specific desired results. Under burning can meet a range from High to Low SIO, 

depending upon burn intensity. Most burns conducted on this Forest meet a High SIO 1-

2 years after the burning is completed and the red-colored, fire-killed, needles drop off 

the trees.

ALTERNATIVE 3

Effects from mechanical vegetation treatments would be less than in Alternative 2, 

because less area is to be treated. Treatments would 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.

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. 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 five years for pine seedlings to become established, and approx. 25 years for 

trees to grow up and visually ‘fill’ open areas]. This time period includes known 

management activities, and activities that are planned but have yet to be accomplished. 

Fire suppression over the past century has played a role in the increased density of the 

vegetation on the forest. Likewise, much of the Forest was pre-commercially thinned by 

the Civilian Conservation Corp in the 1930’s and 1940s, however we do not know if that 

effort included any or all of this planning area. 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 3

118

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 would 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.

Cumulative effects from Alternative 3 are less than of Alternative 2, with the differences 

as noted in the Direct and Indirect Effects section and below. 

Although not treating as large an area as Alternative 2 – through commercial vegetation 

treatments – the results of Alternative 3 should be more natural appearing.

The Alternative 3 prescribed fire treatments, given the scale (approx. 17,000 acres) the 

effects will essentially be the same as Alternative 2 from a Scenery standpoint.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

119

CHAPTER 4: LITERATURE CITED

Allen, Kurt K. 2011. Memo to the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor regarding 

consequences of the No Action in the Vestal Area. July 1, 2011. 

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. [Online]

http://www.fs.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. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/woodpeckers.pdf.

Anderson, T. 2004. Callused vertigo (Vertigo authuri): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. [Online]

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf. 

Batagglia, Mike, A.Smith, W. Frederick, and Wayne D. Shepperd. 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.

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson (2003, November 12). Botrychium 

ascendens W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe moonwort), B. crenulatum W.H. Wagner 

(scalloped moonwort), and B. lineare W.H. Wagner (narrowleaf grapefern): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf. 

BehavePlus fire modeling system. Available on-line at<http://www.firemodels.org

Bildstein, K. L. and K. Meyer. 2000. Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). No. 482,

 In: The Birds of North America A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North 

 America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Black Hills Forest Resource Association. 2005. Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

& South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2004 Field 

Audit Report: Implementation monitoring and evaluation of South Dakota 

Forestry Best Management Practices. Rapid City & Pierre, SD. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

120

Black Hills Forest Resource Association. 2009. Black Hills Forest Resource Association, 

South Dakota Department of Agriculture-Division of Resource Conservation & 

Forestry, and Lawrence County Conservation District. 2009 Field Audit Report: 

Implementation monitoring and evaluation of South Dakota Forestry Best 

Management Practices. Rapid City, Pierre & Spearfish SD. 

Brown, James K., E.D. Reinhardt and K.A. Kramer. 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/.

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. [Online] (Version 12 DEC 2003)

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/upsa/upsa.htm. 

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. 

Farrar, Don. 2004. Personal communication with Deanna Reyher. Professor of Botany,

Iowa State University, expert in Botrychium systematics. January 20, 2004.

Farrar, Donald R. 2006. Systematics of Moonworts Botrychium Subgenus Botrychium. 

Prepared for the Black Hills Moonwort Workshop—June 27-29, 2006.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1998. National Flood Insurance 

Program, Q3 Flood Data. GIS data on CD-ROM for South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dfm_ptd.shtm .

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

121

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. 

[Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/pygmy_nuthatch.pdf

Giroir G., C.White and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills, 

2007 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO, 81 pp.

Goodman, Ronald. 1992. Lakota Star Knowledge: Studies in Lakota Stellar Theology. 

Second ed. Siŋte Gleska University, Mission, South Dakota.

Gould, J.J. 2003. Hydrologic Modeling of High-Intensity, Short-Duration Rainfall on 

Burned Ponderosa Pine Forested Watersheds Existing in Highly Permeable 

Geology within the Black Hills of South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology: Rapid City, SD. 121 p.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. PageDumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky 

Mountains. INT-RP-477. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Intermountain Research Station. Odgen, UT. 15 p.

Griffin, Steve. 2009. Personal communication- wildlife biologist, ungulates in 

Jasper. South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks. Rapid City, South Dakota.

Hann, Wendel, D. Havlina, A. Shlisky, et al. 2003. Interagency and The 

Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest Service, 

US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for 

Environmental Management. [Online] 

http://frames.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=309&&PageID=1397&mode=2

&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true

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 over story thinning, prescribed fire, and drought in an Arizona 

ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. Pg 105-115.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

122

Hunter, M.E., W.D. Shepperd, J.E. Lentile, J.E. Lundquist, M.G. Andreu, J.L. 

Butler, F.W. Smith. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment practices for 

ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, and Southwest. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-198. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr198.pdf

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.

Huxoll, C. 2010. 2009 Annual report: Big game harvest projections. South Dakota

 Game Report No, 2010-01. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre,

 South Dakota. 83 pp.

IFPC (Idaho Forest Products Commission). 2007. Best Management Practices Index. 

Boise, ID. [Online] http://www.idahoforests.org/bm.htm

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert and C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment 

for lake chub, mountain sucker, and fine scale dace in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 64 pp. [Online]

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf.

Jewel Cave National Monument. 2008. 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 sawwhet owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. 27pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_saw_whet_owl

.pdf.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

123

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.

Keyser, Tara L., L.B. Lentile, F.W. Smith, W.D. 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.

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.

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.

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.0. Arlington, Virginia. [Online] 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed October 2008.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington,Virginia. [Online] 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed January 24, 2012. 

Neary, D.G., Ryan, K.C., DeBano, L.F., eds. 2005. Wildland Fire in ecosystems: effects 

of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250p.

Nekola, J.C. 2003. Large-scale terrestrial gastropod community composition 

patterns in the Great Lakes region of North America. Diversity and Distributions 

9: 55-71.

Panjabi, 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

124

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.

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota 

Ornithologists’ Union. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page. 

Jamestown, North Dakota. [Online]

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/birds/sdatlas/sdatlas.htm.

Platt, J.B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. Condor. 

78:102-103.

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.

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest 

Cultural Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office.

Royer, R.A. and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary

(Speyeria idalia) in North and South Dakota. Rep. to the U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 44 pp.

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.

Schmid, J.M., S.A. Mata and W.C. Schaupp Jr. 2009. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees 

as snags in the Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Unpublished Research Note. 

Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

125

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. 

[Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_footed_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. 

[Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_ear_bat.pdf.

Schmidt, C.A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

[Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/long_legged_bat.pdf.

