BLACK HILLS RESILIENT LANDSCAPE PROJECT

BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FOREST

SOILS REPORT

January 29, 2018

Prepared by:

Deanna J. Reyher

Forest Soil Scientist, Black Hills National Forest
Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Area Description................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................... 1

Relevant Issues................................................................................................................................ 1

Proposed Action Summary ............................................................................................................. 2

Fuel Reduction and Prescribed Fire............................................................................................ 2

Enhancement of Non-pine Vegetation and Within-stand Diversity ........................................... 2

Pine Structural Stage (SS) Modification..................................................................................... 2

Summary Table........................................................................................................................... 3

Soil Productivity ............................................................................................................................. 4

Physical Soil Characteristics....................................................................................................... 4

Organic Matter............................................................................................................................ 4

Soil Biological Activity .............................................................................................................. 4

Soil Erosion................................................................................................................................. 4

Mass Failure................................................................................................................................ 5

Information Sources........................................................................................................................ 5

Analysis Area Description .............................................................................................................. 5

Affected Environment..................................................................................................................... 6

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction............................................... 19

Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................... 23

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 23

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B – No Action Alternative ..................................... 25

Soil Productivity ................................................................................................................... 25

Physical Soil Characteristics................................................................................................. 25

Organic Matter...................................................................................................................... 25

Soil Organisms...................................................................................................................... 25

Soil Erosion........................................................................................................................... 26

Mass Failures........................................................................................................................ 26

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternative – Alternative A..................................... 26

Soil Productivity ................................................................................................................... 26

Physical Soil Characteristics................................................................................................. 27

Organic Matter...................................................................................................................... 36
Soil Microorganisms............................................................................................................. 40

Soil Erosion........................................................................................................................... 43

Connected Actions................................................................................................................ 50

Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................... 52

Action Alternative A............................................................................................................. 52

Contrasting Effects of Proposed Action with Past Actions.................................................. 52

Duration of Effects................................................................................................................ 52

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities................................................. 56

Combined Effects from Past, Proposed, Ongoing and Foreseeable Activities..................... 56

References..................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix A – Information Used in Identification of Soil Map Units for Soil Resource Concerns 

and Identification of BHRL Project Design and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)............. 60

Soil Productivity – Nutrient Cycling ........................................................................................ 60

Soil Bulk Density – Soil Compaction....................................................................................... 61

Soil Erosion............................................................................................................................... 62

Black Hills Resilient Landscape (BHRL) Soil Map Unit Information......................................... 63
Page 1 of 95

Introduction

This report discusses the components of the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) soil resources that 

could generally be expected to be affected by proposed activities identified to be implemented 

through the Action Alternative of the Black Hills Resilient Landscape (BHRL) Project.

Project Area Description

The project area includes National Forest System lands that are managed by the BHNF within 

the areas designated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the amended Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA, 16 U.S.C. 6591), excluding Inventoried Roadless Areas and certain 

management areas. The project area includes approximately 1,098,000 acres of NFS lands. 

 

The project area includes the following management areas (MAs). 

MA Emphasis Acres* Proposed activities

3.31 Backcountry motorized recreation 6,870 Fuels/hazard trees

3.32 Backcountry non-motorized recreation 8,948 Fuels/hazard trees

3.7 Late succession landscapes 18,484 Fuels/hazard trees

4.1 Limited motorized use and forest products 41,374 All

5.1 Resource production 558,520 All

5.1A Southern Hills forest and grassland 27,845 Fuels/hazard trees

5.2A Fort Meade VA Hospital watershed 3,299 Fuels/hazard trees

5.4 Big game winter range 388,950 All

5.43 Big game and resource production 10,083 All

5.6 Forest products, recreation, and big game 34,043 All

*MA acres in project area Total 1,098,425

Purpose and Need

The BHNF is proposing actions to move landscape-level vegetation conditions in the project area

toward objectives of the Forest Plan in order to increase ecosystem resilience to insect infestation 

and other natural disturbances, contribute to public safety and the local economy, and reduce risk 

of wildfire to landscapes and communities. 

Relevant Issues

Public comments resulted in the following issues relevant to the analysis.

1. Proposed timber harvest and fuel reduction could negatively affect scenery, particularly 

in combination with recent timber harvest and mountain pine beetle infestation. 

Indication of the project’s response to this issue is reflected by the degree of achievement 

of scenic integrity objectives.

2. The Proposed Action includes ground-disturbing activities that could increase noxious 

weed infestation. Added to the effects of a variety of past and ongoing activities, this 

could increase costs of weed treatment and displace desirable plant communities. 

Indicators of the project’s response to this issue include projected acreage of weed 

infestation and cost of treatment.

3. Timber harvest could reduce landscape-level structural diversity by creating or 

perpetuating large, monotypic stands. Indication of the project’s response to this issue is 

reflected by degree of progress toward Forest Plan structural stage objectives over a 20-

year timeframe.
Page 2 of 95

Proposed Action Summary

The Forest Service is proposing to conduct the following land management activities in the 

project area, starting in approximately 2018 and continuing for about 10 years.

Fuel Reduction and Prescribed Fire

To increase ecosystem resilience and reduce wildfire hazard to landscapes and communities, the 

proposal includes mechanical fuel treatments (up to 7,000 acres per year), prescribed fire (up to 

10,000 acres a year), and hazard tree removal. Total acres implemented annually would depend 

on budget constraints and, for prescribed burning, weather conditions. Priority criteria for 

treatment include wildland-urban interface (specifically, within one-half mile of at-risk 

communities and within 300 feet of other private property) and areas adjacent to egress roads 

and critical infrastructure.

Activities described in the following sections (precommercial thinning, removing encroaching 

pine, etc.) also would contribute toward fuel reduction goals.

Enhancement of Non-pine Vegetation and Within-stand Diversity

The project would cut encroaching pine from areas of hardwoods and grasslands. Pine and 

spruce removal from aspen stands would take place on up to 6,000 acres. On up to 30,900 acres 

of pine stands, pine and spruce would be removed from aspen inclusions. Regeneration of 

declining aspen stands would occur on up to 4,000 acres. Pine removal from oak stands would 

take place on up to 5,400 acres. Uneven-age management would occur on up to 10,000 acres of 

SS 4A stands.

Pine Structural Stage (SS) Modification

These activities would occur in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, and 5.6.

Structural stage totals – All relevant management areas combined

Overstory removal would occur on up to 187,000 acres of SS 4A stands. This treatment would 

decrease 4A and increase younger structural stages, which are generally below Forest Plan 

objectives. Precommercial and/or POL thin would occur on up to 25,000 acres per year to 

increase SS 3A and 3B and to promote growth toward 4B.

Patch cuts would occur on up to 1,300 acres in MA 4.1 and 600 acres in MA 5.6. This treatment 

would produce SS 1, which is below Forest Plan objectives in these MAs. Tree planting would 

occur on up to 5,000 acres per year in large burned areas in the southern Black Hills. Without 

planting, reforestation of these areas may require decades.

Mechanical site preparation would occur in open, mature pine stands on up to 4,000 acres in the 

western Black Hills where thick sod hinders establishment of pine seedlings. This action would 

expose soil, creating conditions favorable for establishment of pine.
Page 3 of 95

Summary Table

Maximum activity acres and miles are displayed below. The amount implemented may be less.

Fuel and hazard tree treatments

Mechanical and manual fuel treatments (shaded fuel break construction; 

thin, pile, and burn fuels; scatter, shred, or chip fuels; cut, lop, and 

scatter fuels); includes up to 4,000 acres of shaded fuel breaks with 

commercial removal

70,000 acres (7,000 acres per 

year)

Prescribed fire 100,000 acres (10,000 acres 

per year)

Hazard tree treatments As needed and funded

Enhancement of non-pine vegetation and within-stand diversity

Removal of pine/spruce from aspen stands 6,000 acres

Regeneration of aspen stands 4,000 acres

Removal of pine/spruce from aspen inclusions (possibly commercial) 22,500 acres

Removal of pine/spruce from aspen inclusions (non-commercial) 8,400 acres

Removal of encroaching pine from oak stands 5,400 acres

Removal of encroaching pine from grasslands 14,200 acres

Uneven-age individual tree selection or group selection

As stand conditions allow

(max. 10,000 acres, out of the 

185,210 acres below)

Pine structural stage modification

Overstory removal 

By management area:

MA 4.1: Approximately 7,670 acres 

MA 5.1: Approximately 129,890 acres 

MA 5.4: Approximately 41,210 acres 

MA 5.43: Approximately 250 acres

MA 5.6: Approximately 6,190 acres 

185,210 acres

Precommercial and/or POL thin 250,000 acres (25,000 acres 

per year)

Patch cut

By management area: 

MA 4.1: 1,300 acres

MA 5.6: 600 acres

1,900 acres

Tree planting (MAs 5.1, 5.4, and 5.43) 5,000 acres

Mechanical site preparation 4,000 acres

Connected actions

Road construction – Specified 18 miles 

Road construction – Temporary 39 miles 

Temporary roads on existing templates 182 miles 

Road conversion (unclassified to system) 20 miles (part of 182 miles above)

Road maintenance 2,500 miles (estimated)

Road reconstruction 375 miles (estimated)

Forest management activities all have the potential to create soil disturbances. Some disturbances 

can occur to a level that may have effects on site productivity and hydrologic responses. This 

document addresses soil quality conditions that could result in site productivity that could be altered 

in association with project activities. Effects to the water resource are discussed in the Watershed

Specialist Report and Watershed section in Chapter Three of the BHRL FEIS.
Page 4 of 95

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity is the ability of the soil to supply the water and nutrients needed to sustain plant 

growth. Variables that influence soil productivity include physical soil characteristics, organic 

matter and soil biological activity.

Physical Soil Characteristics

Physical soil characteristics include soil depth, pore space and bulk density. Changes in these can 

occur when ground-based equipment make repeated passes over the soil. These activities 

compress or compact soils and, if soils are wet enough, can result in rutting and puddling of the 

soil resource. Clay and loam soils generally compact more than sandy soils (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, page 25). These changes to the physical soil characteristics reduce the pore space 

volume and water holding capacity. These physical changes reduce water infiltration rates, slow 

soil drainage, impede root growth and reduce plant-available water and nutrients. Physical soil 

disturbances also decrease gas exchange, affecting both plants and soil biota.

Organic Matter

Organic matter in the various forms contributes to soil productivity. Humus is decomposed 

organic matter. Duff and litter are partially decomposed leaves, needles and twigs on the surface 

of soils. Large woody debris consists of woody stems greater than three inches in diameter. 

Decomposed large woody debris can supply moisture to plants after the soils dry. Organic matter 

provides nutrients and can retain moisture for soil organisms and plants. 

Soil Biological Activity

Soil organisms, including fungi and bacteria, are required by and drive the nutrient cycling process 

by decomposing organic matter components and releasing the nutrients for use by plants. Soil 

organisms depend on organic matter for the nutrients they need to carry out their life processes. 

Decomposed large woody debris provides important habitat for the survival of mycorrhizae fungi. 

These fungi form a symbiotic relationship with tree roots, increasing water and nutrient uptake by 

the trees and the fungi. 

Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is the movement of soil particles by water, wind or ice. In forested sites on steep 

slopes, water is generally the most common driver of erosion. Generally, depending on a variety 

of site characteristics, potential for the greatest erosion is on steeper slopes (above 30%) and 

potential decreases as the slope decreases. Erosion is generally infrequent on undisturbed forest 

soils for two primary reasons: (1) organic matter is generally at levels that provides a protective 

layer on the soil surface that limits the impact of raindrops and allows water to infiltrate; and (2) 

the surface soil below the organic layer is by nature generally porous, allowing water to infiltrate 

into and through the soil profile.

Soil erosion can occur when the surface soil is compacted or when the loose surface soil and its 

protective layer of organic material are changed or removed, such as by disturbances associated 

with management activities. Compaction, rutting and puddling can affect infiltration to the point 

that there can be a reduction in the movement of water into the soil and water can be channeled 

and concentrated. As a result, water runoff (overland surface flow) is increased and carries soil 

particles with it. Natural disturbance occurrences such as fire result in the removal of organic 
Page 5 of 95

matter layers from the soil surface. When surface organic matter is removed, soil pores can 

become plugged by material (particles) impacted from precipitation events (raindrops) resulting 

in overland surface flow and increased rates of soil erosion.

Mass Failure

In past projects, mass failures (also known as mass movement, soil slippage or landslides) were 

addressed in the soil specialist reports and soil sections of the project environmental impact 

statement or assessment. Mass failure discussions for the BHRL project are included in the 

geology report and geology section of the project FEIS. See the BHRL Geology Report or the 

Geology section in Chapter Three for information on geologic hazards.

Information Sources

Soil information specific to the Black Hills area is readily available to the public through various 

internet links provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Those links were

accessed through the primary NRCS soil resources internet portal at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/. Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 

2550 (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and the USDA Forest Service Region 2 Watershed 

Conservation Handbook (WCPH) (USDA Forest Service 2006b) reference scientific literature and 

based on science identify direction to be implemented during project activities on Forest Service 

administered land for maintaining or improving soil productivity. The FSM and WCPH, along with 

the revised Forest Plan as amended (USDA Forest Service 2006a), the 1996 EIS (USDA Forest 

Service 1996) to the 1997 Forest Plan Revision, the Phase II Amendment EIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2005), Forest monitoring reports and direction and information contained within the R2 

WCPH identify project design options and document effectiveness to reduce anticipated detrimental 

soil disturbances associated with activities that may occur within the BHRL project activity areas

on the BHNF. Numerous bulk density samples have been collected on the BHNF in various areas 

that have been managed for timber production (cutting units). Forest monitoring reports since 1998, 

with the most recent Forest monitoring report being issued in 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015)

have provided information regarding effects based on past timber harvest activities. Since the 

harvest activities proposed as part of this project can generally be expected to create varying levels 

of site and soil disturbances similar to harvest activities that have occurred previously on the Forest,

and activities are to implement Forest Plan standards and guidelines, cumulative effects are 

generally expected to be within those that were described in the FEIS for the Phase II Amendment 

to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005) and the FEIS for the 1997 Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Analysis Area Description

The analysis area forms the boundary for the direct, indirect and the cumulative effects soils 

analysis. As identified above, the analysis area includes National Forest System lands that are 

managed by the BHNF within the areas designated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 

amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA, 16 U.S.C. 6591), excluding Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and certain management areas (refer to BHRL FEIS project maps). Potential activities could

occur within that area. This analysis area was selected because that is where the effects of 

implementing the proposed activities would occur. The specific effects on soils are localized in 

association with those areas that would actually receive treatments, the construction and 

rehabilitation of temporary roads that may be created to access the treatment areas, the area adjacent 
Page 6 of 95

to the construction and maintenance of new permanent roads, where landings would be created, 

prescribed fire, etc. (see Project Description for entire list). Effects generally would not extend 

beyond the proposed specific localized activity unit (i.e. cutting unit) for treatment or along the 

routes created to access the treatment unit. For the temporal range of effects please refer to 

“Duration of Effects” in the discussion that follows.

Affected Environment

As indicated earlier, this project has identified a combination of forest vegetation management 

actions to move landscape-level vegetation conditions toward some objectives of the Forest Plan 

in order to increase ecosystem resilience to insects infestation and other natural disturbances, 

contribute to public safety and the local economy, and reduce the risk of wildfire to landscapes 

and communities. While there is general soil information available for soils within the project 

area that is used for this report, this large landscape project relies on required pre-activity 

resource reviews, site investigations and route reviews prior to the implementation of project 

activities. Site specific locational design and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), would be 

identified at that time and to be implemented during activities. This would occur after a Decision 

for the project has been issued.