Scott, Joe H., R.E. Burgan. 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. and M.A. Battaglia. 2002. Ecology, Silviculture, and 

Management of Black Hills Ponderosa Pine. General Technical Report. RMRSGTR-97. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 112 p.

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

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1999. Article 74:51. 

The Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD 74:51:01, :02, and :03). South 

Dakota's Surface Water Quality Standards.

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2009. Water Rights 

Program. South Dakota Well Completion Reports Database. [Online] 

http://denr.sd.gov/des/wr/dblogsearch.aspx. Accessed October 2009. 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2010. The 2010 South
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

126

Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment. 272 p. [Online]

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in 

the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills 

National Forest. March 2001.

Stephens, R. M. and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the 

Cooper’s hawk and Sharp-shinned hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.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.

Thomas, S. 2008. BMP/WCP Monitoring Report. Black Hill National Forest. Mystic and 

Hell Canyon Ranger Districts 2002-2007. Rapid City, South Dakota. 93 p.

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. 1992. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.18 –

Soil Management Handbook. Fort Collins, CO. 3 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook, FSH 

2509.13. Washington DC. 122 p.

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. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml. 

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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

127

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. 2003a. 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. 2003b. Black Hill National Forest, Forest Plan Best Management

Practices Evaluation. Custer, South Dakota. 82 p.

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. 

[Online] 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. [Online] http://fsweb/directives/fsm/2600/bh_supp_2600-2005-1.doc.

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. [Online]

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. 2006c. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.25 –

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Ft. 

Collins, Colorado. 58 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Forest Service Manual 2880 - Geologic Resources, 

Hazards, and Services. Washington Office, Washington DC. 18 p.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

128

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.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. 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. 2009b. FY2010 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South 

Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. 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.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. FY2009 monitoring and evaluation report. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual, Black Hills National Forest. 

 FSM 2600 – wildife, fish and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 20 –

 habitat planning and evaluation. Supplement number: r2_bh_2600-2011-1. [Online]

 http://fsweb.blackhills.r2.fs.fed.us/directives/html/fsm2000.shtml. 

USDI Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team. 2001. Elk Mountain 

Complex Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan: Roger’s 

Shack and Elk Mountain II Fires. On file at the Black Hills National Forest, 

Forest Supervisor’s Office,Custer, SD.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 93pp. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2008/BCC2008m.pdf.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Federal Endangered and Threatened 

Species List by County for South Dakota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South 

Dakota Ecological Services Field Office Home Page. [Online] 

http://222.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/SpeciesByCounty.pdf

Vonhof, M.J. and R.M. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western longeared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3):674-684.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 4

129

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 Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

130

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)

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 of 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 Silviculturist – Bachelor of Science, Forest Resources with 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

131

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 silviculturist position.

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.

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 of experience fuels, wildland and prescribed fire 

management. Four years of 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. Hell Canyon Ranger District

Botanist on the Black Hills National Forest since March, 

2010.

Sheila French Range Technician (Noxious Weeds) - Bachelor of Science in 

Environmental Science with a concentration in Biology, 

Southampton College of Long Island University, NY, 2002. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

132

Master of Science in Rangeland Ecosystem Science, 

Colorado State University, CO (anticipated 2013). Nine 

years of Forest Service experience at the forest and district 

levels on the Black Hills and Flathead National Forest. Of 

which four have been as the Hell Canyon Noxious Weed 

Coordinator. Ten seasons as a FFT2, one seasonal as a fire 

effects monitor and four seasons on BAER (Burned Area 

Emergency Response) Teams. Other work experience 

includes National Park Service in California and Montana, 

Whitefish Weed Advisory Board, Whitefish Montana, Town 

of East Hampton, Department of Natural Resources, NY.

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 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) 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

133

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 Medicine Bow/Rout and Black Hills National 

Forests.

Justin McConkey Rangeland Management/Weeds/Botany - Bachelor of 

Science Degree in Rangeland Management with Emphasis in 

Wildlife Management, Dec. 1999 from Chadron State 

College, Chadron, Nebraska. Coursework also included a 

year of study from the University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming. Recognized by the National Society of Range 

Management as a Certified Professional in Rangeland 

Management since 2005. Twelve years of Forest Service 

experience as a Rangeland Management Specialist on the, 

Black Hills, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and GMUG National 

Forests. Two years of experience as a Wildlife and Range 

Technician for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Crescent 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Nebraska. Six years of

experience as a Range/Soil/Water Science Research 

Technician for the University of Nebraska Panhandle 

Research and Extension Center, Scottsbluff, Nebraska.

Meagan Buehler Lands/Minerals-Bachelor of Science, Forestry, minor in 

Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of Massachusetts-
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 5

134

Amherst, 1997. Eleven years of 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 of experience in ESRI GIS products.

Wendy Steuerwald Assistant NEPA Planner - Bachelor of Science, Wildlife 

Management, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2003. 

Forest Service experience at the district level on the Black 

Hills National Forest includes twelve years of experience in 

pre-sale/timber and assistant NEPA planner since 2010.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 6

135

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Chapter 6

136

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

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
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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-1
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-2
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-3
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-4
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-5
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-6
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-7
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-8
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-9
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-10
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-11
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-12
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-13
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix A

A-14
Appendix B: 

Design Criteria

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-1

APPENDIX B: Design Criteria

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 post-sale activities and 

monitoring, require use of these design criteria, where applicable. 

Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, Regional Watershed Conservation 

Practices (WCP’s), Forest Plan standards and guidelines, South Dakota Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s) and other management requirements apply to the proposed activities. 

Some management requirements, such as Forest Plan standards, are repeated here for 

emphasis.

Botany 

• Lop and scatter all slash from the hazardous fuels and pine encroachment 

treatments in suitable Iowa moonwort habitat (meadows over loamy soils). 

Consult with district botanist during burn planning to insure suitable habitat for 

R2 Sensitive and SOLC Species is identified and protection measures are in place. 

• No prescribed fire will occur from onset of above-ground growth until senescence 

(May 1st-July 15th) in known Iowa moonwort habitat (Dead Horse Flats).

• Known noxious weed infestations will be treated with herbicides and biological 

controls before or after treatments to reduce infestations and allow native 

vegetation to compete with non-natives. Areas will be retreated as necessary.

• Known 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. 

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 and costs, and mitigation measures available at the time of 

discovery. Standard 3115
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-2

Fire/Fuels 

• Smoke impacts will be minimized by utilizing the following design criteria 

which will be incorporated into burn plans as appropriate: 

o Limit treatment area size

o Specify wind directions and speed

o Specify minimum mixing heights to ensure dispersal of emissions

o Stagger ignitions 

• 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.

• Revegetation of prescribed burned areas will be promoted by (per Guideline 

4106):

o Following broadcast burning, seeding to initiate revegetation if ground 

cover is 60 percent or less and slopes are 30 percent or more.

o If piled and burned fuel creates ash piles deeper than three inches, 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

• 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).

• 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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-3

overall stand health and wood fiber production. Consider value recovery if 

tree mortality exceeds project objectives. Guideline 4108.

• All improvements will be protected during burning and other implementation 

actions.

Geology/Soil/Water

Protected stream courses have a Water Influence Zone (WIZ) which is 100 feet on either 

side of a stream (200 feet plus stream width). Protected stream courses and Wetlands 

with WIZ are listed in Tables B-1 and B-2 and shown on Map 14 in Appendix A. 

Activities can occur within WIZ areas with the following design criteria:

• Protected stream courses will be identified on any sale area maps or other maps 

used for implementation. 

• Avoid crossing protected stream courses. If a stream crossing is necessary, 

consult the Hydrologist to identify a stable crossing location and any site-specific 

design needs.

• If silvicultural prescriptions include tree removal within the WIZ:

o Landings and piles must be located outside the WIZ. Do not construct 

temporary roads within the WIZ, except for designated crossing points. 

o Skid trails should be located outside the WIZ to the extent possible, except 

for designated crossing locations.

o Ground-based equipment operations must not occur within the 50-foot 

buffer, the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) surrounding streams, 

wetlands, and riparian areas. 

o Fell trees in a way that protects vegetation in the SMZ from damage. 

o Ensure at least one-end log suspension in the SMZ. Yard logs out of each 

filter strip with minimum disturbance of ground cover. 

• Prescribed fire operations within or near the WIZ:

o Do not build fire control lines within the WIZ Use wetland and riparian 

features as natural firebreaks if feasible, or use hand lines to minimize 

disturbance in the WIZ. 

o Do not ignite within the WIZ. However, fire may be allowed to burn 

naturally through the WIZ as long as it does not contradict with other 

resource values. Ensure fire intensity in the WIZ is low enough to retain 

organic ground cover in buffers during prescribed fires.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-4

Table B - 1: Protected Stream Courses in the Project Area

Stream Name

Streamflow 

Regime Miles Location-Site

Bear Spring Creek Intermittent 2.5 30801-15 and 34, 30802-33, 30812-15

Blacktail Springs 

drainage Ephemeral 0.2 41402-134, 138

Buck Spring 

Canyon Intermittent 0.7 41202-17, 19, 56

Gillette Canyon Intermittent 5.4 41301-59-63, 74, 76, 78, 92, 96; 41302-95; 

41303-26, 88; 41305-10,12, 41,46, 53

Hell Canyon Intermittent 0.4 30101-69, 389

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

Table B - 2: Protected Springs/Wetland Areas 

in the Project Area

Spring Name Location Site

Blacktail Spring (Upper) 41402 134

Blacktail Spring (Lower) 41402 138

Dead Horse Spring/Well 41301 82

Ellis Spring/Pond 41302 94

Middle Antelope 

Spring/Pond 41305 60

Poplar Spring/Pond 41302 112

Sawmill Spring/Well 41401 49

South Antelope Spring 41305 47

Townley Spring/Pond 41305 76

Water Draw Spring/Pond 30101 69

Soil 

• Off-road, ground-based equipment operations should take place during dry or 

frozen conditions. Where soil moisture is higher, low-impact equipment 

operations on slash may be used with close monitoring in order to complete 

project activities in a timely manner. 

• Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Shut 

down harvest operations and apply travel restrictions as necessary to protect 

roads, soil and water resources until soil has dried out. 

• Machine piling of slash – leave topsoil in place and avoid displacing soil into 

piles or windrows.

• Location and Construction of Landings (including decks and piles):
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-5

o Locate landings outside of meadows and WIZ, re-use existing landing 

locations when possible.

o Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, rehabilitate landings 

by scarifying, seeding, and fertilizing.

• Skidding operations and skid trail locations:

o Avoid skidding in ephemeral drainages and swales as much as possible to 

prevent soil rutting and compaction. Avoid ground skidding on sustained 

slopes steeper than 40%.

o Designated skid trails will be used on soils with elevated risk of 

compaction and erosion. See Tables B-3-B-6. Designated skid trails 

should be spaced approximately 100 feet apart center to center to limit soil 

disturbance in these areas. Track-mounted felling equipment may be 

operated off trail as long as soil moisture conditions allow. Consider 

operating on slash mats for further protection of soils.

Table B - 3: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Compaction 

Risk

Location Site Soil Map Unit % of Site

030813 3 VcE, SybC 91%

030813 12 VcE, CkC 98%

030813 16 VcE, CkC 50%

030813 20 VcE, CkC 100%

030813 26 VcE 98%

030813 33 VcE 100%

030813 34 VcE 68%

030813 37 VcE 97%

030813 40 VcE 32%

030813 41 VcE 97%

030813 55 VcE, SybC 82%

030813 57 VcE 100%

041101 24 CkC, VkE 100%

041101 25 CkC, VkE 97%

041101 29 VkE, SybC 53%

041101 40 VkE, SybC 72%

041101 41 VkE, SybC 41%

041302 63 VcE, VkE 60%

041302 126 VcE, VkE 46%

041302 127 VkE 60%

041302 128 VkE 62%

041302 136 VkE 33%

041302 138 VkE 82%

041402 178 VcE 35%

041501 1 VcE 43%

041502 1 VcE 17%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-6

041502 2 VcE 93%

041502 3 VcE 99%

041502 5 VcE 81%

041502 12 VcE 99%

041502 13 VcE 57%

041502 14 VcE, CkC 87%

041502 39 VcE 1%

Table B - 4: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Erosion Risk

Location Site Soil Map Unit % of Site

030813 3 VcE, SybC 91%

030813 12 VcE, CkC 98%

030813 16 VcE, CkC 50%

030813 20 VcE, CkC 100%

030813 26 VcE 98%

030813 33 VcE 100%

030813 34 VcE 68%

030813 37 VcE 97%

030813 40 VcE 32%

030813 41 VcE 97%

030813 55 VcE, SybC 82%

030813 57 VcE 100%

041101 24 CkC, VkE 100%

041101 25 CkC, VkE 97%

041101 29 VkE, SybC 53%

041101 40 VkE, SybC 72%

041101 41 VkE, SybC 41%

041302 63 VcE, VkE 60%

041302 126 VcE, VkE 46%

041302 127 VkE 60%

041302 128 VkE 62%

041302 136 VkE 33%

041302 138 VkE 82%

041402 178 VcE 35%

041501 1 VcE 43%

041502 1 VcE 17%

041502 2 VcE 93%

041502 3 VcE 99%

041502 5 VcE 81%

041502 12 VcE 99%

041502 13 VcE 57%

041502 14 VcE, CkC 87%

041502 39 VcE 1%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-7

Table B - 5: Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils with Elevated Compaction 