The BHRL potential Commercial Treatment Areas (CTAs), potential fuel and hazard tree 

treatment areas, prescribed burn areas, pre-commercial thin areas, pine encroachment removal 

areas, aspen regeneration areas, ponderosa pine patch cut areas, tree planting areas, mechanical 

site preparation (ponderosa pine) and potential access routes (roads) are located throughout 

various portions of the Black Hills Ecoregion and would be located on various soils. Soils of the 

BHNF (the analysis area) have generally been mapped and described at an Order 3 (USDA 

Forest Service 1991), which is the level of data generally mapped for various Forest uses, such as 

range planning (additional information on soil survey can be accessed at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262).

Background soil resource information for the Forest is available in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest

(USDA Forest Service 1996), and in the FEIS for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

Information on various specific components for Forest soil map unit resources have been and are 

periodically updated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and have become 

available to the public through a NRCS website located at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/. Hard copy issues of Black Hills 

county soil surveys have become out-of-date and generally should not be used; therefore they 

were not referenced for this project analysis.

The project activities identified in the proposed action are located within two Major Land 

Resource Areas (MLRA) of the Black Hills Ecoregion: MLRA 61 – Black Hills Footslopes and 

MLRA 62 – Black Hills (MLRA information can be accessed at http://www.cei.psu.edu/mlra/). 
Page 7 of 95

Black Hills soil resource information is publicly available for MLRA 61 and 62 and can be 

accessed through various web information sites, such as Web Soil Survey, Soil Data Viewer, 

MLRA Explorer, and other links that are available at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/. Information posted to the NRCS 

web links can be updated at any time as new information is gained about specific soils.

Map unit polygons on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil 

or miscellaneous areas (such as rock outcrops or water). A map unit is identified and named 

according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Inclusions of other soils occur 

within map units but in limited amounts (generally less than 15-20% of the soil map unit). Within 

a taxonomic class there are defined limits for the various properties of the soils. On the landscape, 

however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all 

natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed soil properties may extend beyond the 

limits defined for a specific soil taxonomic class. Based on this variability, areas of soils of a 

single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped on the landscape without including areas of 

other soil taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or 

miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic 

class other than those of the major (dominant) soils (Soil Survey Staff 2017) which can be 

accessed at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/). Polygons on a soil map 

are identified with a symbol that includes both letters and numbers. Soil survey map unit symbols 

have changed over time. Currently, symbols for soil map units included in MLRA 62 soil survey 

area begin with the letter Q (example: Q0828C). Soil survey map unit symbols in MLRA 61 

currently begin with a letter P (example: P386E). Some general information for both of the 

MLRAs is provided below:
Page 8 of 95

MLRA 61 – Black Hills Footslopes: The general geology of MLRA 61 consists of marine 

sediments older than the Cretaceous Pierre Shale on the high plains surrounding this area. 

The older rocks were brought closer to the surface during the uplift that formed the Black 

Hills. The Lower Cretaceous Fall River and Lakota (Inyan Kara Group) sandstones occur 

on the outside boundary of the area and are referred to as the Dakota Hogback. Permian 

limestone and shale of the Minnekahta limestone form the inside boundary and occur in 

the mountains of the Black Hills (MLRA 62). The Triassic red beds of the Spearfish shale 

form a low valley, the “red valley,” surrounding the Black Hills between the two ridges 

formed by the Inyan Kara and Minnekahta Formations. The red beds have gypsum and 

anhydrous layers. Ground-water seepage can dissolve these layers, creating sinkholes on 

the surface. Refer to the geology report for more information on the geology of the 

BHRL project area.

MLRA 62 – Black Hills: The core of the Black Hills is a mass of granite with steeply 

dipping metamorphic rocks, primarily slate and schist, directly surrounding it. A plateau 

of Mississippian limestone surrounds the igneous and metamorphic rock core. This 

Pahasapa (Madison) limestone is broken around the outer edges of the uplifted area. The 

Permian Minnekahta limestone forms the outermost boundary of the area. Many other 

tilted sandstone, shale, and limestone units are exposed like a bathtub ring inside the 

steeply dipping Pahasapa limestone. These older units are also exposed on the valley 

walls along the major drainages that cut through the rock layers. Refer to the geology 

report for more information on the geology of the BHRL project area. 

Soil map units located within the area designated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the 

amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA, 16 U.S.C. 6591) were identified through

Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities. Based on that process, soil map units
Page 9 of 95

occurring within the BHRL project area boundary are listed in the table below. 

Soil Map Units on National Forest System Lands within the Areas Designated by HFRA

Soil Map 

Unit 

Symbol

Soil Map Unit Name Approx. 

Acres in 

Project 

Area 

(June 2016)

P006C Alice fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 2

P010C Alice-Ucross complex, moist, 3 to 10 percent slopes 8

P010E Alice-Ucross complex, moist, 10 to 30 percent slopes 50

P030A Barnum very fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 23

P034B Barnum-Rapidcreek, warm complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, flooded 117

P040B Boneek loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 93

P054D Butche-Boneek, dry complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 67

P056F Butche-Rock outcrop complex, 9 to 60 percent slopes 4

P058C Butche-Spangler complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 103

P058E Butche-Spangler complex, 10 to 30 percent slopes 90

P080D Colby-Norka silt loams, cool, 6 to 15 percent slopes <1

P082E Colhill-Rothican complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes <1

P098E Corpening, warm-Rock outcrop-Tilford complex, 3 to 30 percent 

slopes

14

P102C Cromack-Echeta-Leiter complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes 217

P102E Cromack-Echeta-Leiter complex, 10 to 30 percent slopes 117

P128F Fairburn-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 60 percent slopes 841

P130E Fairburn-Ucross loams, 6 to 30 percent slopes 285

P136C Cromack clay loam, moist, 2 to 10 percent slopes 36

P148C Gurney, warm-Butche complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes 46

P154D Gypnevee-Rekop-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes 3370

P176C Iwait-Ucross-Ziggy loams, 2 to 10 percent slopes 7

P182A Jaywest loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes <1

P184B Kadoka loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 19
Page 10 of 95

P184C Kadoka loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 45

P188F Lakoa-Crownest complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes 507

P196B Lakoa-Recluse, moist loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes 5

P196C Lakoa-Recluse, moist loams, 6 to 10 percent slopes 17

P196E Lakoa-Recluse, moist loams, 10 to 30 percent slopes 67

P198F Larkson, dry-Lakoa loams, 10 to 60 percent slopes 875

P224F Mathias-Rockoa-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes, 

stony

326

P226E Mathias, very stony-Samsil-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30 

percent slopes

28

P244D Nevee channery loam, dry, 6 to 15 percent slopes 69

P246C Nevee silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 4

P248E Nevee silt loam, 10 to 30 percent slopes, eroded 36

P250C Nevee silt loam, dry, 2 to 9 percent slopes 1623

P252E Nevee, dry-Gullied land complex, 6 to 40 percent slopes 456

P254F Nevee-Nihill, moderately deep complex, 10 to 50 percent slopes 6

P256D Nevee-Spearfish silt loams, 6 to 20 percent slopes 3

P266E Nihill, moist-Suglo complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 15

P270F Nihill-Ziggy complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 353

P276B Norka silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 9

P284C Nuncho clay loam, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 24

P344B Rapidcreek very cobbly sandy loam, warm, 1 to 6 percent slopes, 

nonflooded

17

P352B Recluse loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 2

P354B Recluse loam, dry, 2 to 6 percent slopes 60

P358B Recluse silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 50

P362B Recluse-Hisle, deep complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes <1

P364B Recluse-Fairburn loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes 5

P364C Recluse-Fairburn loams, 6 to 10 percent slopes 59

P386E Rekop-Gypnevee, dry-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 40 percent 

slopes

2,846

P388D Rekop-Gypnevee, moderately deep-Tilford, dry complex, 6 to 15 72
Page 11 of 95

percent slopes

P396D Rock outcrop-Butche complex, 2 to 25 percent slopes 2

P398F Rock outcrop-Gypnevee, moderately deep complex, 9 to 50 percent 

slopes

249

P400G Rock outcrop-Mathias-Butche complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes, 

very stony

67

P402F Rock outcrop-Rekop complex, 40 to 60 percent slopes 424

P404G Rock outcrop-Vanocker, dry complex, 40 to 75 percent slopes 174

P408E Rockerville-Pesowyo complex, warm, 10 to 30 percent slopes <1

P410E Rockerville, warm-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 30 percent slopes 78

P412C Rockoa-Lakoa complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 102

P414E Rockoa-Lakoa-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 649

P416E Rockoa-Recluse complex, 6 to 30 percent slopes 5

P418F Rockoa, very bouldery-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 percent 

slopes

2,084

P438C Samsil-Cromack complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes 2

P438E Samsil-Cromack complex, 10 to 30 percent slopes 982

P472C Spangler-Butche complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes 82

P474C Spangler-Norka loams, 6 to 10 percent slopes 23

P476E Spearfish-Nevee silt loams, dry, 9 to 30 percent slopes 134

P480F Spearfish-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes 26

P482F Spearfish, dry-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes 55

P490B St. Onge loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 37

P504B Suglo loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes <1

P506C Suglo-Nihill complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 46

P514B Tilford silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 4

P514C Tilford silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 11

P516B Tilford silt loam, dry, 2 to 6 percent slopes 61

P516D Tilford silt loam, dry, 6 to 15 percent slopes 26

P522C Tilford, dry-Gypnevee, moderately deep complex, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

28

P524C Tilford, dry-Rockerville, warm complex, 6 to 9 percent slopes 48
Page 12 of 95

P528E Turnercrest, moist-Ucross-Sodawells, occasionally flooded 

complex, 2 to 40 percent slopes

9

P538B Vale silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 54

P546B Wages loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 9

P546C Wages loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes <1

P552E Work clay loam, 10 to 30 percent slopes 101

P558D Ziggy-Fairburn complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 350

P560D Ziggy-Nihill complex, 6 to 20 percent slopes 50

Q0001E Buska-Mocmont-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 17,057

Q0003C Mocmont gravelly loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes 452

Q0004E Mocmont-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 1,089

Q0005G Mocmont-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 8,073

Q0006E Shirttail channery loam, 10 to 40 percent slopes 2,599

Q0100C Goldmine loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes 196

Q0102E Goldmine-Goldmine, moderately deep complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

1,488

Q0104G Goldmine-Rubbleland complex, 40 to 75 percent slopes 135

Q0106E Grizzly-Grizzly, thick surface complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 2,433

Q0108E Grizzly-Mineshaft complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 5,702

Q0108G Grizzly-Mineshaft complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 5,739

Q0110E Grizzly-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 3,437

Q0110G Grizzly-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 4,197

Q0112G Grizzly-Rubbleland-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 1,540

Q0114D Grizzly-Virkula complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes 4,936

Q0114E Grizzly-Virkula complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 2,081

Q0114F Grizzly-Virkula complex, 15 to 60 percent slopes 12,013

Q0200C Bullflat, moist-Cordeston silt loams, high mica, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

286

Q0202E Buska-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 23,329

Q0203D Buska-Virkula, high mica loams, 2 to 15 percent slopes 5,902

Q0205C Cordeston loam, high mica, 2 to 10 percent slopes, flooded 2,248
Page 13 of 95

Q0206B Cordeston-Marshbrook loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes, flooded 4,054

Q0208E Heely channery loam, 10 to 40 percent slopes 2,310

Q0209D Heely-Cordeston complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 1,563

Q0211E Hilger, moist-Virkula complex, 2 to 30 percent slopes 633

Q0213G Hisega-Buska complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 4

Q0214E Hisega-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 287

Q0216B Marshbrook loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 522

Q0217C Marshbrook-Cordeston loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes, flooded 144

Q0219F Typic Udarents-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 60 percent slopes 8

Q0221F Pactola-Buska channery silt loams, 20 to 60 percent slopes 436

Q0225D Pactola-Virkula complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes, extremely 

bouldery

1,512

Q0226E Pactola-Virkula-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 102,162

Q0227E Pactola-Virkula-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes, 

extremely bouldery

1,226

Q0229C Rapidcreek very gravelly loam, noncalcareous, 1 to 9 percent 

slopes, rarely flooded

288

Q0231G Buska-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 3,486

Q0232G Pactola-Pactola, shallow-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

57,634

Q0235G Rubbleland-Pactola-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 75 percent slopes 777

Q0237F Typic Udarents, reclaimed, 3 to 60 percent slopes <1

Q0239D Virkula-Pactola complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 16,024

Q0300C Bullflat-Cordeston, dry silt loams, high mica, 2 to 9 percent slopes 903

Q0302E Buska, dry-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 16,629

Q0304D Buska-Virkula, high mica loams, dry, 2 to 15 percent slopes 10,987

Q0306C Cordeston loams, dry, high mica, 2 to 10 percent slopes, flooded 1,016

Q0307B Cordeston, dry-Marshbrook loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes, flooded 633

Q0309E Heely channery loam, dry, 9 to 30 percent slopes 1,381

Q0310D Heely-Cordeston complex, dry, 6 to 15 percent slopes 499

Q0312E Roubaix-Virkula, complex, dry, 2 to 30 percent slopes 478

Q0315E Pactola-Virkula-Rock outcrop complex, dry, 10 to 40 percent slope 25,099
Page 14 of 95

Q0317G Buska, dry-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 4,019

Q0319G Pactola-Pactola, shallow-Rock outcrop complex, dry, 40 to 80 

percent slopes

18,104

Q0322D Virkula-Pactola complex, dry, 2 to 15 percent slopes 1,136

Q0400B Crydeston silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, flooded 1,408

Q0401B Crydeston-Marshbrook, cool complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, 

flooded

740

Q0403B Gillum silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 430

Q0405D Jenksdraw-Gillum-Rockerville, cool complex, 2 to 25 percent 

slopes

2,754

Q0407C Riflepit-Stovho complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 8,457

Q0408E Riflepit-Stovho loams, 3 to 30 percent slopes 4,673

Q0409E Riflepit-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 14,129

Q0411C McCooley, cool-Riflepit complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 1,486

Q0411E McCooley, cool-Riflepit complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 723

Q0412D Pesowyo-Rockerville complex, cool, 3 to 20 percent slopes 478

Q0413C Redbird-Gillum silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 5,629

Q0414E Rockerville, cool-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 30 percent slopes 304

Q0415D Stovho silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes 8,836

Q0416C Stovho-Riflepit-Trebor complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 43,618

Q0418E Stovho-Trebor complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 126,697

Q0420G Trebor-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 20,561

Q0422C Bullflat, cool-Crydeston silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 368

Q0501B Bullflat silt loam, moist, 3 to 6 percent slopes 63

Q0501D Bullflat silt loam, moist, 6 to 15 percent slopes 18

Q0502C Bullflat, moist-Cordeston silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 1,549

Q0506D Citadel silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes 525

Q0508C Citadel-Hickok loams, 3 to 10 percent slopes 225

Q0509C Citadel-Tollflat complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 1,836

Q0510E Citadel-Tollflat-Danjay complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 10,967

Q0512C Citadel-McCooley complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 8,815
Page 15 of 95

Q0512E Citadel-McCooley complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 20,822

Q0514C Citadel-Vanocker complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 14,536

Q0516C Colhill-Rothican complex, moist, 2 to 10 percent slopes 201

Q0518B Cordeston loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes, flooded 3,241

Q0518C Cordeston loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 464

Q0519B Cordeston-Hickok loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 705

Q0520C Cordeston-Rapidcreek, rarely flooded complex, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

550

Q0528B Hilger cobbly loam, moist, 0 to 6 percent slopes 29

Q0528E Hilger cobbly loam, moist, 6 to 40 percent slopes 173

Q0530G Hopdraw-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, moist, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

1,539

Q0535C Bullflat silt loam, moist, 2 to 10 percent slopes 339

Q0538A Marshbrook silt loam, calcareous, 0 to 3 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded

67

Q0540C McCooley-Tollflat complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 2,127

Q0540F McCooley-Tollflat complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes 920

Q0551C Rockerville complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 1,377

Q0552D Rockerville-Gurney complex, moist, 2 to 15 percent slopes 628

Q0553E Rockerville, moist-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 40 percent slopes 1,037

Q0554F Rockerville, moist-Vanocker-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 60 

percent slopes

142

Q0556C Pesowyo-Rockerville complex, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 2,463

Q0556F Pesowyo-Rockerville complex, moist, 10 to 60 percent slopes 2,582

Q0560C Rapidreek gravelly loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes, rarely flooded 224

Q0562F Rock outcrop, limestone 814

Q0563G Rock outcrop-Vanocker complex, 50 to 75 percent slopes 10,432

Q0564C Hickok-Rockoa, moist complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 2,686

Q0565E Rockoa, moist-Hickok-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

2,893

Q0566F Rockoa, moist-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes 1,900

Q0568B Roubaix silt loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 565
Page 16 of 95

Q0568E Roubaix silt loam, 6 to 40 percent slopes 1,542

Q0570F Opechekahta-Citivar-Schaeferville complex, 20 to 60 percent 

slopes

1,583

Q0571E Sawdust, moist-Vanocker-Rockerville, moist complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes

3,272

Q0572D Schaeferville-Citivar silt loams, 6 to 20 percent slopes 152

Q0576C Tollflat-Vanocker complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes 638

Q0584E Vanocker-Citadel complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 58,436

Q0584F Vanocker-Citadel complex, 20 to 60 percent slopes 13,644

Q0585G Vanocker-Danjay-Hopdraw, moist complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

8,168

Q0586E Vanocker-Danjay-Tollflat complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 3,310

Q0587E Vanocker-Hickok complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 8,829

Q0588D Vanocker-Rockerville, moist complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 3,162

Q0589G Vanocker-Sawdust, moist-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

28,598

Q0590E Sawdust-Hopdraw-Rockerville complex, moist, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

390

Q0591G Sawdust, moist-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 2,236

Q0602A Barnum very fine sandy loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

155

Q0603B Barnum, cool-Rapidcreek complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

974

Q0608B Bullflat silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 444

Q0609C Bullflat-Cordeston, dry silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 2,037

Q0611C Citadel-Vanocker complex, dry, 2 to 12 percent slopes 1,275

Q0613F Colhill-Ziggy, cool complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 375

Q0615D Colnevee channery loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 74

Q0616C Colnevee silt loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 54

Q0617B Colombo loam, cool, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded <1

Q0619C Cordeston loam, dry, 2 to 10 percent slopes 66

Q0620C Cordeston-Rapidcreek, rarely flooded complex, dry, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

2,194

Q0622F Crownest-Rock outcrop complex, 9 to 60 percent slopes 161

Q0625B Sodawells fine sandy loam, cool, 0 to 4 percent slopes, rarely 25
Page 17 of 95

flooded

Q0629B Hilger cobbly loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 640

Q0629E Hilger cobbly loam, 6 to 40 percent slopes 777

Q0630E Hilger-Metre, cool complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 14

Q0632E Hilger-Virkula, dry complex, 2 to 30 percent slopes 124

Q0634G Hopdraw-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 15,907

Q0640B Norkool silt loam, dry, 2 to 6 percent slopes 9

Q0645C Rapidcreek cobbly loam, dry, 2 to 10 percent slopes, rarely flooded 406

Q0646C Rapidcreek loam, dry, 3 to 9 percent slopes, rarely flooded 19

Q0653D Crownest-Rock outcrop complex, 2 to 25 percent slopes 487

Q0655G Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 5,565

Q0657D Rockerville-Boneek, cool, complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes 300

Q0658D Rockerville-Gurney complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 15,526

Q0659E Rockerville-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 30 percent slopes 9,159

Q0660F Rockerville-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, 9 to 60 percent slopes 1,466

Q0664E Sawdust-Hopdraw-Rockerville complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 14,244

Q0665E Sawdust-Vanocker, dry-Rockerville complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

57,332

Q0668F Spearfish, cool-Rock outcrop complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes 42

Q0670B Tilford silt loam, cool, 2 to 6 percent slopes 47

Q0672C Tilford, cool-Rockerville complex, 6 to 9 percent slopes 80

Q0675E Vanocker-Citadel complex, dry, 10 to 40 percent slopes 7,285

Q0676E Vanocker-Hickok complex, dry, 10 to 40 percent slopes 5,390

Q0677D Vanocker, dry-Rockerville complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 3,617

Q0678G Vanocker, dry-Sawdust-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

15,507

Q0680D Ziggy, cool-Colhill complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes 749

Q0701F Orthents, loamy, earthen dams, 0 to 75 percent slopes <1

Q0702F Pits, quarry 197

Q0704E Udarents, abandoned gravel pits 78
Page 18 of 95

Q0705D Udarents, reclaimed gravel pits 75

Q0801B Boneek loam, cool, 2 to 6 percent slopes 85

Q0801C Boneek loam, cool, 6 to 10 percent slopes 10

Q0803E Shingle-Ucross loams, cool, 10 to 30 percent slopes 106

Q0807C Alice-Ucross complex, cool, 3 to 10 percent slopes 17

Q0808A Coaliams loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes, flooded 312

Q0811C Colsavage clay loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes 25

Q0812C Colsavage-Bahl-Leiter clay loams, cool, 6 to 10 percent slopes 93

Q0812E Colsavage-Bahl-Leiter clay loams, cool, 10 to 30 percent slopes 175

Q0813A Cordeston silt loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes, flooded 326

Q0815C Crownest-Regnaps complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 508

Q0815E Crownest-Regnaps complex, 10 to 30 percent slopes 57

Q0817A Frazerton silty clay loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded

208

Q0826C Lakoa-Crownest complex, moist, 3 to 10 percent slopes 592

Q0826F Lakoa-Crownest complex, moist, 10 to 60 percent slopes 4,665

Q0827C Lakoa-Reicess loams, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 203

Q0827E Lakoa-Reicess loams, moist, 10 to 30 percent slopes 32

Q0828C Tollflat-Hickok loams, 3 to 10 percent slopes 15,560

Q0828F Tollflat-Hickok-Vanocker complex, 10 to 60 percent slopes 36,811

Q0830C Maitland loam, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 32

Q0834B Nunnston clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 99

Q0834C Nunnston clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 60

Q0836B Nunnston loam, thick surface, 1 to 6 percent slopes 65

Q0836C Nunnston loam, thick surface, 6 to 10 percent slopes 6

Q0838B Norkool loam, moderately deep, moist, 2 to 6 percent slopes 3

Q0838C Norkool loam, moderately deep, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 19

Q0840C Regnaps-Crownest complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes 158

Q0841B Reicess loam, moist, 1 to 6 percent slopes 79

Q0842C Reicess-Shingle loams, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 63
Page 19 of 95

Q0848B Nunnston loam, moderately deep, 1 to 6 percent slopes 34

Q0852C Samsil-Gaynor complex, cool, 2 to 10 percent slopes 31

Q0852E Samsil-Gaynor complex, cool, 10 to 30 percent slopes 658

Q0854B Work clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 276

Q0854C Work clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 27

Q0854E Work clay loam, 10 to 30 percent slopes 2,353

Q0901B Boneek silt loam, moist, 2 to 6 percent slopes 30

Q0906D Colnevee-Spearfish, cool silt loams, moist, 6 to 20 percent slopes 5

Q0910E Corpening-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 30 percent slopes 310

Q0912B Norkool loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 14

Q0912C Norkool loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes 63

Q0913B Nunnston, thick surface-Cordeston loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes 46

Q0918C Rockerville-Pesowyo complex, 3 to 12 percent slopes 26

Q0918E Rockerville-Pesowyo complex, 10 to 30 percent slopes 1

Q0922B Sugakool loam, moist, 1 to 6 percent slopes 31

Q0922C Sugakool loam, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 87

Q0924C Tilford silt loam, cool, 6 to 10 percent slopes 3

Q0926G Rock outcrop-Vanocker, dry complex, 50 to 75 percent slopes 6,821

Q0928B Vassett silt loam, moist, 1 to 6 percent slopes 4

Q0928C Vassett silt loam, moist, 6 to 10 percent slopes 8

QW Water 24

Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policy, and Forest Plan Direction

The authorities governing Forest Service soil management are (USDA Forest Service 2010a):

1. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473-475). Authorizes the 

Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to govern the occupancy and use of 

National Forests and “...to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for 

the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous 

supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”
Page 20 of 95

2. Bankhead-Jones Act of 1937. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a 

program of land conservation and land utilization, in order thereby to correct 

maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion (reforestation), 

preserving natural resources, (protecting fish and wildlife, developing and protecting 

recreational facilities), mitigating floods, (preventing impairment of dams and reservoirs, 

developing energy resources), conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the 

watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety, and 

welfare.

3. The Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 

528-531). States that the National Forests are to be administered for outdoor recreation, 

range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. This Act directs the Secretary

to manage these resources in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 

American people; providing for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 

and conditions; and harmonious and coordinated management of the resources without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. Sustained yield means achieving and 

maintaining into perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of renewable 

resources without impairment of the productivity of the land. 

4. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 4321). Declares 

it is the policy of the Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which 

man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and 

other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. The Act requires 

agencies to analyze the physical, social, and economic effects associated with proposed 

plans and decisions, to consider alternatives to the action proposed, and to document the 

results of the analysis.

5. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 

(16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) (as amended by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 

1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a). States that the development and administration of the renewable 

resources of the National Forest System are to be in full accord with the concepts for 

multiple use and sustained yield of products and services as set forth in the Multiple-Use 

Sustained Yield Act of 1960. The Act requires the maintenance of productivity of the 

land and the protection and, where appropriate, improvement of the quality of the soil and 

water resources. The Act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of 

productivity must be avoided and has far-reaching implications for watershed 

management in the National Forest System.

Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2550 - Soil Management (USDA Forest Service 2010a)

The 1996 and 2005 FEIS documents to the Forest Plan, and as amended, referenced Forest 

Service Handbook 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook. The 2010 issuance of Forest Service 

Manual, Chapter 2550 - Soil Management (USDA Forest Service 2010a) specified that the older

document (FSH 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook) had been removed from the Forest 

Service directive system (no longer valid). The FSM (USDA Forest Service 2010a), which was 

accessible to the public at: 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/MISC/soil_mgmt_manual_2010/wo_2550
Page 21 of 95

.pdf specifies the use of adaptive management to design and implement land management 

activities in a manner that achieves desired soil conditions and objectives as identified in the 

applicable land management plan. The standards and guidelines in the plan are intended to 

prevent substantial and permanent damage or degradation that affects inherent ecosystem 

process. The standards and guidelines in the land management plan are to be reviewed 

periodically to determine if they are consistent with the best available science and to be revised 

as needed. Further the manual states that generally, soil management standards and guidelines 

are not applied to administrative sites or dedicated use areas (such as roads, recreation sites). 

Standards and guidelines may apply to off-site impacts related to these sites and areas.

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) (USDA Forest Service 2006)

This handbook provides direction with similar wording to Forest Plan Standard 1103 (see 

below). The following Management Measure 13: 

“Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally 

compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area (commonly a 

timber sale cutting unit, prescribed fire burn unit or an allotment pasture).”

There are design criteria identified in the WCPH that have been identified for implementation in 

attaining the management measure.

Standards, guidelines and management directives set forth in the Revised Forest Plan as amended 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a) include measures for the conservation and protection of the soil 

resource on National Forest System lands. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the soil 

resource considered applicable to the BHRL project include:

Soil Productivity

1101. When doing projects, analyze the cumulative effects of disturbances on long-term soil 

productivity. STANDARD

1102. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. 

STANDARD 

a. On soils with topsoil thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter less than 2 percent, or 

effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, retain 90 percent or more of the fine (less than 

3 inches in diameter) logging slash in the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree harvest, 

and retain 50 percent or more of such slash in the stand after each shelterwood and groupselection harvest, considering existing and projected levels of fine slash. GUIDELINE 

b. For areas adjacent to roads and trails, retain slash described in (a) at levels that meet 

guideline 4112. GUIDELINE

*Refer to the proposed Forest Plan amendment identified in Chapter Two of the BHRL 

FEIS for the above Standard.

If amended, Standard 1102 would be consistent with language found in the Regional 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) (USDA Forest Service 2006b):

Proposed Amended 1102. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and 

nutrients on all lands. On soils with surface soil (A-horizon) thinner than 1 inch, 

topsoil organic matter less than 2%, or effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, 
Page 22 of 95

retain 80-90% of the fine (less than 3 inches in diameter) post treatment logging slash 

in the stand after each clearcut and seed-tree harvest. Consider need for retention of 

coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to balance soil quality requirements and 

fuel loading concerns.

Soil Disturbance

1103. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, 

eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit. “Land treatments” are human 

actions that disturb vegetation, ground cover, or soil. “Land unit” is a mapped land type polygon 

or a mapped soil unit. STANDARD

1104. Minimize soil compaction by reducing off-road vehicle passes, by skidding on snow or 

frozen or dry soil conditions, or by off-ground logging systems. GUIDELINE

1105. Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total 

length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate. 

STANDARD

1106. Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to 

control erosion. STANDARD

Slope Stability

*The following guideline is in the existing plan soil section. However, since the time that direction 

had been identified for the 1997 Forest Plan, additional information has been obtained and 

developed, and national direction now exists for addressing slope stability as a geologic hazard 

and to be addressed by geologists. Site stability examination is no longer limited to the soil 

information listed below but is based on a wider variety of site characteristics. Refer to the BHRL

geology report and geology section of the BHRL FEIS for information and discussion of slope 

stability (also known as site stability). 

1108. Reduce resource damage and investment loss in areas that have a mass movement 

potential. GUIDELINE

a. Perform an on-site slope-stability examination on slopes over 30 percent prior to 

design of roads or activities that remove most or all of the timber canopy for the 

following areas and soils: 

1. Lakoa, Larkson, and Citadel soils found in the Bear Lodge Mountains;

2. Rockoa and Mathias soils on the Dakota Hogback; and 

3. Citadel soil found on in the northern and eastern [western] Black Hills.

b. Perform an on-site slope stability examination on slopes over 55 percent prior to 

design of roads or activities that remove most or all of the timber canopy on all other soil 

types. Limit intensive ground-disturbing activities on unstable slopes identified during 

slope-stability examinations. 

Rehabilitation and Revegetation

1109. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource 

damage. STANDARD 

1110. Initiate re-vegetation 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. On areas needing immediate establishment of vegetation, 

non-native, non-aggressive annuals (e.g., wheat, oats, rye) or sterile species may be used while 

native perennials are becoming established, or when native species are not available (e.g., during 
Page 23 of 95

drought years or years when wildfires burn large acreages in the United States). Other aggressive 

non-native perennials (e.g. smooth brome, timothy) will not be used. Seed will be tested for 

noxious weeds. If mulches are used they are to be noxious-weed free. Weed-free alfalfa seed 

may be used only when native legume seed is not available and only when there is extensive 

disturbance associated with road construction or mine reclamation where topsoil is no longer 

available. STANDARD

1111. Stabilize, scarify, or recontour temporary roads, constructed skid trails, and landings prior 

to seeding. GUIDELINE

Surface Water Runoff 

*While the following had been included in the 1997 Plan in the overall soils section these standards and 

guidelines are primarily for protecting water quantity and quality and are addressed through the Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook design criteria for projects. Water quantity and water quality conservation and 

protection are included in the project Watershed Report and the Watershed section in Chapter Three of the 

BHRL FEIS.