Risk

Location Site Soil Map Unit % of Site

030813 37 VcE 63%

041302 63 VcE, VkE 60%

041302 126 VcE, VkE 46%

041302 127 VkE 60%

041302 128 VkE 62%

041302 136 VkE 33%

041302 138 VkE 82%

041402 178 VcE 35%

041501 1 VcE 43%

041502 1 VcE 13%

041502 2 VcE 93%

041502 3 VcE 99%

041502 5 VcE 81%

041502 12 VcE 99%

Table B - 6: Alternative 3 - Location and Site for Soils and Elevated Erosion Risk

Location Site Soil Map Unit % of Site

030813 37 RnG, VcE 66%

041302 63 VcE, VkE 60%

041302 126 VcE 46%

041302 127 VkE 60%

041302 128 VkE 62%

041302 136 VkE 33%

041302 138 VkE 82%

041402 176 SrE 71%

041402 178 VcE, SrE 91%

041501 1 VcE 43%

041502 1 VcE 13%

041502 2 VcE 93%

041502 3 VcE 99%

041502 5 VcE 81%

• Prescribed Fire Operations design criteria for soil protection:

o Conduct prescribed fires and pile burning when soil and humus are moist 

to minimize fire intensity and soil heating.

o Use existing roads and trails for fire control lines where possible. 

Minimize the length of new fire lines.

o Build fire control lines with rolling grades and minimum downhill 

convergence. Out slope or back blade, permanently drain, and revegetate 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-8

firelines immediately after the burn. Use certified weed-free seed, and 

local native plants; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants.

Soils with Low Organic Matter Design Criteria—Alternative 2 only

• For the Sites listed in Table B-7 where Shelterwood or Group-Selection Harvest is 

proposed:

o Retain 50 percent or more of fine logging slash (less than 3 inches 

diameter).

o Fine slash should be evenly distributed throughout the unit, avoid large 

concentration areas. 

o Slash should be left over-winter prior to burning except where this would 

contradict with WUI objectives.

Table B - 7: Alternative 2 - Location and Site for Soils with Less than 2% Topsoil 

Organic Matter

Location Site Soil Map Unit % of Site

030813 3 SybC 39%

030813 55 SybC 66%

041101 24 VkE 18%

041101 25 VkE 67%

041101 29 VkE, SybC 53%

041101 40 VkE 72%

041101 41 VkE 41%

041302 63 VkE 52%

041302 126 VkE 45%

041302 127 VkE 60%

041302 128 VkE 62%

041302 136 VkE 33%

041302 138 VkE 82%

Heritage

There are 23 known cultural resources determined eligible or potentially eligible 

(unevaluated) for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Design criteria 

specific to each site is available in the project file and is summarized below.

If during the course of any ground disturbance related to this project, any bones, artifacts, 

foundations, or other indications of past human occupation of the area are uncovered, all 

operations will cease within a 100-meter radius of the site location and a District 

Archaeologist notified immediately. The SHPO and regional THPOs will be notified of 

the discovery and provided an opportunity to comment. Any cultural resources located 

during project implementation will be protected based on the recommendations of the 

District Archaeologist and the SHPO.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-9

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.

All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project activities will be 

flagged or otherwise posted for avoidance.

Mechanical Treatments within Cultural Resource Sites:

• There are 4 cultural sites in Alternative 2, and 3 cultural sites in Alternative 3 

which are proposed for mechanical treatment. The following design criteria will 

be implemented to protect these sites: 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 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 eligible and 

unevaluated sites should be conducted without the specified clearance and on-site 

presence of a District Archaeologist.

Prescribed Fire Treatments within Cultural Resource Sites:

There are 23 known cultural sites proposed for prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 

3. The following design criteria will be implemented to protect known sites. 

Coordination with District Archeologist must occur prior to burning to insure these 

measures are in place prior to implementation.

• 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 is allowed within the site boundaries of cultural resources provided that the 

following on-site fire behavior criteria are met: There are 13 known sites that 

may be burned through without other preparation. There are 6 cultural resource 

sites that require pre-treatment by removal of downed logs, cutting of brush or 

other action to insure downed logs do not burn. There are 4 sites which cannot 

be burned through and must be avoided during implementation of all prescribed 

burning. Consult with heritage resource specialist prior to any burning to insure 

design criteria are properly implemented.

• Where burning is proposed within 30 meters of a cultural site, an archeologist 

should be onsite during burn operations.

• Avoid dozer lines, hand lines, retardant drops, staging areas and any ground 

disturbing post-fire clean-up for a distance of 30 meters from known sites.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-10

Use of Forest Service Roads (FSRs) within Cultural Resource Sites:

The following FSRs contain a portion of their length within known cultural sites. Design 

criteria for use of these roads, through known sites, for project implementation are

included below:

• FSR 273.3C, 277, 277.1L, 284, 284.2A and 284.2B – May be used for timber 

hauling. Do not blade or otherwise improve road through site.

• FSR 282.1, 282.1C, 282.1D, 282.1K, 283.1N, 283.1H, 456, 694, 747 – Install 

geotextile if timber hauling or other large machinery will be using this road 

through known sites. Light truck use is allowable in dry conditions, without 

geotextile. Minimize passes of light trucks through the site.

• Portions of FSR 277 and 284.2A were previously geotextiled and may be used for 

vehicle travel.

• Handlines may be created along FSR 277, 277.1L, 284, 284.2A, 284.2B.

• Handlines may not be created, wetlining is acceptable along FSR 282.1D, 282.1K 

and 694.

Lands

• Adequate notice and signing during implementation activities to inform the public 

especially in the Tepee Canyon agate area.

• A permit to conduct research on the white-winged junco is currently approved and 

includes land within and adjacent to the project area. In general, the research area 

is directly north of Highway 16, across from the Tepee work Center in T3S, R2E, 

Sections 19, 20, 29, 30, 31 and 32; T4S, R2E, Section 6. Notify and coordinate 

with permit holder prior to prescribed burning within or adjacent to this area.

Range & Noxious Weeds

• Utilize roads where 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.

• Pasture rotations may be changed to assist in project implementation. 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 with permittees along with 

development of AOI’s are completed March and April prior to grazing season.

• 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 with 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-11

permittees along with development of AOI’s are completed March and April prior 

to grazing season.

• New infestations of noxious weeds should be treated within the project area. 

Noxious weeds treatments prior to project implementation are recommended.

• 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 410

Recreation

• Use press releases and safety signing to warn recreation enthusiasts of prescribed 

fire activities in the area.

• 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.

• Avoid burning from June 1st to September 7th annually at Jasper Cave as this is a 

permitted outfitter and guide area for spelunking as well a popular public 

recreation activity between these dates at this site.

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.

• Avoid creating strong lines between private and Forest Service boundaries. A 

feathered horizontal transition zone of 1.5 times the height of the over story is 

recommended – at a minimum. Within this zone, reduce the tree density to 

transition from the treated to the un-treated.

• 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-12

• When thinning dense stands, avoid creating a residual forested stand with evenly 

spaced trees.

• Avoid creating geometric shapes when implementing proposed activities. 

Consider boundaries that follow vegetation types or sizes.

• Over story 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.

• When burning in the foreground of US Highway 16, burn toward the highway to 

reduce scorch heights on the boles of trees facing the highway. Maintain low fire 

intensity to minimize potential live tree mortality.

Silviculture

• Activity fuel should be removed, lopped and 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 caused tree mortality.

• Whole tree yarding (WTY) shall be required within cutting units where prescribed 

burning will follow harvest. Those sites are listed below in Table B-8.

Table B - 8: Sites where Whole 

Tree Yarding is Required

Location Site(s)

030813 3

041302 63, 126 , 127

041302 136, 138

041402 47, 176, 178

041501 1

041502 1-3, 5, 33

• 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:

>500 seedlings/acre: 50%

300-500 seedlings/acre: 25%
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-13

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.

• Do not conduct prescribed burning within pine plantations, where seedlings have 

been planted.

• 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 NonPoint Pollution from Silvicultural and Related Road Activities” will be followed.

• Within harvest units, trees identified as diseased or insect infested would be 

removed.

• 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

Snails

• Two Frest SOLC snail sites within location-sites 041301-22 and 030101-69 will 

be deferred from any treatment. The snail sites boundary, not the whole locationsites (22 and 69), will be marked and deferred from any type of treatment 

including prescribed burning under both action alternatives. Standard 3103

Snags/Dead Woody Material

• No snags will be cut unless deemed 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-14

• Do not burn the pocket of large snags, including some replacement snag green 

trees, in the northern 2/3 portion of site 030813-7 (Alternative 2 only).

• Retain an average of 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a 

minimum diameter of 10 inches. Standard 2308

Small Mammal Habitat

• 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’x10’ and 6’ in height. – This will benefit small mammal 

predatory species by creating near-ground structure for prey species. Standard 

3117

Big Game-Screening Cover

• Retain existing screening cover, no thinning or tree mortality from burning will 

occur within 200 ft of the arterial or collector road in the following sites: 

Guideline 3203

Burning

o 031901-35 and 36 (along 273)

o 032001-47 (along 273)

o 041402-143 (between collector roads 283 and 282). 

Thinning

o 041101-24 and 41 (along 284) 

o 041302-63 (east end-along 283)

Bats/Caves

• 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.

• A timing restriction for burning will be in place for Sites 041501-10, 11, 12, 13, 

15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 27. No burning may occur in these sites from October 15 

to May 15, unless specifically approved by the District Wildlife biologist. There 

are concerns regarding smoke impacts to hibernating bats in caves adjacent to 

these sites. It is critical to ensure there is favorable smoke dispersal.

• 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.

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 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix B

B-15

agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing protection. Standard 

3204

• If raptor nests are discovered during implementation, contact a District biologist 

for consultation.

Butterflies

• If regal fritillary are observed in the project area, consider habitat needs (survey as 

appropriate) 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

General Wildlife Design Criteria

• Minimize mortality of live trees when burning in sites: 041302-124, 135, 136, 

137, 138; 041305-1, 24, 26, and SE part of 23.

• 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.

• Protect 20” DBH snags by removing duff from the base prior to burning.

• Prescribed burning should not be considered earlier than September or later than 

April as this could impact species during fawning, calving and nesting.

• In sites 030813-3, 12, 16, 20; 041101-24 retain live green trees 18” or greater 

DBH.

Appendix C: 

Project Monitoring

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment 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.

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.

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 re-treated as necessary.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix C

C-2

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.

Soils

Soil monitoring will occur, as required by Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices 

(WCPs) Handbook and Black Hills National Forest direction as outlined in the Forest 

Service Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Units 

selected may occur in this project area.

Spring ecosystems

Monitoring will follow Forest Service Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE) 

Assessment methods (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Spring monitoring may also be 

combined with BMP assessments.

Implementation and Effectiveness of Watershed Conservation Practices 

(WCPs) and 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). 

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. 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 precipitation event, if it happened less 

than one year after implementation, may also be warranted.
Appendix D: 

Summary: Biological Assessment 

& 

Biological Evaluation

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-1

APPENDIX D: Summary: 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 Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

full BA/BE’s 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 Supplement No. 2600-2011-1, 2672.11 – Exhibit 01 effective 

June 10, 2011). 

The Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn BA/BE’s 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, 2006a).

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 Appendix A, Map 1). 

The project includes burning as well as mechanical thinning and would occur in three

distinct parcels (see Appendix A, 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:
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-2

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.

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.

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 accessed on October 1, 

2012. No federally listed or proposed plant species occur on the Black Hills National 

Forest.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Plant Species

The Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species listed was updated by the Regional

Forester on June 10, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011). Appendix A provides a list of 

current R2 sensitive plant species found within the Black Hills National Forest. 

A pre-field review of Region 2 sensitive plant species and potential habitat was 

completed using existing district data; communication with forest personnel; and the 

BA/BE’s 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 pre-field 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-3

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 October 4, 2012 (USFWS, 2012). 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 de-listing 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)).

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on 

June 10, 2011. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

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, 

and 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.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix D

D-4

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 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 R2 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.
Appendix E: 

Past, Present & Future Activities

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-1

APPENDIX E: Past, Present, and Future 

Activities

Table E - 1: Past Accomplished Activities

Date of Activity Type of Activity Acres

Associated Project 

Name(s)

2000 Wildfire 83,511 Jasper Fire

2001 Wildfire 11,879 Rogers Shack Fire

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

2001-2002 Hazard Tree 

removal along roads

Jasper and Rogers 

Shack areas

2001-2002 Salvage sales Crawford, Teemud, 

Deadhorse, Lope

2001, 2005 Over story Removal 

Cut

858 Crawford, Fanny

2003 Partial Removal 73 Crawford
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-2

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 Shelterwood Cut 102 Crawford

2001 Special Cut 12 Crawford

2001, 2007 Stand Examination 

Data Collection

3,584

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix E

E-3

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

Noxious weed treatments have occurred in the past and will continue into the future.