1112. Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit to 

prevent harmful increased runoff. STANDARD

1113. Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, 

lakes, and wetlands. STANDARD

1114. When construction of maintenance level 1 roads, temporary roads, skid trails and landings 

occur, install structures to divert runoff when needed. STANDARD

1115. When ground disturbing or vegetation management occurs, use vegetative buffer strips or 

barriers to reduce sediment. Determine buffer width between stream and roads or trails using the 

equation in Appendix J. GUIDELINE

1116. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health 

from damage by increased runoff. STANDARD

There is no specific soil resource direction included within any of the specific Management Area 

direction sections of the Forest Plan. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the conservation 

and protection of soil resource productivity apply to all of the designated management areas on 

BHNF administered land.

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

The analysis of effects for soils assumes that Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and the 

appropriate Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) Design Criteria would be 

implemented during all project activities and that site reviews would occur prior to implementation

of all BHRL project activities. This analysis discusses the expected disturbance resulting from the 

implementation of the action alternative (Alternative A) and describes expected potential effects to 

the soil resource associated with various activity disturbances. Various similar harvest system

activities and design and Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) have been implemented during 

past Forest projects. Various sites have been evaluated (monitored) although types and methods for 

the evaluations (monitoring) have changed over time. Soil monitoring has been included in Forest 

monitoring reports. The most recent Forest Plan monitoring report was issued in 2015 (USDA 

Forest Service 2015). Forest Plan monitoring reports are currently available at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5112296
Page 24 of 95

Cumulative effects for soil resources have generally been discussed in terms of the treatment 

activity areas. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) (USDA Forest Service 2010a) defines an 

activity area as a land area affected by a management activity to which soil quality standards are 

applied. An example of an activity area is a timber sale harvest unit. Per manual direction, soil 

quality standards do not apply outside of an activity area. Effects to the watershed resource as a 

whole are discussed in the Watershed Report and watershed section in Chapter Three of the 

BHRL FEIS.

The FSM (USDA Forest Service 2010a) defines soil quality guidelines in terms of detrimental 

soil disturbance which includes: compaction, rutting, displacement, severely-burned soil, surface 

erosion and soil mass movement (mass failures). It is important to consider and understand that 

not all site or soil disturbances are detrimental disturbance, or disturbances that would be to the 

level that would result in substantial soil impairment. For example, compaction of soil resources 

can occur, however soil bulk density increases associated with disturbances can occur to various 

levels which may not be at levels considered to be detrimental, or a change to that would result 

in changes to soil properties that would result in a loss of the inherent ecological capacity of 

hydrologic function of the soil resource. 

Assumptions used discussing potential disturbance associated with various activities and used in 

this analysis:

• All figures are approximate.

• Actual acres/miles implemented would depend on weather, priorities, funding and other 

factors.

• Mapped stand boundary locations are approximate. Stand delineation and structure are

subject to corrections based on field review.

• Project implementation will comply with the Forest Plan and all other relevant direction.

• Proposed activities will be implemented as designed. 

• Proposed road construction mileage is a maximum that would provide access to all 

possible SS 4A commercial treatment stands. Miles of road actually constructed will be 

less than the maximum, roughly proportional to the 4A acres actually treated. 

• Proposed non-commercial treatments will use the existing road system, as modified in 

conjunction with commercial treatments.

• Timber sales currently scheduled for sale, and those that have been sold but not yet cut, 

will occur as planned.

• Pending timber sales resulting from the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project 

(MPBRP) will commercially treat an average of approximately 40 percent of the 

Potential Treatment Area acreage within each sale boundary.

• Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2550 – Soil 

Management (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and Watershed Conservation Practices 

(FSH2509.25) will be followed.

• Design features and standard operating procedures identified to be in compliance with Forest 

Plan direction would be implemented and adequate funding would be provided for effective 

implementation.

• The implementation of the wildlife standard for retaining large woody debris (Forest Plan 

Standard 2308a) is expected to attain the Forest Plan Objective (212) of 5 to 10 tons per acre 

of large woody debris retained within activity areas.
Page 25 of 95

• If review of monitoring design criteria implementation indicated issues during 

implementation, that implementation or design criteria would be altered or adapted to address 

issues. If a soil issue was identified after implementation that actions would be identified and 

funding would be available to implement any needed rehabilitation.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B – No Action Alternative

Alternative B (No Action Alternative) provides a baseline to evaluate the effects of the action 

alternative (Alternative A). The no action alternative means that the proposed BHRL project 

wouldn’t happen, but all other ongoing and planned activities would occur. The effects on soils 

are discussed as changes over time on soil productivity. The proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102

amendment would not be happen under this alternative.

Soil Productivity

Alternative B would not result in short-term effects on the soil resource over and above the 

existing condition. No additional road construction, timber harvest, precommercial thinning, 

prescribed fire, mechanized site preparation or other activities described for the BHRL project

would disrupt natural soil processes.

Physical Soil Characteristics

Alternative B would not result in soil compaction, nutrient loss, etc. associated with any of the 

BHRL project activities. In areas where past Forest activities (such as timber management) may 

have resulted in compacted soil conditions, soil productivity would generally be expected to 

improve over time in association with natural factors of plant root growth, soil organism activity

and/or freeze-thaw events that may loosen the soil. Where needed, various intensively used 

activity sites such as landings or temporary roads may be actively scarified or ripped to reduce 

compaction levels.

Organic Matter

With implementation of Alternative B, a majority of standing dead trees remaining that were 

associated with the mountain pine beetle activity would eventually fall over and contribute 

coarse woody debris to the soil surface. Needles and branches would generally remain on the site 

and fall to the ground. Soil organisms would decompose some level of organic materials thus 

adding humus to the soil. Over time, nutrients associated with this material would become 

available for plant growth. As the ponderosa pine tree canopies close in and shade the soil 

surface, soil organism activity generally slows in association with cooler temperatures and 

decomposition rates would generally reduce to levels that allow organic matter and nutrients to 

accumulate on the soil surface. This process would continue until another major disturbance, 

such as fire or a windstorm, opens the tree canopy allowing sites to have increased temperatures 

and contribute to increase downed wood recycling processes again. 

Soil Organisms

Microorganism populations would fluctuate with the changes in the microclimate and the organic 

matter on the soil surface. These changes would be in response to the changing vegetation as a 

result of natural events such as fire, wind throw of trees and other sources of natural vegetation 

mortality. 
Page 26 of 95

Soil Erosion

Alternative B would generally be expected to result in the continuance of any current soil erosion 

to decrease as vegetation returns to soil surfaces capable of supporting vegetation that currently 

lack plant cover. Any wildfires that may occur would generally be expected to result in a shortterm localized (within the burned boundaries) increase in soil erosion. Based on recent Black 

Hills Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) assessment observations, this generally occurs 

within the first two to three years following the fire during favorable precipitation years. By three 

to five years following a wildfire, burned sites have generally revegetated to the extent that 

erosion rates have returned to general background levels. Soil erosion rates would fluctuate with 

natural changes in vegetation cover.

Mass Failures

In past projects, mass failures had been addressed within soil or watershed reports. For this 

project, mass failure (site stability) discussions are located within the Geology Specialist Report 

and Geology section of Chapter Three of the EIS.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Action Alternative – Alternative A

Soil Productivity

The following paragraphs are based on the Forest intent to maintain soil productivity while 

addressing the purpose and need of the project. The project includes alternative design, treatment 

methods and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that are expected to result in less 

disturbance to various soil resources that naturally have potential greater risks of productivity 

loss. Various project design and SOPs includes such options as operating during dry or frozen 

conditions, limiting the extent of temporary roads, skid trails and landings and rehabilitating 

those project activity features so that detrimental soil conditions do not occupy greater than 15 

percent of each activity area. 

While not on a true scale, the following visual feature provides a general comparison of BHRL

potential activities and expected potential ground disturbance based on past activity field 

observations on the BHNF. These observations are consistent with what has been documented in 

a publication by the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station for the USFS Northern Region 

(Reeves et al. 2011). In that publication, it was stated that there was a significant difference in an 

area extent of detrimental soil disturbance following timber harvest operations among ground 

based and skyline (cable logging), among harvest seasons and among National Forests. The 

frequency of detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) associated with harvest operations in the 

Northern Region followed the general trend of ground-based over that of skyline (cable). Further 

information in that document, similar to what the Black Hills has documented during monitoring 

(with the latest monitoring report available in 2015 accessible at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd475802.pdf), identified that winter 

ground-based harvest resulted in a significantly lower areal extent of DSD than summer groundbased harvest. On the Black Hills, the DSD extent (of soil bulk density increases) on sites 

sampled was also very low to not even detectable when units (primarily ponderosa pine 

vegetation sites) were harvested during dry soil moisture conditions (generally drought years) 

during the growing season (USDA Forest Service 2015, pp. 14-16). 
Page 27 of 95

The following visual feature provides a quick general overview of which BHRL project activities

would also likely have the greatest potential for detrimental soil disturbance. In association with 

the activities with the greatest potential for detrimental soil disturbance, those are the activities 

that would also be expected to have the most design and SOPs applied during implementation.

Photos displaying varying basal area retention, snags, coarse woody debris levels, piles 

where trees were processed, roads, etc.

Physical Soil Characteristics 

A primary change that can be associated with activity implementation is that of compaction (an 

increase in soil bulk density). All soils can compact. However, some soils are less likely to compact 

than others. There are soils within the project boundary activity areas with greater potential to be 

compacted to detrimental levels (or a level that would result in substantial soil impairment) if 

activities would occur when soils are wet. The following soil survey map units, listed by soil survey 

map unit symbols, have at least one of the dominant map unit components with a severe hazard 

rating for compaction. Based on a GIS query, these map units comprise approximately 688,250

acres (or approximately 92%) of the BHRL project area acres (746,200 acres).
Page 28 of 95

Major Land Resource Area 61 (Black Hills Footslopes)

*Approximately 7,105 acres

Soil Map Unit Symbol: P010C, P010E, P040B, P054D, P058C, P058E, P080D, P098E, 

P102C, P102E, P128F, P130E, P136C, P148C, P176C, P182A, P184B, P184C, P188F, 

P196B, P196C, P196E, P198F, P224F, P226E, P266E, P270F, P276B, P284C, P352B, 

P354B, P358B, P362B, P364B, P364C, P388D, P412C, P414E, P416E, P438C, P438E, 

P472C, P474C, P504B, P506C, P514B, P514C, P516B, P516D, P522C, P524C, P528E, 

P538B, P546B, P546C, P552E, P558D, P560D.

Major Land Resource Area 62 – Black Hills

*Approximately 681,145 acres

Soil Map Unit Symbol: Q0100C, Q0102E, Q0104G, Q0106E, Q0108E, Q0108G, Q0114D, 

Q0114E, Q0114F, Q0200C, Q0206B, Q0209D, Q0211E, Q0216B, Q0217C, Q0225D, 

Q0226E, Q0227E, Q0239D, Q0304D, Q0312E, Q0315E, Q0322D, Q0400B, Q0401B, 

Q0403B, Q0405D, Q0407C, Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0411E, Q0413C, Q0414E, 

Q0415D, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0422C, Q0501B, Q0501D, Q0502C, Q0506D, 

Q0508C, Q0509C, Q0510E, Q0512C, Q0512E, Q0514C, Q0518B, Q0518C, Q0519B, 

Q0520C, Q0535C, Q0538A, Q0540C, Q0540F, Q0552D, Q0568B, Q0568E, Q0570F, 

Q0572D, Q0576C, Q0584E, Q0584F, Q0586E, Q0587E, Q0608B, Q0609C, Q0613F, 

Q0617B, Q0620C, Q0625B, Q0630E, Q0632E, Q0640B, Q0657D, Q0670B, Q0675E, 

Q0676E, Q0680D, Q0801B, Q0801C, Q0803E, Q0808A, Q0811C, Q0812C, Q0812E, 

Q0815C, Q0815E, Q0817A, Q0826C, Q0826F, Q0827C, Q0827E, Q0828C, Q0828F, 

Q0830C, Q0834B, Q0834C, Q0836B, Q0836C, Q0838B, Q0838C, Q0840C, Q0841B, 

Q0842C, Q0848B, Q0852C, Q0852E, Q0854B, Q0854C, Q0854E, Q0901B, Q0912B, 

Q0912C, Q0913B, Q0922B, Q0922C, Q0924C, Q0928B, Q0928C.
Page 29 of 95

Fuel and Hazard Tree Treatments

Manual Fuel Treatments - Shaded Fuel Break Construction; Thin, Pile, and Burn 

Fuels; Scatter, Shred or Chip Fuels; Cut, Lop and Scatter Fuels 

These types of treatments generally result in little to no ground disturbance and some 

level of organic matter is generally left distributed throughout the area. At times, some

limited weight ground based equipment (such as chippers) are used with these activities 

therefore compaction that would be to that of a detrimental level is generally not 

expected. 

Prescribed Fire

Broadcast burning generally results in limited to no alterations to soil bulk density levels. 

Burning itself generally does not result in increases in bulk density levels. Holding lines 

around broadcast prescribed burns can include existing roads, the creation of burned 

black lines and lines created by dozers. Dozers are generally making one or two passes to 

create the line. In addition, prescribed broadcast burns generally occur in the fall (drier 

soil conditions) or early spring (before spring vegetation growth and soil water may be in 

a frozen condition), therefore associated activities, such as holding line creation, are 

occurring generally when conditions limit the potential for compaction. Therefore, an 

increase in bulk density levels is generally not expected or would not be expected to 

occur to a level that would be considered to be at a detrimental level with these activities.

Pile burning, manual or mechanical, is not expected to result in increases to soil bulk 

density levels. The timing and conditions for manual and mechanical pile burning 

activities generally are during the winter and when there is snow cover. Frozen conditions 

or snow cover limits the potential for increases in bulk density. Therefore, an increase in 

soil bulk density levels is generally not expected to occur with prescribed pile burning 

activities.

Manual pile burning on the Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest.

Photo taken in 2011 by Beth Steinauer.
Page 30 of 95

Enhancement of Non-pine Vegetation and Within Stand Diversity

*Removal of pine/spruce from aspen stands, regeneration of aspen stands, removal of 

pine/spruce from aspen inclusions, removal of pine from oak stands, removal of pine from 

grasslands, uneven-age individual tree selection or group selection.

Potential Commercial Methods: These would be expected to generally occur through 

ground-based equipment harvest or through cable harvest methods. Design, SOPs and 

effects discussion would be the same as those discussed the same methods under the Pine 

Structural Stage Modification section. Refer to that section of this document.

Non-Commercial Methods: A variety of non-commercial methods may be used to 

remove conifers to conserve or enhance the other vegetative type conditions. While not 

necessarily all inclusive, some methods could include Thin, Hand Pile, and Burn conifer 

materials, Scatter, Shred or Chip conifer materials or Cut, Lop and Scatter conifer 

materials. Prescribed broadcast fire can also be a useful and successful tool in the 

removal of pine from grasslands. Effects would be the same as those described for 

prescribed fire in the Fuel and Hazard Tree Treatments section. Refer to that section of 

this document.

Pine Structural Stage Modification

Overstory Removal 

Ground-Based Harvest

*Including shaded fuel break construction with commercial removal.

Ground-based harvesting would generally result in localized direct and indirect effects on 

soil physical characteristics within the boundaries of proposed activity areas (such as a 

harvest unit). Ground based systems would occur across the landscape on slopes 

generally less than 40 percent slopes. The likelihood for the greatest level of potential 

detrimental effects, including that of compaction, would be concentrated on skid trails 

and temporary roads and landings within, or associated with timber units that are treated. 