Appendix F: 

Silvicultural Findings 

of 

Compliance with Laws, Regulations, 

and Policy

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix F

F-1

APPENDIX F: Silvicultural Findings of 

Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn

The following findings are made based on the environmental analysis and the 

silvicultural prescription:

Consistency with plans [16 U.S.C. 1604 (i)]:

1. Timber harvest would occur on lands suited for timber production or would occur 

in areas where timber harvest is permitted and is necessary to help achieve other 

resource management objectives.

All areas to be harvested are suitable and permissible for timber harvest.

Management Area 5.1 – 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: Acres of Treatments by Management Area (MA), Alternative 2

Treatment MA 5.1 MA 5.4

Commercial Thinning 170 1071

Over story Removal 110 198

Shelterwood Seed Cut 0 96

 Table F - 2: Acres of Treatments by Management Area (MA), Alternative 3

Treatment MA 5.1 MA 5.4

Commercial Thinning 0 233

Group Selection 0 391

2. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix F

F-2

Forest Plan Standard 2408, Phase II Amendment page II-25 for acceptable 

silvicultural Systems.

Timber Harvest [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]:

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; 

See 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 group 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.

See 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.

See HCMB specialist reports.

4. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable 

with the natural terrain.

See the HCMB Visual Quality specialist report.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix F

F-3

5. Even-aged regeneration harvests made in one operation meet the 40-acre 

maximum size limit requirement.

There are no proposed harvests that need to meet this requirement. 

6. Harvest will be consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, 

recreation, esthetic resources, cultural and historic resources, and the regeneration 

of timber resources.

See the HCMB Botany BE and specialist report.

See the HCMB Wildlife BE and specialist report.

See the HCMB Hydrology Specialist report.

See the HCMB Heritage specialist report.

See the HCMB Recreation specialist report.

See the HCMB Scenery 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). The BKF considers any stand that has reached 120 years 

old as having reached CMAI. All stands receiving regeneration harvests 

meet the CMAI requirements.

Findings prepared and recommended by:

Appendix G: 

Treatment by Location

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-1

APPENDIX G: Treatment by Location

Treatment Abbreviations

CT50 Commercial Thin to a BA of 50 ft2/acre

CT 60 Commercial Thin to a BA of 60 ft2/acre

DF DeadFall

GS Group Shelterwood

NC No Cut

OR Overstory Removal

PE Pine Encroachment

POL Products Other than Logs thinning

RX Fire Prescribed Burning

SC Seed Cut

TSI Timber Stand Improvement

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-2

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-3

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-4

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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/DF NC

030813 33 18 PE NC

030813 34 44 CT60/DF 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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-5

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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 Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-6

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

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/DF NC

041101 25 49 CT60/POL/DF NC

041101 29 31 CT60/POL/DF NC

041101 40 27 CT60/POL/DF NC

041101 41 131 CT60/POL/DF 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-7

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

041202 21 6 RX Fire RX Fire

041202 22 4 RX Fire RX Fire

041202 24 128 RX Fire RX Fire

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-8

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-9

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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/DF CT50/POL/DF 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-10

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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 DF DF

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 DF DF 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-11

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-12

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-13

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

041401 41 12 RX Fire RX Fire

041401 42 31 RX Fire RX Fire
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-14

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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/DF 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-15

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

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/DF NC

041402 185 18 CT50/POL/DF NC

041402 187 36 CT50/POL/DF NC

041402 188 33 CT50/POL/DF NC

041402 189 21 DF 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
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix G

G-16

Location & Site Acres Alt. 2 Treatment

Alt. 3 

Treatment

Alt. 2 

Rx

Alt. 3 

Rx

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

041502 12 33 CT60/POL GS RX Fire RX Fire

041502 13 29 CT60/POL NC

041502 14 14 DF 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
Appendix H: 

Follow-up Activities

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment 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 is sitespecific 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 Chapter 2 of this Environmental Assessment and in the project file.

 Table H - 1: Definitions of Treatment Acronyms

Acronym Definition

DF Deadfall

PCT Pre-Commercial Thinning

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 139 636

 Rx Fire 340 3,397

Total Acres Alt. 2: 479 4,033

Alternative 3

 Mechanical 6 185

 Rx Fire 331 3,309

Total Acres Alt. 3: 376 3,494
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix H

H-2

The following table denotes only those specific sites where follow-up activities would 

occur. There are no post-sale activities planned in locations 30101, 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

030813 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

041101 24 110 PCT, DF

25 49 POL, DF

24 110 PCT, DF

29 49 POL, DF

40 27 POL, DF

41 71 POL, DF

041302 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

041402 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

041501 1 46 POL REGEN, POL
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix H

H-3

041502 1 87 PE PE

2 31 POL REGEN, POL

041502 3 36 POL REGEN, POL

5 114 POL REGEN, POL

12 33 POL REGEN, POL

13 29 POL

14 14 DF

39 19 PE

Appendix I: 

Colorado State University Research

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix I

I-1

APPENDIX I: Colorado State University 

Research

Bonnet, V.H., A.W. Schoettle, and W.D. Shepperd. 2004. Spatial distribution of 

ponderosa pine seedlings along environmental gradients within burned areas in 

the Black Hills, South Dakota. In: Shepperd, W.D. and L.G. Eskew, compilers. 

2004. Silviculture in special places: Proceedings of the National Silviculture 

Workshop, September 8-11, 2003. Granby, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-34. Fort 

Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station p. 93-101. 

Bonnet, V.H., A.W. Schoettle, and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Post-fire environmental 

conditions influence the spatial pattern of regeneration for Pinus ponderosa. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 37-47.

Hirsch, Mandi L. 2012. Understory community dynamics ten years after a mixedseverity wildfire in ponderosa pine and aspen stands in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota, USA. Master’s Thesis, Department of Forest and Rangeland 

Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 

Keyser, T.L., F.W. Smith and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Trembling aspen response to 

mixed-severity wildfire in the Black Hills, SD, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 35: 2679-2684.

Keyser, T.L., F.W. Smith, L.B. Lentile, and W.D. Shepperd. 2006. Modeling post-fire 

mortality of ponderosa pine following a mixed-severity wildfire in the Black 

Hills: the role of tree morphology and direct fire effects. Forest Science 52: 530-

539. 

Keyser, T.L., L.B. Lentile, F.W. Smith, and W.D. Shepperd. 2008. Changes in forest 

structure following a mixed-severity wildfire in ponderosa pine forests of the 

Black Hills, SD, USA. Forest Science 54(3): 328-338. 

Keyser, T.L., F.W. Smith and W.D. Shepperd. 2009. Short-term impact of post-fire 

salvage logging on forest structure and hazardous fuel accumulation in ponderosa 

pine forests of the Black Hills, SD, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

18: 451-458. 

Keyser, T.L., F.W. Smith and W.D. Shepperd. 2010. Growth response of Pinus 

ponderosa following a mixed-severity wildfire in the Black Hills, South Dakota. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25(2) 2010. 

Keyser, T.L., L.B. Lentile, F.W. Smith, and W.D. Shepperd. Temporal changes in 

understory community structure and species composition following a mixedseverity wildfire in ponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills, USA. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research in review. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix I

I-2

Lentile, L.B., F.W. Smith and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Patch structure, fire scar formation 

and tree regeneration in a large mixed severity fire in the South Dakota Black 

Hills. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 2875-2885.

Lentile, L.B., F.W. Smith and W.D. Shepperd. 2006. The influence of weather, 

topography, and forest structure on patterns of mixed-severity fire in the South 

Dakota Black Hills. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 557-556. 

Lentile, L.B., Z.A. Holden, Alistair M.S. Smith, M.J. Falkowski, A.T. Hudak, P. Morgan, 

S.A. Lewis, P.E. Gessler, and N.C. Benson. 2006. Remote sensing techniques to 

assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. Department of Forest 

Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service, Moscow, ID, USA. National Park Service, 

National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID, USA. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 15: 319-345.

Wudtke, Benjamin J. 2011. Long-term forest recovery processes following a large, 

mixed severity fire in ponderosa pine ecosystems of the Black Hills, South 

Dakota, USA. Master’s Thesis, Department of Forest and Rangeland 

Stewardship, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 
Appendix J: 

Response to Comments

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-1

APPENDIX J: Response to Comments

Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn

Draft EA – Response to Comments

The Hell Canyon Ranger District received four responses on the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn project Draft EA from individuals, groups, 

and government agencies. All original correspondence is stored within the project file. The following numbered list corresponds to the 

Comments/Response table below. There were no comments received outside the comment period. 

1. Mike Morrison, Allotment Holder, Lower Beaver Allotment

2. Paul Pierson, CF, Forester, Neiman Timber Co., L.C.

3. Carson Engelskirger, Forest Program Manager, Black Hills Forest Resource Association

4. Jeanne Whalen, Chairman, Crook County Land Use Planning & Zoning Commission

Comment 

Number Comment Response to Comment

1.a Would like to know what the plan for weed treatment is. Chapter 3 of the EA discusses noxious weeds. Any activity that 

disturbs soil has the potential to spread noxious weeds. Both 

action alternatives include noxious weed treatment and 

monitoring after disturbance. Appendix B includes design criteria 

for noxious weed treatments. Please see Appendix H for all 

follow-up activities including proposed weed treatments by 

alternative.

1.b In favor of all proposed burning activities. However, would 

like to see more assurance that improvements will be

protected, such as fencing. Has had past experience with 

prescribed burning ruining range fence and has had to 

personally fix these improvements.

Your support of prescribed fire burning activities is noted. 

Appendix B includes design criteria to protect improvements 

during burning and other project implementation activities.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-2

1.c Would like to know how prescribed fire would affect 

allotment/pasture rotations.

Chapter 3 of the EA discusses the affected environment in 

relation to livestock grazing and pasture rotations. 

Pasture rotations may be changed to assist in facilitating 

implementation. Coordination between range specialists and 

fuels personnel will be necessary. Not more than one pasture 

per allotment should be burned in any one year prior to the next 

grazing season. 

Refer to ‘Range and Noxious Weeds’ section of Appendix B, 

design criteria, which includes criteria related to prescribed 

burning and range.

1.d Mountain Pine Beetle: Would like to know what the plan 

is for treating green trees for mountain pine beetle. Is in 

favor of treating green stands to reduce the risk of mountain 

pine beetle.

Improving the health and vigor of existing pine stands is part of 

the purpose and need for action in this project. 

Actions proposed in both action alternatives include removing 

green infested tree and reducing MPB risk by thinning stands. 

See the end of Chapter 2 for a summary of MPB risk by 

alternative. 

Please refer to Appendix A for maps showing treatment locations.

2.a Upon further analysis since scoping, Neiman Timber Co., 

L.C chooses the “Alternative 1:No Action Alternative” as 

the preferred alternative.

Your support of Alternative 1 is noted.

2.b We understand that the HCMB project is trying to follow 

Goals 10 and 11 of the Forest Plan. However, the 

consequences of an action alternative have not been 

adequately analyzed and the design criteria, fuel models, 

and environmental consequences are misleading and 

The effects analysis in the fuels section of the EA has been edited. 

Fire hazard by alternative is discussed. Refer to Chapter 3 of the 

EA and also the end of Chapter 2 for a summary of fire hazard by 

alternative. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-3

inaccurate.

2.c We acknowledge that there is a high fire hazard over most 

of the project area and that a repeat wildfire is a risk to the 

ecosystem. However, as stated in our scoping comments, 

this ecosystem is extremely delicate right now and more 

analysis needs to be done before it is burned. The first eight 

years following Jasper and Rogers Shack fires were very 

dry. We have now had a few good moisture years coupled 

with good pollen years. 

New stand boundaries must be identified prior to this 

project being implemented that identify where the remnant 

stands of isolated trees are located in the moderately and 

severely burned stands. 

Once identified, regeneration survey needs to be conducted

around all these areas as well as around larger stands of pine 

trees. The seedlings need to be protected and excluded 

from the prescribed burn. The Forest Service cannot meet 

the mortality limits in the design criteria if you do not have 

an accurate assessment of what is out there. We appreciate 

additional wording in the design criteria to protect these 

trees, but do not have the confidence that it can be done 

without establishing an accurate vegetation layer.

The analysis presented in the EA and specialist reports includes 

the best available science. The Forest Service is not aware of any 

research to support that the project is a risk to the ecosystem. 

Stand boundaries have been established and were analyzed as part 

of this project. Please see the silviculture section in Chapter 3 of 

the EA for Structural Stage analysis. Mountain pine beetle 

activity within remaining stands continues to modify stand 

conditions. 

Field data has been collected to determine the extent of existing 

regeneration. Additional information on regeneration has been 

added to the EA – see Chapter 3, Forest Vegetation section. 

Design criteria in Appendix B states that no burning within pine 

plantation will occur. In addition, mortality limits are included 

for areas which contain natural regeneration. This design criteria 

further requires that a certified silviculturist be consulted with, 

prior to implementation of burning in any sites which contain live 

green trees, to insure regeneration and mature trees are protected. 

All design criteria will be adhered to. If design criteria cannot be 

adhered to, that portion of the project will not be implemented. 