Minimizing the area occupied by landings or to reuse landings, skid trails or unauthorized 

roads are included in the project design or as SOPs to limit potential extent of detrimental 

effects. Design and SOPs such as including operating on dry or frozen conditions to 

prevent bulk density increases to a detrimental level on soils with characteristics that 

level may be more likely to occur (refer to the list of those soil map units above). Dry 

conditions are generally when soils are at moisture levels lower than what is at a field 

capacity level, below what is known as the plastic limit (USDA Forest Service 2006b). 

Rutting and puddling are most often associated with mechanical logging on soils that are 

wet, or above the plastic limit (generally when soil can be rolled into three millimeter 

threads without breaking or crumbling). By operating ground based equipment during 

low soil moisture conditions, there is the potential to limit the amount of detrimental soil 

disturbance on skid trails.

Operating equipment on slash is another SOP that is generally effective for buffering the 

effect of equipment operation on mineral soil. Thus, if harvest systems are used resulting 
Page 31 of 95

in significant slash maintenance on the skid trails during skidding operations, detrimental 

effects could be limited. Design and SOPs also include rehabilitation implementation of 

landings and skid trails (Example: USDA Forest Service 2006c, Provision BT6.63, page 

130).

Cable Timber Harvest

This type of harvest operation on any of the identified commercial treatment areas 

(generally on areas over 40% slope areas) would generally be expected to result in direct 

and indirect effects on soil physical characteristics within the localized areas that the 

method would be used. In the past on the Black Hills, it has been observed that areas of 

compaction associated with cable systems have generally been less in extent than on areas 

associated with ground-based operations, and very localized. As stated earlier, this is 

generally consistent with what has been recently documented by the USFS Rocky 

Mountain Research Station in the Northern Region Forests (Reeves et al. 2011).

Design and SOPs include implementation of rehabilitation activities at the harvest 

landings, skid trails and temporary roads (Examples: USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

WCPH Management Measure 9, Design criteria j., page 19; USDA Forest Service 2006c, 

Provision BT6.64, page 130). 

Precommercial and/or Products Other Than Logs (POL) Thin

Implementation currently generally occurs through a contract and with ground based 

equipment. In today’s market, there has become more demand for these products in the 

Black Hills area. Since ground based activity effects were discussed under Pine Structural 

Stage Modification, Ground Based Harvest it is not repeated here. Please refer to that 

section for ground based activities.

Patch Cut

Patch cuts are generally a structural stage modification cut. All trees in an area covering 

generally less than 10 acres in size are harvested (USDA Forest Service 2006a, page 

Glossary-9). The harvest basically results in a Structural Stage 1 (grass/forb) for the patch 

cut area. Patch cuts are generally created through the use of ground based equipment, 

although they may also be created through other means such as a cable type harvest.

Since ground based and cable harvest activity effects were discussed under Pine 

Structural Stage Modification, Ground Based Harvest and Cable Timber Harvest, it is not 

repeated here. Please refer to those sections in this document.

Tree Planting

*Forest Plan Management Areas 5.1, 5.4 and 5.43.

The Action Alternative identifies a maximum of 5,000 acres of tree planting. Currently, 

some level of tree planting generally occurs on an annual basis on the Forest. Tree 

planting on the Forest has been completed manually (hand planting). While uncertain, it 

is assumed that future tree planting would continue to occur manually. Planting activities 

generally occur in areas that have been affected by wildfires (such as within the Jasper 

Fire burned area). These types of treatments generally result in little to no ground 

disturbance. No compaction to that of what would be considered a detrimental level is 
Page 32 of 95

expected with this activity.

Tree planting in the Jasper Fire burned area on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Photo taken by Michael Engelhart, April 2011.

Mechanical Site Preparation

Mechanical site preparation is identified to occur in the western portion of the 

Black Hills where conditions have been reported to hinder the regeneration of 

pine to attain the minimal stocking level needed for certification identified in 

Forest Plan Standard 2416 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, page II-27). See a more 

thorough description and expected need for this activity in the Ponderosa Pine

section in Chapter Three of the BHRL FEIS.

Based on past observations by both Forest Service personnel and members of the 

public regarding soil and visual concerns with the activity, the Forest Supervisor 

that had been present at that time, had issued a memo specific to the activity 

(USDA Forest Service 2008). The memo specified that the technology and 

knowledge clearly existed at that time to assure that adequate restocking within 

five years of the final shelterwood removal cut on the BHNF could be achieved. It 

further stated that site preparation was not generally necessary to meet restocking 

requirements and only in very rare situations would site preparation be needed.

A maximum of 4,000 acres of mechanical site preparation activity has been 

identified in the BHRL project action alternative. That 4,000 acres may occur 

anywhere on an area of approximately 47,200 acres that was identified on the 

western portion of the project area along the South Dakota and Wyoming state 

border. Of those 47,200 acres, approximately 46,595 acres (or approximately 99% 

of the acres) occur on soil map units where at least one of the dominant map unit 

components is identified to a greater potential for soil compaction to potentially 

occur to that of a detrimental level when soils are wet (46,595 acres of 47,200 
Page 33 of 95

total or approximately 99% of the area).

While uncertainties exist, effects associated with mechanical site preparation 

activities are expected to be similar to those identified in the Pine Structural Stage 

Modification Ground Based Harvest section above. Design and SOPs for all 

BHRL ground based mechanical ground based project activities for soil map units 

where at least one dominant soil component has a greater likelihood for 

compaction to potentially occur to that of a detrimental level includes operating 

on those soil types only when soils are frozen or dry. By operating ground based 

equipment during low soil moisture conditions, there is the potential to limit the 

amount of detrimental soil disturbance associated with activity. Of note, is that 

mechanical site preparation is considered a post-sale activity. Sites where the 

activity would occur would already have effects to some level with ground based 

harvest activities identified in the Pine Structural Stage Modification Ground 

Based Harvest section. Therefore, mechanical site preparation effects would be 

cumulative on those specific activity areas. Depending on pre-mechanized site 

preparation reviews of the mechanical site preparation identified treatment areas, 

the implementation team may need to reduce the areal extent of the treatment 

used on a specific activity area or some other method to keep disturbances of that 

of a detrimental level at no more than 15% of the activity area.
Page 34 of 95
Page 35 of 95

Mechanical site preparation equipment that that was used post-sale on the 

McInerny Timber Sale area on the Hell Canyon District of the Black Hills National 

Forest. Photo by Blaine Cook, Forest Silviculturist, October, 1, 2015.

Equipment and example of soil effects associated with post-sale mechanical site 

preparation activity on the McInerny Timber Sale area on the Hell Canyon District 

of the Black Hills National Forest. Photo by Blaine Cook, Forest Silviculturist, 

October, 1, 2015.
Page 36 of 95

Summary: Generally, protection of the soil resource would be expected through the site 

specific or localized identified site specific design to be selected prior to implementation 

of the BHRL activities therefore any increases in soil bulk density would be expected to 

remain within the limits specified. Cable logging would generally be expected to result in 

fewer localized impacts to soil resources than ground-based harvest equipment when 

used on the appropriate slopes. Temporary roads, skid trails and landings associated with 

any of the commercial timber removal activities are to be rehabilitated. Mechanical site 

preparation, a post-sale activity to occur on previously harvested sites, is expected to 

have effects similar to that of ground based timber harvest. Very limited to no increases 

in soil bulk density is expected within the areas that have the manual treatment activities 

shaded fuel break construction; thin, pile, and burn fuels; scatter, shred or chip fuels; cut, 

lop and scatter fuels; and tree planting.

Organic Matter

As identified in Chapter 2 of the BHRL FEIS, there are a number of different project 

treatments and activities. These treatments would leave varying localized amounts of 

organic matter on the site. Reduced organic matter can be associated with potential for 

reduced soil nutrient levels.

The total amount of nutrients on a site would likely be reduced where soil organic matter 

would be removed or displaced. If some type of non-commercial treatment would be used

that retains material distributed on site, potentially pre-commercial thinning that is not 

followed by piling/burning or chipping with material that is hauled away, then soil 

productivity issues with nutrient removal would generally not be expected. Commercial 

vegetation management with ground based equipment often removes whole trees 

(including limbs and branches) from sites in order to also target the reduction of fuels in the 

stand to aid in fire suppression should a fire occur. Commercial harvest activities that 

utilizes cable logging systems may or may not remove just the larger bole stem of the tree. 

In years past, cable logging generally removed just the boles and retained non-commercial 

bole material and other tree components (branches and limbs) on site. In fuel break areas, 

this material may be hand-piled and burned (refer to Fire and Fuels section of the FEIS). In 

more recent years, many areas of cable yarding are now whole tree harvest operations with 

all material brought to landings for processing (refer to the Silviculture report or regarding 

harvest method information).

There are some soil resources with limited natural nutrient holding capacity capabilities 

and have a limited ability to naturally buffer potential productivity losses associated with 

nutrient cycling. These are generally soils with naturally limited organic matter levels in 

the soil profile, have little to no topsoil or are restricted in depth (shallow soil layers above 

bedrock). Not all soils in the Black Hills have been sampled for lab characterization and 

the NRCS has extrapolated lab results information to similar soils within the MLRAs. 

Generally, examples of some areas where soils with the features identified above are 

located are along rocky ridge tops or in the central crystalline core area of the Black Hills. 

These soils may occur as inclusions or minor components (approximately 10% or less of 

the map unit) within a number of other soil survey map units within the project area, but 
Page 37 of 95

are dominant unit components in a number of the soil map units. The proposed Forest Plan 

Standard 1102 amendment and WCPH Management Measure 14 (14.2 Design Criteria a.)

(USDA Forest Service 2006b) specify amounts of organic material to be left during timber 

production treatment activities on those managed as suitable timber lands. The proposed 

amendment of FP Standard 1102 (refer to Chapter 2 of the BHRL FEIS), would result in 

consistency between the Forest Plan and WCPH wording (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

page 26). Direction recognizes that when there are fuels loading concerns that the amount 

of slash to be retained for suitable timber land long term productivity may be adjusted.

Soils identified for slash retention on those lands suitable to be managed for timber 

production: 

• Surface soil (A horizon) thinner than 1 inch,

• Topsoil organic matter less than 2%, or

• Effective rooting depth less than 15 inches.

Soil: Pactola, shallow.

This is an example of a soil with characteristics for having limited natural nutrient 

holding capacity capabilities and a limited ability to naturally buffer potential 

productivity losses associated with nutrient cycling. This soil has a general effective 

rooting depth (total soil depth) of less than 15”.

Soil map units where the dominant soil components generally formed under a different 

vegetation condition other than ponderosa pine, such as grassland vegetation 

communities or riparian systems, and not generally considered likely to be managed for 

long term timber production were not assessed for those properties. Based on a GIS query

that did not include soil map unit acreages where dominant components were indicated to 

have formed under grassland communities or riparian systems or acreages that formed 

under grassland communities, identified approximately 556,595 acres of the remaining 

activity area which have soil map units where at least one of the dominant components 
Page 38 of 95

met one of the above three criteria.

Major Land Resource Area 61 – Black Hills Footslopes

*Approximately 635 acres.

Soil Map Unit Symbol: P188F, P408E, P410E, P524C.

Major Land Resource Area 62 – Black Hills

*Approximately 555,960 acres.

Soil Map Unit Symbol: Q0001E, Q0003C, Q0004E, Q0005G, Q0106E, Q0108E, 

Q0108G, Q0110E, Q0110G, Q0112G, Q0114D, Q0114E, Q0114F, Q0202E, 

Q0203D, Q0213G, Q0221F, Q0231G, Q0232G, Q0235G, Q0302E, Q0304D, 

Q0317G, Q0319G, Q0405D, Q0407C, Q0408E, Q0409E, Q0411C, Q0411E, 

Q0412D, Q0414E, Q0416C, Q0418E, Q0420G, Q0551C, Q0552D, Q0553E, 

Q0554F, Q0556C, Q0556F, Q0571E, Q0588D, Q0590E, Q0657D, Q0658D, 

Q0659E, Q0660F, Q0664E, Q0665E, Q0668F, Q0677D, Q0826C, Q0826F, 

Q0918C, Q0918E.

Fuel and Hazard Tree Treatments

*Mechanical and manual fuel treatments, prescribed fire and hazard tree treatments

These proposed project activities of the action alternative are not considered clear cut or 

seed tree harvests and are not subject to the slash retention direction specified in the 

proposed Forest Plan amendment to Standard 1102.

Manual Fuel Treatments 

*Shaded Fuel Break Construction; Thin, Pile, and Burn Fuels; Scatter, Shred or Chip 

Fuels; Cut, Lop and Scatter Fuels 

These proposed project activities of the action alternative are not considered clearcut or 

seed tree harvests and are not subject to the slash retention direction specified in the 

proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102 amendment.

Enhancement of Non-Pine Vegetation and Within Stand Diversity

These proposed project activities of the action alternative are not considered clearcut or 

seed tree harvests and are not subject to the slash retention direction specified in the 

proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102 amendment.

Ground-Based and Cable Timber Harvest

Design features and SOPs are identified for post treatment slash retention on potential 

treatment areas with soils with specific characteristics (limited organic matter, limited 

topsoil, and/or limited depth) to address direction specified in the proposed Forest Standard 

1102 amendment and WCPH Management Measure (14) (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

page 26). Both documents specify levels of logging slash to be retained in association with 

various harvest prescriptions. The proposed Forest Standard 1102 amendment and WCPH 
Page 39 of 95

identifies slash retention levels for clearcut and seed-tree harvests. Slash retention direction 

is for designated suitable timber production lands to provide for sustained yields of the 

timber resource into the future. The measure is to be applied to complement tree 

regeneration. Leaving dead trees and implementing the design for activities to leave the 

organic material on site (lop and scatter, etc.) would generally be expected to maintain 

nutrient cycling capabilities of those localized areas that are classified as suitable timber 

lands and to be managed to continue to produce a sustained productivity of timber into the 

future. Various soils included within the BHRL project boundary are located within soil 

survey map units on soils that formed under grassland or riparian vegetation communities. 

It is expected that pine has encroached into those areas and removal of the trees in those 

areas would generally be in areas that have not been classified as suitable for timber 

production management or to be managed for timber production. Therefore, the proposed 

Forest Standard 1102 amendment and WCPH Management Measure 14 for the retention of 

material to aid with site regeneration and seedling establishment of ponderosa pine would 

not apply to those soil map units from the standpoint of maintaining nutrient cycling for a 

sustained level of long term timber production. Therefore, those soil survey map units were 

not included in the list above. 

As stated above, proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102 amendment for slash retention 

applies to seed-tree and patch clearcut harvests. The BHRL proposed action alternative

does not include seed tree harvest. Patch clearcut harvest is a specified clearcut harvest in 

the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006a, page Glossary-9). Patch clearcut harvests are 

proposed to occur on up to 1900 acres in the BHRL project area (up to 1,300 acres in MA 

4.1 and up to 600 acres in MA 5.6). Therefore, per the proposed Forest Plan amendment, 

80-90% or more of fine slash (less than 3 inches in diameter) of the logging material in 

each stand where patch clearcut harvest is to occur is expected to be retained on the soils in 

the soil map units identified above. 

The last sentence of the proposed Forest amendment further identifies the consideration of 

retention of coarse woody debris slash (>3 inches in diameter) in each activity area to 

balance soil quality requirements and fuel loading concerns. Per this fuel loading concern 

direction, coarse woody debris slash would not be specified to be retained during harvest 

activities within areas identified as being in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Per the 

Forest Plan amendment direction, retention of coarse woody debris would be specified to

be retained in harvest activity units with low fuel loading concerns, such as in non-WUI

areas. Forest Plan Standard 2308 specifies the specific amount of coarse woody debris to be 

retained per acre during any vegetation management activity located anywhere (no 

difference between WUI or non-WUI) within ponderosa pine or white spruce sites (USDA 

Forest Service, page II-21). For more information on WUI and non-WUI refer to the Fire 

and Fuels section in Chapter 3 of the BHRL FEIS.

Ground based harvest, utilizing a whole tree harvest system, has the most potential for 

removing woody material from the site. A whole tree harvest system, removing the tree 

bole as well as the tree canopy (tops, branches, needles) generally removes the majority

of that material from the site. A whole tree harvest system is often used when there is a 

fuel loading concern. Some stumps and the below ground tree roots would still be on site 
Page 40 of 95

and provide some material for nutrient cycling in those areas. However, if a whole tree 

harvest system was desired to be used, a requirement in the harvest contract would be 

expected to include that slash would be returned to the site in order to meet the slash 

retention direction for patch clearcut units to maintain nutrient cycling capabilities on the 

specific soil map units identified. Other ground based systems that are not a whole tree 

harvest system would generally result in lop and scatter of harvest activity slash and 

would be expected to meet the slash retention direction for the patch clearcut units. Cable 

harvest systems may also be whole tree harvest or conventional (lop and scatter at the site 

of the tree). The conventional system would generally retain slash on site and the material 

would provide for nutrient cycling and would be expected to meet the Forest Plan 

amendment direction for slash retention. It would be difficult, if even possible, to return 

slash under a whole tree cable harvest system.

Summary: Generally, while effects are expected to occur, protection of the soil resource 

would generally be met through the site specific or localized identified design and SOPs to 

be selected prior to implementation. Therefore, nutrient cycling material on sites to be 

managed as suitable timber land would be expected to remain within the limits specified in 

the proposed Forest Plan amendment. A logging system that results in lop and scatter of slash 

would generally be expected to result in fewer potential localized impacts for retention of 

woody material on the soil survey map units specified than in areas that are harvested with 

whole tree harvest systems. In addition to the slash retention requirements, it is expected that 

the wildlife standard for retaining large woody debris (Forest Plan Standard 2308a) would 

occur on all treated areas and the woody debris would be well distributed throughout any 

vegetation treatment activities areas occurring in ponderosa pine identified as suitable areas 

for commercial timber production.

Soil Microorganisms

It is readily observable that there are significant levels of organic material in the BHNF

where recent mountain pine beetle mortality has occurred without fuel reduction

activities. In other areas, such as in fuel break areas or in areas where fuels have been 

treated to address public safety concerns, it is also readily observable that in many of 

those areas that surface organic materials are at limited levels. 

A variety of organic matter components of various types and size, retained or left on the 

potential commercial treatment areas would generally be expected to benefit soil 

microorganisms by providing substrate and habitat for the various species. While 

uncertain, an assumption is that during the implementation of activities and design there 

would generally be some component of both dead and live trees that are distributed 

across the landscape. In addition, in order to meet Forest Plan Standard 1103 (USDA 

Forest Service 2006a, page II-5) the potential treatments are to be implemented so that 

not more than 15 percent of the area be disturbed to a level that would be considered to 

be that of a detrimental level. There are areas that would generally be expected to be 

undisturbed by equipment. Manual fuel treatments and tree planting are generally 

expected to have the some of the least ground disturbance of the project activities. 

Applicable to all BHRL treatments, there are design and SOPs for wildlife (refer to the 
Page 41 of 95

BHRL Wildlife report) that include coarse woody debris retention (FP Guideline 2307 

and FP Standard 2308a), snag retention (FP Standards 2301a and b, 2304a, and 2305) and 

retention of a specific number of small unburned hand piles (FP Standard 3117) to 

support wildlife prey species. Implementation of those design and SOPs, as well as the 

remains of cut trees (remaining stumps and underground roots), would continue to 

provide various components of woody material for microorganism persistence.

Soil compaction and other disturbances alter conditions that can reduce the ability of soils 

to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide thus potentially affecting soil microorganism 

survival, abundance or persistence. Favorable habitat for soil organisms would generally 

be maintained because the design and SOPs that are applicable to all proposed project 

activities to limit soil disturbance to a level that is expected to meet Regional and Forest 

direction.

Fuel and Hazard Tree Treatments

*Mechanical and manual fuel treatments, prescribed fire and hazard tree treatments

In areas where this occurs, the intent is to address fuel concerns. These areas would 

generally be expected to have some of the lowest levels of surface organic substrate 

material for soil microorganisms. However, there are some trees that would still remain 

in the area that would continue to drop needles, branches, limbs, etc. that would provide 

substrate. Prescribed fire would consume some substrate. However, for all treatment 

methods, stumps and roots from removed trees would also provide some level of organic 

substrate. Wildlife direction that was mentioned above for coarse woody debris, snag 

retention and small hand pile retention is to be implemented even within fuel treatment 

activity areas and would continue to provide some level of substrate material for 

microorganisms.

Manual Fuel Treatments 

*Shaded Fuel Break Construction; Thin, Pile, and Burn Fuels; Scatter, Shred or Chip 

Fuels; Cut, Lop and Scatter Fuels 

In areas where this occurs, the intent is to address fuel concerns. Areas with thin, pile and 

burn fuels would generally be expected to have some of the lowest levels of substrate 

material for soil microorganisms. Scatter, shred or chip fuels would still have substrate 

material but would likely favor the decomposer species associated with small material 

over decomposer species associated with larger substrate materials. However, there are 

some trees that would still remain in the area that would continue to drop needles, 

branches, limbs, etc. Stumps and roots from removed trees would also provide substrate

material. The method of cut, lop and scatter fuels would generally be expected to provide 

the greatest level of substrate material available for microorganism species. Wildlife 

direction that was mentioned above for coarse woody debris, snag retention and small 

hand pile retention is to be implemented within these treatment activity areas and would 

continue to provide some level of substrate material for microorganisms.
Page 42 of 95

Enhancement of Non-pine Vegetation and Within-stand Diversity

In treatment areas where this occurs, the intent is to focus on actually enhancing 

vegetation other than ponderosa pine. It is generally expected, whether sites were treated 

through commercial or non-commercial means that some level of living and dead 

hardwood material would remain. The remaining material would continue to provide 

substrate associated with the microorganisms of those vegetative types. Similar for 

grassland situations. While uncertain, microorganisms that are associated with grassland 

vegetation communities may actually benefit from the removal of competing pine 

vegetation. Wildlife direction that was mentioned above for coarse woody debris, snag 

retention and small hand pile retention in forested systems is to be implemented within 

these treatment activity areas and would continue to provide some level of substrate that 

would contribute material to support microorganisms.

Pine Structural Stage Modification

*Overstory removal, pre-commercial and/or POL thin, patch cut.

The total amount of organic substrate of varying sizes and amounts on a site would 

generally be associated with the type of harvest system or method used (whole tree 

harvest vs. conventional) for any commercial tree removal. Conventional systems 

generally leave greater levels of material as compared to whole tree systems, therefore 

greater levels of organic substrate would generally remain for microorganisms where 

conventional systems are used. If some type of non-commercial treatment would be used

that retains material distributed on site, potentially pre-commercial thinning that is not 

followed by piling/burning or chipping with material that is hauled away, then various 

levels of substrate for micro-organisms would be retained. As identified above, there are 

still wildlife standards to be met during activity implementation for coarse woody debris, 

snag retention and hand piles that would provide organic substrate. Remaining stumps 

and roots would also continue to provide substrate.

*Tree planting

Tree planting activities would not be expected to reduce or increase woody substrate for 

microorganisms associated with conifer systems.

*Mechanical site preparation

Mechanical treatments are used to remove or reduce the amount of live and dead 

vegetation on site to meet management objectives, such as site preparation for 

reforestation (USDA Forest Service 2012, p. 138). Uncertainties exist as to the level 

mechanical site preparation activities could potentially be expected to remove or reduce 

organic substrates supporting microorganisms associated with conifer systems. Site 

preparation would be expected to result in alterations to the organic substrates that occur 

at sites, such as potentially reducing larger woody material (logs or limbs) to smaller 

sizes or chunks. Other altered conditions, such as creating furrows in the soil or resulting 

in increased bulk density could contribute to warming or drying of soil or resulting in 

reduced moisture availability that could result in impacts to microorganism activity levels 

or numbers.
Page 43 of 95

Summary

Because the amount of detrimental physical soil changes are to be minimized through 

implementation of design and SOPs and because some level of organic matter in various 

forms and levels are generally expected to remain within project activity sites, the soil 

microorganisms would generally be expected to have some level of nutrient availability and 

adequate site conditions to continue to exist or persist with their associated vegetation 

communities. Implementation would retain a variety of organic matter components to remain 

on sites, including living trees and other forest vegetation on forested sites. In addition, 

activities would implement actions so that the organic layer on the soil surface would be 

retained on the majority of the area, providing habitat and nutrients for soil microorganisms.

The implementation of the Forest Plan wildlife standard for retaining large woody debris (FP 

Standard 2308a) in treatment areas is expected to be implemented and that woody debris 

would be a source of material for microorganisms associated with forested communities.

Soil Erosion

Where there is greater than a low risk of soil erosion on some map units, there are design 

features and standard operating procedures that are included in the Forest Plan and the 

WCPH that are specified at the time of project implementation. Project required review 

of site conditions prior to treatment is to result in identification of the specific design or 

SOP to be used at the specific sites. Effective implementation designs and SOPs are

generally expected to limit erosion to acceptable limits that would not result in substantial 

impairment of the soil resources within the activity area (Examples: USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, WCPH Management Measure 12, Design Criteria a-d, pp. 23 and 24; 

USDA Forest Service 2006c, Timber Sale Contract Provision BT6.6. page 129). 

Sediment from the designated permanent transportation system (with associated cut and 

fill and adjacent parking or pull out features, etc.) can have direct and indirect effects on 

water quality through sedimentation, but is not a component of the soil quality 

assessment process. Refer to the sedimentation effects discussion Watershed section of 

Chapter Three of the BHRL FEIS.

As can be expected, the erosion hazard rating for soils is strongly influenced by slope

steepness. The erosion hazard ratings for soils within potential treatment areas were 

obtained by accessing the NRCS Web Soil Survey site and selecting FOR – Potential 

Erosion Hazard (Off-Road/Off Trail) (Soil Survey Staff 2017 accessed at 

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. The ratings in this 

interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after 

disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. The ratings are based on slope and soil 

erosion factor K (susceptibility of soil to erosion and the amount and rate of runoff). The 

soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 

percent of the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of 

disturbance. The hazard is described as "slight," "moderate," "severe," or "very severe." 

A rating of "slight" indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; 

"moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may 

be needed; "severe" indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control 
Page 44 of 95

measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised; and "very severe" indicates 

that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are 

likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical. There are 

BHRL project potential commercial treatment units located in areas with severe and very 

severe erosion hazard ratings for soils. The following soil survey map units in each of the 

various county potential treatment areas were identified to have a least one of the 

dominant map unit components with a severe or very severe hazard rating for erosion. 

Based on a GIS query, these map units comprise approximately 177,680 acres

(approximately 24%) of the 746,200 acres of where project activities may occur.

Major Land Resource Area 61 – Black Hills Footslopes

*Approximate Acres: 5,940

Soil Map Unit Symbol: P056F, P128F, P198F, P224F, P252E, P254F, P270F, 

P398F, P400G, P402F, P404G, P418F, P480F, P482F.

Major Land Resource Area 61 – Black Hills 

*Approximate Acres: 171,740

Soil Map Unit Symbol: Q0005G, Q0104G, Q0108G, Q0110E, Q0110G Q0112G, 

Q0114F, Q0213G, Q0231G, Q0232G, Q235G, Q0317G, Q0319G, Q0420G, 

Q0530G, Q0540F, Q0554F, Q0556F, Q0563G, Q0566F, Q0570F, Q0584F, 

Q0585G, Q0589G, Q0591G, Q0613F, Q0634G, Q0655G, Q0660F, Q0668F, 

Q0678G, Q0826F, Q0926G.

Most dominant soils within the soil map units identified with a severe or very severe 

erosion hazard rating are located on slopes over 40%. The action alternative would result 

in implementing Forest direction and SOPs specific to the sites to address the hazards. 

Standard SOPs generally include not using ground based mechanized harvest equipment 

on sustained areas over 40%. Cable harvest, as well as the other activities with a 

generally lower potential for disturbance have been specified for those areas. Another 

SOP is to avoid activities on portions of units with slopes over 40%.

Rather than include a list of all of the soil map units with a dominant map unit component 

with a moderate erosion hazard as compared to those with slight hazards for erosion, a 

generalization is provided here. In general, dominant soil survey map unit components on 

slopes of 15 to 40% are identified as having a moderate hazard rating for potential 

erosion. Soils on slopes below 15% are generally identified to have a slight hazard for 

potential erosion. Examples of site characteristics that can influence those slope 

percentage breaks can include the amount of surface rock a site has or if there may be a 

significant amount of mica in the soil.
Page 45 of 95

Above: Series of photos showing the progression of understory vegetation 

establishment following ground based harvest operations. Photos from the 

Dark Canyon area (eastern side of the Black Hills) taken by personnel from 

the Rocky Mountain Research Station Rapid City Forest and Grassland 

Research Laboratory.

Ground-Based Harvest

*Including shaded fuel break construction with commercial removal.

Ground-based harvesting would generally result in localized direct and indirect soil 

erosion effects within the boundaries of treatment activity areas. Ground based systems 

would generally occur across the landscape on areas with generally less than 40 percent 

slopes. Soils on slopes between 15% and 40% have greater potential for erosion 

(moderate erosion hazard) to occur to a level that could be detrimental than soils on 

slopes below 15% (generally an erosion hazard of slight). The likelihood for the most 

potential detrimental effects would be concentrated on skid trails and temporary roads 

associated with timber units where trees are removed. Minimizing the area occupied by 

skid trails or to use unauthorized roads are a part of SOPs to limit potential likelihood and 

extent of detrimental effects. Basic SOPs also includes operating during dry or frozen soil 

conditions, or when a foot of packed snow is present on soils with a greater likelihood for 
Page 46 of 95

the potential of compaction to that of a detrimental level (refer to the list of those soil 

map units in the Physical Soil Characteristics section). This SOP is also beneficial from 

the standpoint of limiting the effects of soil erosion. Operating in the winter when the 

ground is frozen or when there is snow pack generally limits ground disturbance potential

thereby resulting in a level of vegetation to protect against erosion. 

Operating on slash is generally effective for buffering the effect of equipment operation 

on mineral soil. Thus if systems are used that results in significant slash being maintained 

on the skid trails, detrimental effects could be limited. 

Management activities that implement SOPs for retention or placement of organic matter 

components on the soil surface would be expected to keep soil erosion to levels not 

considered to be detrimental.

Refer to the Timber Sale Contract, Division B which includes SOPs (contract provisions) 

used for keeping erosion within acceptable limits (USDA Forest Service 2006c).

Cable Timber Harvest

Cable harvest is generally expected to result in limited potential for erosion. Cable 

harvest has changed over the years. A number of years ago, most of the tops and slash 

were left on site and only the bole of the tree was suspended by cable to the landing. In 

the last several years this has changed on many areas and has become more of a whole 

tree system where all of the tree is cabled to the landings (refer to the Silviculture report 

or ponderosa pine section in Chapter Three of the BHRL FEIS regarding various harvest 

systems or methods that may be used). Ground disturbance, except at landings and roads, 

has generally been more limited with this type of harvest as compared to past ground 

based systems. In addition to disturbance associated with landings and temporary roads, 

there may occasionally be a landscape feature, such as a rise or a knob, which would be

scraped by the base of suspended logs that would result in exposed mineral soil. Potential 

areas of erosion associated with cable harvest is generally expected to be localized in 

association with temporary roads and landings or as described with a landscape feature. 