Before implementation, a burn plan will be developed with input 

from the fuels specialist and the silviculturist.

2.d We also question how you would meet your mortality limits 

within the seedlings size class. If we have had good 

The burn plan would be written to insure noted mortality limits 

are met. This may involve timing of a burn, weather conditions, 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-4

germination over the last two years then most seedlings will 

not be able to withstand a prescribed burn. Also, if you do 

not identify and quantify both the small pockets of live trees 

and the seedlings there is no baseline to measure your 

mortality limits.

pre-burn slash treatments, boundary establishment, lighting 

strategy, avoidance, etc. 

2.e In analyzing the stated environmental consequences of the 

alternatives it is evident that the assumption is made by the 

Forest Service that this will be a typical prescribe burn 

where the fire will be consuming mostly small fuels and 

move through an area quickly with low residence time. 

However, logic tells us we cannot both reduce the coarse 

woody debris (CWD) by 30-50% that is made up of 100-

1000 hour fuels and also have a quick, low residence time 

fire. This nullifies almost all of your environmental 

analysis on the project.

Please refer to the fire and fuels section in Chapter 3 of the EA for 

prescribed fire objectives. These objectives are directly in line 

with results observed from a previous prescribed fire completed 

in similar conditions on the Jewel Cave National Monument. The 

Hilltop Prescribed Fire Summary can be found in the project 

record documenting those results. All project analysis for all 

specialists was analyzed using these project objectives. 

2.f Also, if the goal of reducing the fire hazard is met and these 

larger fuels are consumed you will see an increase in 

noxious weeds in the “shadows” left behind where the 

larger fuels were consumed on the ground. There is 

evidence of this at Jewel Cave.

Please see response to comment 1a. The EA includes treatments 

for noxious weeds, as well as design criteria. 

2.g Part of the design criteria is to use existing roads as fire 

breaks. In some of the project area that should work well. 

However, in areas with unidentified areas of established 

regeneration and isolated pockets of live trees it is too broad 

of a design and runs a high risk of mortality. The risk of 

mortality to the larger, isolated pine trees is not from 

another crown fire but from excessive fuel loading of CWD 

around the base of these trees. If the fuel loading is high 

The identified design criteria states to utilize roads where 

practical for control lines (EA Appendix B). 

Please refer to comments 2.c and 2.d.
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-5

directly around the base of these trees, the potential for 

mortality from a prescribed burn through soil heating or 

damage to the cambium is high. Fire breaks and hand or 

mechanical treatment may be needed to protect these areas.

We have spoken with Skip Smith and understand his 

concern over burning and mechanically treating stands 

within his plots. We support his request to stay out of these 

areas.

Your support to not treat within the established CSU research 

plots is noted. Alternative 3, described in Chapter 2 of the EA, 

does not propose any treatment or prescribed burning within the 

CSU research plots.

2.h It has also been brought to our attention that there was a 

regeneration survey recently completed on the Jasper Fire 

area. This data is crucial to any projects in the Jasper Fire 

boundary and needs to be analyzed before a project is 

finished.

Please see response to comment 2.c.

2.i In summary, the future of this ecosystem is tied directly to 

the existing live trees in both the overstory and understory. 

It was stated in the Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment that “areas 

of complete mortality that are far removed from a viable 

seed source could take as long as 200 years to regenerate” 

(Jasper Fire Rapid Assessment, pg. 23). Until the Forest 

Service identifies and quantifies these surviving trees 

Neiman Timber Company cannot support this large scale 

prescribed burn.

Please see response to comment 2.c.

3.a As presented, the BHFRA cannot support any action 

alternatives in the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn (HCMB), 

and thus recommend Alternative 1 (no action) as our 

preferred choice. We fully understand the current 

conditions within the project boundary, but feel there are 

Your support of Alternative 1, no action, is noted. 

Please see response to comments 2.c and 2.d for regeneration 

related issues. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-6

still several issues that are not fully addressed in this 

document, including issues related to current regeneration, 

timberland suitability, extent of burning, and the overall 

burn plan. 

We would also question if there were not better areas within 

the district that are at higher risk and would benefit more 

from a project of this type?

The Silviculture Finding Report, in Appendix F, notes that timber 

harvest would occur on suitable lands. 

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 of the 

EA. 

3.b Regardless of the alternative selected, we would strongly 

encourage the USFS to not disturb the research plots 

currently being studied. With roughly ten years of 

documented research in this study and the resources 

dedicated, we feel these plots could be important in future.

Your support to not treat within the established CSU plots is 

noted. Alternative 3 was developed in response to issues 

identified during scoping, one of which was effects to the CSU 

research plots. Alternative 3 eliminates all mechanical treatments 

and prescribed fire from the CSU research plots (Chapter 2 of the 

EA).

3.c Along with a no action alternative, we feel that the current 

mountain pine beetle epidemic that is active within the 

project needs addressed. Outside of the research plots, we 

would recommend mechanical treatments that focus on 

thinning stands susceptible to mpb infestation along with 

sanitation of green infested trees. We support the proposed 

HCMB mechanical treatments that achieve this.

The no action alternative would result in ‘no treatment’ including 

those stands which have been identified as at risk for mountain 

pine beetle. 

Alternative 3 would reduce MPB risk, outside of the CSU 

research plots, is noted. 

The Decision Maker may elect to implement components from 

each alternative.

4.a The proposed action, Alternative 2, is the best choice for 

meeting the stated purpose and need of the project: to 

reduce long-term fire hazard and improve health and vigor 

of forested stands in the Jasper and Roger’s Shack fire 

areas.

Your support of Alternative 2 is noted. 

4.b We support Alternative 2’s plan for the use of commercial 

treatments (8,980 acres), non-commercial treatments (2,532 

Your support of Alternative 2 is noted. 
Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn Environmental Assessment Appendix J

J-7

acres), and prescribed fire (16,986 acres). Timber harvest 

remains very important economically to the communities in 

the Black Hills and is an essential part of the sustainable 

management of the Black Hills National Forest. 

4.c We understand that prescribed fire is one of the viable tools 

needed to move this area toward its desired future condition. 

We reiterate our desire to see the entities potentially 

impacted by the risks related to prescribed fire (nearby 

landowners, local emergency services) be allowed ongoing 

input on the best mitigation measure. 

Your support of prescribed fire is noted. 

4.d Overall, the project appears to be within the scope of and to 

comply with Forest Plan and Phase 2 Amendment direction. 

We feel that the information presented in this analysis is 

sufficient to implement the proposed action.

Your support that the project complies to the Forest Plan is noted. 

Chapter 1 of the EA discusses Forest Plan, Phase II direction and 

concurrence.