There are timber contract SOPs (provisions) for required implementation of erosion 

control (USDA Forest Service 2006c).

Manual Fuel Treatments 

*Such as thin, pile and burn fuels; scatter, shred or chip fuels; cut, lop and scatter 

fuels.

Soil erosion would generally be limited, if any, as a result of these types of treatments 

since there is limited ground disturbance expected. Thinned woody material would 

generally add cover to the soil surface, contributing to ground cover conditions that limit

the potential risk of erosion. Hand piling activities would generally not be expected to 

increase risk of soil erosion since there are low levels of surface soil disturbance 

associated with those activities. Hand piles for burning are generally small (generally less 

than 20 feet in diameter) and scattered across units with expanses of vegetated areas in 

between. Associated with their size, small piles generally have limited to no issues with 
Page 47 of 95

soil heating and have been observed to generally revegetate within two to three years of 

when they were burned.

*Prescribed Fire

Depending on various conditions at the time of burn, such as types, levels and moisture 

of fuels, climatic conditions, soil moisture conditions, etc. at the time of implementation, 

broadcast burning can result in the consumption of fuels to expose the soil mineral 

surface. However, prescribed fire burn plans are prepared that specify SOPs for 

implementation that address many of those conditions and broadcast burns are specified 

to only take place when various conditions are met so that conservation or protection of 

various resources, such as soils are provided for. The photo comparison below provides 

an example of a prescribed broadcast burn that had some larger fuels that contributed to a 

longer burning residence time on some microsites. The longer burning residence time

resulted in some exposed areas of mineral soil. However, note remaining fuels and intact 

vegetative material remaining. The photo is an example of what has generally been 

experienced on prescribed burns in the Black Hills. A mosaic of remaining material and 

live plants along with seeds available in the soil seed bank contributes to the area being 

able to resist erosion and to revegetate during the growing season.

The following photo shows the vegetation growth that was present following a single 

growing season on the Norbeck Section 2 prescribed broadcast burn area. 
Page 48 of 95

Norbeck Section 2 Prescribed Burn Photo Point #4. Photo Taken One Year Post 

Burn (October 27, 2015). Prescribed Fire Implemented October 20 and 21, 2014.

As had been described in an earlier portion of this document, some of the holding lines 

around a prescribed broadcast fire area are created through the use of dozers. Dozers 

generally make one to two passes to create the holding line. In addition, prescribed 

broadcast burns generally occur in the fall (drier soil conditions) or early spring (before 

spring vegetation growth and soil water is generally in a frozen state). An SOP generally 

identified in prescribed burn plans are that mechanical lines would be rehabilitated 

following the burn, including drainage feature construction and seeding. Therefore, while 

some limited amounts of erosion may occur along the lines, rehabilitation actions, such as 

incorporating drainage features (water bars) and promoting seedling growth would 

generally be expected to keep erosion of the holding line areas to a minimum level.

Pile burning, manual or mechanical, is generally not expected to result in significant 

levels of erosion. The large mechanical landing piles associated with timber harvest are 

generally located on slopes of <15 percent. Following burning, SOPs include pile

scarification (ripping) and seeding. The timing and conditions for manual and mechanical 

pile burning activities generally are during the winter and when there is snow cover. 

Once the piles are burned, areas often receive additional snow that adds a contributing 

factor to initiating the revegetation process. Rehabilitation efforts, seeding and timing of 

burning are factors that generally contribute to limiting erosion effects.

Smaller piles (generally less than an estimated 20 feet in diameter) may be located on a 

variety of slopes. Similar to what was documented for vegetation recovery on small piles 

in Colorado (Rhoades et al. 2015), small piles in the Black Hills generally have 

vegetation cover similar to surrounding conditions within approximately two years. 

Based on what has been personally observed and in association with their small size and 

the revegetation timeframe, erosion generally is expected to be limited or non-existent at 

most sites with this BHRL activity.
Page 49 of 95

Mechanical Site Preparation

A maximum of 4,000 acres of mechanical site preparation activity has been identified in 

the project action alternative. However, those 4,000 acres have been identified to 

potentially occur anywhere on an approximate 47,200 acre area. See description and 

expected need for this activity in the ponderosa pine section of Chapter Three of the 

BHRL FEIS.

As already identified in the Physical Soil Properties Section for the mechanical site 

preparation activity, past soil concerns have been expressed with this activity (USDA 

Forest Service 2008). 

Proposed mechanical site preparation activities are identified for soil map units where at 

least one of the dominant soil components has at least an erosion hazard rating of 

moderate to very severe. However, it is considered generally unlikely that site preparation 

activities would actually occur within map units Q0420G (1,740 acres), Q0585G (149 

acres) and Q589G (244 acres). These map units are identified to generally occur on 40-

80% slopes and have erosion hazard ratings of very severe. An additional 16 acres is 

mapped in soil map unit Q0584F (20-60% slopes) where at least one of the dominant 

components is rated with a severe erosion hazard. Those map units, are a combined total 

of approximately 2,149 acres (or approx. 5%) of the possible 47,200 acres where 

mechanical site preparation may occur. Even though silviculture specialists identified 

those areas as potential desired areas for where mechanical site preparation is desired it 

would seem unlikely that it would be safe to operate the specific equipment needed on 

such slopes. However, since included it is possible that that mechanical site preparation 

would occur on those slopes. Soil disturbance rapid assessment monitoring utilizing the 

USFS Soil Disturbance protocols (USDA Forest Service 2009) has not occurred specific 

to a mechanical site preparation activity area on the Forest. However, while uncertainty 

exists, the level of disturbance that could generally be expected from mechanical site 

preparation (as a follow-up disturbance to other harvest activities and potential other post 

sale activities) on such steep slopes, with the creation of the furrows and the potential for 

equipment slippage that could result in soil displacement and additional bare mineral soil 

exposure, there is potential for erosion levels on those slopes that could be considered to 

attain conditions that could contribute to effects to be considered to a detrimental level. If 

that would occur then it could result in substantial soil impairment or impacts to long 

term site productivity at those locations.

Mechanical Site Preparation Soil Map Units with an Erosion Hazard Rating of 

Moderate to Very Severe

Soil Map Unit 

Symbol Acres Erosion Hazard Rating 

Q0408E 272 Moderate

Q0409E 1,905 Moderate
Page 50 of 95

Q0418E 21,319 Moderate

Q0420G 1,740 Very Severe

Q0584E 2,988 Moderate

Q0584F 16 Severe

Q0585G 149 Very Severe

Q0586E 26 Moderate

Q0589G 244 Very Severe

For those soil map units where at least one of the dominant map unit soil components 

have a moderate soil erosion rating, it is generally expected that mechanical site 

preparation activities would result in a short term loss of effective ground cover wherever 

the disturbance occurs. However, since the issue for site regeneration seems to be with 

competitive vegetation, and based on personal observations and revegetation 

investigations associated with BMP and soil disturbance monitoring that have occurred 

on the Forest (most recently reported in USDA Forest Service 2013 and 2015) it is 

generally expected that sites would revegetate within 2-3 years following the activity. 

Limited to no soil erosion is expected for soil map units with a low soil erosion hazard 

rating (generally map units with less than 15% slopes). 

Summary

Generally, protection of the soil resource would be expected through the site specific or

localized activity design and SOPs to be selected by project watershed specialists prior to 

implementation. Any potential increases in erosion to levels defined as detrimental would 

be expected to remain within the limits specified in the WCPH and Forest Plan. Cable 

type harvest operations may generally be expected to result in potentially fewer localized 

impacts to soil resources as compared to the use of ground-based equipment when used 

on the appropriate slopes. As part of Forest SOPs and the timber sale contract provisions, 

temporary roads, skid trails and landings associated with any of the commercial timber 

removal activities are to be rehabilitated, including taking such actions as providing 

proper drainage, to place slash, or to seed such features to limit potential for erosion. 

Mechanical site preparation contracts would be expected to incorporate resource 

protection contract requirements, such as limiting activities to dry or frozen conditions, 

limit disturbance to an activity area to the minimum level to achieve the minimum 

regeneration objective or potentially operate the equipment on the contour on slopes 

above 15% slopes. Limited to no increases in erosion to a level considered to be 

detrimental is expected within the areas that have generally low ground disturbance 

activities, such as for manual fuel treatments or tree planting.

Connected Actions

*Road construction - specified; road construction – temporary; temporary roads on 

existing templates; road conversion (unclassified to system)

As discussed in earlier sections, FSM 2550 (USDA Forest Service 2010a) and the Region 

2 WCPH (USDA Forest Service 2006b) provide direction targeted at protection soil 

resources and soil productivity, which includes the inherent capacity of a soil under 
Page 51 of 95

management to generally support the growth of specified plants, plant communities or a 

sequence of plant communities. Both documents include information that the direction 

applies to areas where vegetation management prescriptions are being applied, including 

timber production sites. Both documents specify that the direction does not apply to 

administrative sites or other areas with dedicated uses such as the permanent 

transportation system (USDA Forest Service 2010a, page 14; USDA Forest Service 

2006b, page 25). This had previously been discussed in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the BHNF Travel Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2010b, pp. 

122-124). That document shared that designated use sites such as the permanent 

transportation system are dedicated to a specific management use that precludes other 

uses of the land, such as growing trees for harvest, and removes the majority of the 

productive capability of soils at the specific location where they occur. As had been 

identified in the Travel Management document, that if the permanent transportation 

system is managed to the Forest Service transportation facility standards, any indirect 

effects associated with the routes to adjacent Forest Service resources are expected to be 

very limited in spatial extent (USDA Forest Service 2010b, page 132).

Temporary roads constructed for this project are generally in association with the 

commercial harvest activities and not with the other proposed activities. Temporary roads 

that utilize existing road templates would be expected to be rehabilitated by siteappropriate combinations of project design and as required through the specific timber 

contract SOPs (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Various rehabilitation actions would 

generally include such actions as removing any installed culverts or temporary bridges, 

installing erosion control features (such as drainage features), ripping or scarifying the 

template, placing woody material on the temporary road template and/or seeding or 

planting with native plant species. If post activity evaluations or monitoring indicates that 

implementation of SOPs for the activity locations are not accomplishing resource 

objectives, additional measures are expected to be identified for implementation to 

achieve those resource objectives.

In addition, newly constructed temporary roads are also to be rehabilitated after use. 

Rehabilitation of new temporary roads would occur utilizing specific timber contract 

SOPs (USDA Forest Service 2006c) and based on site review of specific site conditions

or features. If post activity evaluations or monitoring indicates that implementation of 

SOPs for the activity locations are not accomplishing resource objectives, additional 

measures are expected to be identified for implementation to achieve those resource 

objectives. 

Rehabilitation activities would generally not ameliorate any detrimental soil impacts 

immediately, but they would be expected to improve conditions compared to not taking 

any action. The establishment of vegetation and any associated additions of organic 

matter (such as slash, wood shreds or chips) would generally contribute to the recovery of 

some level of vegetative production of the temporary road features. Any action taken to 

recontour the temporary road to that similar to the adjacent natural landscape would 

generally be expected to contribute to a more natural hydrologic function of the area and 

contribute to additional vegetation of the site. These actions would generally be expected 
Page 52 of 95

to limit effects to soil resources to some level as compared to not taking actions.

As identified in the earlier section on erosion, some level of erosion is expected from 

temporary road construction and re-construction where native material surfaces are 

exposed to rainfall impact and overland flow. These areas are expected to have short-term 

increases of erosion (above two to five tons per acre). As has been observed on the 

Forest, effects would be expected to decrease as roads are rehabilitated and revegetate 

following use. 

Cumulative Effects

Action Alternative A

The BHRL Activity Summary Table at the beginning of this document displays the maximum

acres by activity type. Anticipated miles of various types of access route construction and 

reconstruction are also displayed. Project implementation of activities would have pre-site 

reviews and implementations of activities are to be in compliance with Forest SOPs (Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, WCPH direction and project design features). Monitoring is to occur 

for implementation and effectiveness. If project design or an SOP that was implemented did not 

achieve resource objectives it is expected that it would be adjusted. An assumption, not knowing 

where a project activity is to be used, the precipitation patterns and soil moisture conditions 

present at the time of implementation, etc. is that the level of soil disturbance impacts are 

attributable to the implementation of project designs and SOPs, amount of temporary road 

construction, and how well and successfully effective the rehabilitation of those project activity 

features occur. Since many of the proposed BHRL activities are similar to those described in the 

Forest level FEIS documents, effects to soils are generally expected to be similar to those 

described in the 1997 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 1996) and Phase II Amendment 

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005). Implementing the actions as described in Chapter 2 of the 

BHRL FEIS, utilizing the Forest SOPs, monitoring and taking action to immediately adjust any 

design feature or SOP to achieve resource protection objectives would generally be expected to 

comply with soil direction in the R2 WCPH (USDA Forest Service 2006b) and the BHNF Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006a) through implementation of the action alternative. 

Contrasting Effects of Proposed Action with Past Actions

Generally, the estimated level of detrimental disturbance from this proposed project is expected 

to be similar to past Forest activities since there are similar implementation activities and similar 

design features and SOPs to be implemented during project activities to protect soil resources. 

While the purpose and need for this project is for moving landscape-level vegetation conditions 

toward objectives of the Forest Plan, the direction for maintaining or improving soil productivity 

continues to be National, Region 2 and Forest direction. While different to many projects, this 

project is similar to the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project in that site reviews for treatment 

and for specifying the design features or SOPs for the specific activity area is to occur following 

the BHRL Project decision. Whether before or after the specific project decision, site reviews for 

implementation has occurred.

Duration of Effects

Displacement and erosion that would result in the loss of topsoil, is a long-term effect and can be 
Page 53 of 95

a permanent loss of soil productivity. However, design and SOPs, such as restricting various 

activities on slopes greater than 40%, operating during dry of frozen conditions or operating over 

packed snow, etc., as well as the rehabilitation of temporary roads would be expected to protect 

areas against topsoil losses. Revegetation of sites following harvest activities in the Black Hills 

generally occurs within two to three years. This has been observed during site visits, through 

specific revegetation monitoring as documented for Forest Plan Monitoring Reports (such as in 

USDA Forest Service 2007, pp. 13-15), as a component of a more recent soil disturbance 

monitoring protocol process that is currently being used for Forest Plan monitoring reports 

(USDA Forest Service 2013, pp. 10-25; USDA Forest Service 2015, pp 11-17) and whether or 

not a site retains or grows vegetation to a level to protect water quality is part of the BMP 

monitoring that is summarized in the Forest Plan monitoring reports (most recent report with 

BMP information USDA Forest Service 2013, pp. 27-29). While the most recent monitoring 

report has the most recent information (USDA Forest Service 2015), the Forest Plan monitoring 

reports that have been posted over the years can be accessed at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5112296.

Timber harvest activity sites or post sale activity sites that have not generally revegetated in a 

two to three year time frame have generally had some other unrelated post activity disturbance 

(such as Off Highway Vehicle use activity). The 2010 Forest Travel Management Decision did

not authorize OHV use on areas other than Forest specific designated routes (USDA Forest 

Service 2010c). Therefore, it is generally expected that disturbed sites associated with BHRL

project activities would generally revegetate within the two to three year timeframe that has been 

observed and documented during past site reviews, BMP monitoring and BMP Audit reviews. 

Temporary roads and landings have been observed to take longer to revegetate, generally in 

association with increases in soil bulk densities and greater levels of multiple disturbances. 

Design and SOPs for those project features include placement of drainage features, slash 

placement and rehabilitation to limit erosion. Depending on specific site and climatic conditions, 

some level of revegetation of those features can occur as early as the two to three year time 

frame, however, revegetation to levels similar to pre-activity conditions may take up to five years 

on sites with less potential. Rehabilitation and timeframes are within those identified in the 

national and regional direction identified earlier in this report.

Uncertainties exist as to how long soil compaction to that considered to be a detrimental level 

may persist in the Black Hills. As has been documented in several Forest monitoring reports 

since 1998 (can be accessed at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5112296), 

specific soil bulk density sampling has occurred on areas of various levels of harvest activities at 

various locations within the Black Hills area. Following the issuance of the FSM 2550 (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a) soil bulk density sampling was discontinued and the monitoring utilized 

the more recently identified national agency protocol. Both types of monitoring provide evidence 

to support:

• That sampling results are generally consistent with statements made in the Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook, Chapter 10 – Management Measures and Design 

Criteria, Amendment 2509.25-2600-2 (effective 4/20/2006) and FSM 2550 (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a) regarding soil compaction. These direction documents describe
Page 54 of 95

that soil compaction is caused by the weight of vehicles and animals on the ground and 

soils compact when soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit. Consistent with both 

documents, there is evidence that soils in the Black Hills can compact when some level of 

timber harvest (or post sale activity) equipment activity occurs when some degree of 

moist to wet soil conditions exist. 

• Also consistent with the same documents, the data generally collected for sites that were 

harvested during the below average precipitation years (2000 through 2008) provided 

evidence that operating timber harvest equipment (not specific to various volumes removed 

or silviculture prescription applied) during dry soil moisture conditions can be expected to 

prevent or limit increases in soil bulk densities, or limit the likelihood for increases in soil 

bulk density effects. 

• While uncertain that soil bulk density levels would decrease or decrease as fast on every 

soil within the Black Hills, there is evidence that conditions were such that within one 

geographic area, on one type of soil, and to the depth sampled, that the mean soil bulk 

density decreased from levels above the threshold classified as “detrimental compaction” 

to levels below the threshold within the time period of one year. It is unknown what 

factors may have contributed to this level of decrease, but potentially the decrease may 

have been associated with soil moisture and temperature conditions that favored active 

freezing and thawing conditions at the site during that specific year, that the flush of 

herbaceous growth (and the associated increased root activity) that was observed on site 

may have contributed to the decline in soil bulk density levels, that water movement on 

the cutting unit slope may have influenced site conditions within the upper 10 cm 

(approx. upper 7 inches) of the soil profile, or some other unknown site characteristics. 

• A site that had been assessed in 2014 had been harvested when the ground was frozen. 

The low disturbance level (approx. 0%) observed on that unit continued to support that 

harvesting during frozen conditions generally results in limiting soil disturbances of 

attaining a level that would be considered detrimental (USDA Forest Service 2015, pp. 

14-15).

Sites that experience reductions in organic matter content are generally expected to reverse as 

vegetation establishes and growth occurs. Organic debris accumulates on the soil surface and 

plant roots establish and are decomposed in the soil. These organic materials break down and 

release nutrients and improve the quality of the soil by improving soil structure and contribute to 

reducing compacted conditions and other detrimental soil disturbances. Organic matter 

accumulation is often associated with the revegetation timelines. General disturbance of wood 

removal sites would be expected to accumulate organic debris within the two to three year time

frame. Some of those sites would have beetle killed trees associated with the recent significant 

mountain pine beetle mortality event and ground surfaces would accumulate material as needles 

and branches drop, and eventually as larger material (tree boles) fall over time. Organic matter 

accumulation on temporary roads and landings will take longer and unless slash is placed on 

those sites it is expected that it could take up to five years following final use of the temporary 

road to develop organic debris to levels to contribute to some level of improved soil structure.
Page 55 of 95

Changes in soil microorganisms are generally not expected to be permanent. Remaining tree 

stumps and below ground roots in harvested areas would remain in activity areas. Slash, chips, 

wood shreds, etc. would be retained at other locations. The greatest impact areas to soil 

microorganisms are generally at harvest landings and temporary roads. Landing and temporary 

roads SOPs include rehabilitation and revegetation recovery actions. Soil microorganism levels 

and activity would be expected to begin to increase to some level again as soon as various 

organic matter components in the soil begin increasing. This is generally expected to begin 

within two to five years after site activities have occurred.

In addition to the Forest and state monitoring (Forest Plan Monitoring and state BMP Audits) 

that had been identified previously in this document, a variety of other methods (visual and 

measured) for project analysis have been used over the years to identify soil conditions and 

revegetation within project areas to assess conditions associated with previous actions (site 

disturbance) and how sites recovered. The Forest has begun to assess locations using an agency 

approved protocol identified in FSM 2550 (USDA Forest Service 2010a) to collect soil 

disturbance information for HFRA and other timber harvest projects that have occurred

throughout the Black Hills. Various BHNF project area environmental documents have included 

soil disturbance information in the soils analyses. Generally, assessments include locating 

previously disturbed areas to identify if there were residual effects from past similar activities. 

Since 2009, project soil assessment, monitoring and observations are included in a number of 

BHNF HFRA and timber/fuels reduction related project environmental documents which are 

available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/blackhills/landmanagement/projects. The following 

is just a sampling of some soil assessment summary information from recent project analysis 

documents that are available to the public at that website location. Additional project documents 

can be reviewed at that internet location for soil monitoring and assessment information.

Vestal Project Area (southern Black Hills): Eleven (11) sites were observed. At nine (9) 

sites the R2 Soil Health Monitoring/Assessment Protocol was used and the findings were 

that all sites that were visited had Properly Functioning Soil Health Ratings. The other 

two (2) sites used the new National Soil Monitoring Protocol and detrimentally disturbed 

soil was not documented anywhere along the site transects. The areas had adequate

ground cover, infiltration was adequate and no erosion was occurring. 

Herman Project Area (northern Bearlodge): Soil disturbance surveys in this project area 

identified soil disturbance conditions that were within acceptable limits as identified per 

Regional Direction (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Site reviews conducted where recent 

land management activities and natural events had occurred identified some level of 

erosion at three percent of the surveyed points. The site reviews conducted identified that 

recent land management activities resulted in very limited detrimental compaction of 

soils.

Cold Springs Project Area (northern Black Hills): Recent monitoring of past harvest areas 

within the project area identified relatively minimal detrimental soil-disturbance impacts. 

The monitoring indicated that features were readily rehabilitated due to the local soil 

productivity and resilience of basal vegetation. This is most likely due to the 
Page 56 of 95

implementation of WCPs/BMPs and the natural aggressive revegetation of ground 

vegetation.

Rattlesnake Forest Management Project (northwestern Black Hills): Six of the seven 

stands that were evaluated in 2007 were rated as “functioning properly” for the soil 

assessment method used. One unit was rated as “at risk”; the rating due to effects from a 

2005 wildfire, which left sheet, rill, and gully networks and reduced effective ground 

cover and was also during a climatic period that was experiencing below average 

precipitation. The unit was not “at risk” because of past timber management but rather 

because of the wildfire that burned at high intensities throughout the unit. That stand was 

revisited in July 2009 (precipitation levels were closer to average conditions for the year) 

and an estimated 95 percent of the stand was densely vegetated with grasses and forbs. 

There were still areas of bare soil on steeper slopes and one distinct gully in a drainage at 

the bottom of the stand. In 2009, the site (soil) was identified to be functioning properly.

Nautilus Project (northern portion of Forest): Soil health assessments were completed in 

2008 and 2009 within the project area on stands where some forest management activity 

took place previously (i.e. disturbed areas) and in areas where no such activities have 

been documented to occur (i.e. undisturbed areas). The objective of these assessments

was to determine whether or not the Forest Plan standards and Regional WCP Handbook 

Management Measures were likely to be met if similar activities are implemented within 

the Nautilus project area. These assessments were conducted using the Draft Northern 

Region Soil Quality Monitoring Protocol that the Forest Service (Region 2) was testing. 

A total of 47 transects within the Nautilus project area were surveyed. The majority of 

points along these transects (37 transects out of 47) were rated as either undisturbed or 

lightly disturbed. Ten transects had at least one point (one transect point out of 30 points) 

that was rated as either moderately disturbed or severely disturbed. All of specific 

transect points with a disturbance rating occurred on or near a skid trail, landing or road.

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities

Most ongoing and foreseeable activities would not overlap with the action alternative in both 

time and space. Specifically, their effects do not overlap in space as they occur outside of the 

activity areas. The effects of some planned activities may overlap spatially and temporally with 

proposed activities; this may be expected to be the exception, but there is potential for some level 

of cumulative effects due to the extensive level of harvest activities that occurred through various 

project decisions associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

Combined Effects from Past, Proposed, Ongoing and Foreseeable Activities

Areas of project activities in the action alternative would have localized cumulative effects from 

the combination of past and proposed activities. Some would have few cumulative effects 

because some BHRL activity treatment areas have not had, or had limited similar activities in the 

past. Examples of these types of areas are on locations with slopes over 40%, some hardwood 

enhancement locations or pine encroachment removal sites. A number of areas may have 

cumulative effects. Examples of this are areas that had treatments to address the recent mountain 

pine beetle epidemic (over approximately the last 15-20 years) that resulted in Structural Stage 

4A. Many of those areas are now being considered for treatment in the BHRL project for 
Page 57 of 95

structural stage modification through the use of commercial timber harvest. Site reviews of 

BHRL activities are to be implemented. If it would be identified during those reviews that effects 

associated with a potential site specific BHRL activity combined with a previous project activity, 

such as previous MPBRP treatments, would likely exceed the Forest Plan Standard of 15% then 

appropriate action would be taken. Potential options would be that the BHRL activity would not 

occur or that some rehabilitation activity would be implemented to keep effects within those 

specified in the Forest Plan Standard (1103).

Post-implementation monitoring of BHRL is to be performed to identify implementation 

effectiveness and if adjustment to design or SOPs may need to occur during continuing project 

activities to continue to meet resource protection objectives. This monitoring would also 

demonstrate compliance with Forest Plan and Regional direction. For the commercial activities, 

the Sale Administrator would monitor all units during management activities to assure that 

contract harvest activities would occur as specified for a particular area and that they are 

adequate to minimize effects to the soil resource of the site.

If monitoring results document an area where detrimental soil disturbance may be in excess of 15 

percent within an activity area, design or SOPs are to be adjusted and rehabilitation and 

restoration activities would be identified and would occur to move the activity units towards 

improved soil conditions. Other units that were treated in a similar fashion would be expected to 

be reviewed at this time as well.

The project design and SOPs include restoration activities to improve soil conditions including

scarification or ripping of temporary roads, some of the more intensively used skid trails and 

landing areas with the intent to reduce soil compaction. A basic intent is to improve the potential 

for tree seedling establishment, survival and growth through restoring site conditions that support

biological processes, improved root penetration and soil drainage. Soil rehabilitation at these 

sites is not the immediate result of ripping, planting or any other activity. The goal of soil 

rehabilitation activities is to create favorable conditions for impaired soils to begin the recovery 

process.

References

Reeves, Derrick; Page-Dumroese, Deborah; Coleman, Mark. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance 

associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 12 p. Accessed online at: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp089.pdf

Rhoades, Charles C.; Fornwalt, Paula J.; Paschke, Mark W.; Shanklin, Amber; Jonas, Jayne L. 

2015. Recovery of small pile burn scars in conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 347: 180-187. Available at: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/2015/rmrs_2015_rhoades_c002.pdf.

Soil Survey Staff. 2017. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed many times between January-
Page 58 of 95

March 2017 at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

USDA Forest Service. 2015. FY2013-2014 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Black Hills 

National Forest. August 2015. Available at:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd475802.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2013. FY2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Black Hills National 

Forest. June 2013. Available at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5436659.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 

April 2012. Available at: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.p

df.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Forest Service Manual 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, 

Chapter 2550 – Soil Management. Amendment No.: 2500-2010-1. Effective Date: November 

23, 2010. Available at: 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/MISC/soil_mgmt_manual_2010/wo_2550

.pdf.

USDA Forest Service 2010b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 3: Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences. Black Hills National Forest Travel Management 

Plan. March 2010. Available at: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/41877_FSPLT1_026458.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Record of Decision. Black Hills National Forest Travel 

Management Plan. March 2010. Available at: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/41877_FSPLT1_026187.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Volume 1: Rapid 

Assessment. General Technical Report WO-82a. Available at: 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/documents/GTRs/WO_82/SoilMonProtocol_GTRWO-82a.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Black Hills National Forest Internal Memo. Subject: Site 

Preparation and SAI/KV Collections. November 24, 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Black Hills National Forest FY 2006 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. May 2007. Available at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012248.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 
Page 59 of 95

Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment. US Department of AgricultureForest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. March, 2006. Available 

online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid+STELPRDB%112B511

2303

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.25 – Watershed 

Conservation Practices Handbook. Amendment No.: 2509.25-2006-2. Rocky Mountain Region 

(Region 2), Denver, CO. Effective date May 5, 2006. 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/91137_FSPLT3_2553041.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Timber Sale Contract. Division B. Standard Provisions for Scaled 

Timber Sales. June 2006. Available at:

https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/documents/contracts/!FS-2400-6T_Division_BT_6-

06.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Black Hills National Forest 1997 Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment. US 

Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota.

October 2005. Available at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011678.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1996. (Not located online).
Page 60 of 95

Appendix A – Information Used in Identification of Soil Map Units for Soil 

Resource Concerns and Identification of BHRL Project Design and Standard 

Operating Procedures (SOP)

Soil Productivity – Nutrient Cycling

The proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102 amendment and WCPH Management Measure 14 

(Design Criteria 1.a.) provide direction to maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter 

and nutrients on Forest Service managed lands. In areas that are to continue to be managed as 

suitable timber lands into the future, both the Forest Plan and the WCPH contain direction for 

retention of some level of organic material on soils with a lower potential capability of buffering 

against a reduction in nutrients over the long term. Direction in both documents recognizes that 

consideration of slash retention may need to be balanced with high fire hazard (fuel loading 

concerns) that may need to override the slash onsite in some areas. Soil characteristics have been 

identified as: soils with surface soil (A-horizon) thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter of 

less than 2% or effective rooting depths less than 15”. To obtain the soil characteristics 

information specified, NRCS internet soil links at the through the following main site were 

reviewed: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/. 

During past NRCS soil surveys, O (organic) horizons, were described or documented above the 

soil pedon description starting point surface. At that time, the top of the soil mineral surface 

horizon was the start of the official soil pedon description. During the MLRA 62 soil survey 

update, the national direction for the soil survey soil pedon description process was changed to 

include the top of the O horizons as the starting point for pedon descriptions. It became apparent 

that this affected ratings and interpretations for various uses, has affected how soil information 

can be queried, how information can be compared, etc. Rooting depths and the soil A horizon 

depths were not difficult to obtain through the NRCS soil internet links. However, multiple links 

needed to be accessed and compared to identify topsoil (A horizon) organic matter levels for 

each of the dominant soil series components located in the numerous soil map units identified to 

occur within the BHRL project area. Organic matter levels are generally provided as a 

percentage range. If the range included 2% then it was not included in less than 2%. To identify 

soil map units with one or more of the dominant map unit components with likelihood for 

potential nutrient cycling concerns for soils identified as developing under timber (refer to NRCS 

Official Series Descriptions) the information was obtained from the publicly available online 

NRCS links (available through the main portal identified above).

Map units with dominant components of soil series identified as having formed under vegetation 

communities other than ponderosa pine, such as under grassland communities, cropland areas, 

riparian systems, etc. (refer to NRCS Official Series Descriptions) were not included for areas 

needing slash retention during harvest activities for nutrient cycling. Existing dense stands of 

ponderosa pine in these map units are generally expected to be a primary result of fire 

suppression resulting in pine having encroached into the areas. Pine stands within these soil map 

units would generally not be expected to be managed for suitable timber production, but to be 

targeted for pine encroachment removal and managed for grasslands, shrublands, etc. Therefore, 

in general, these soils and map units were not reviewed further for rooting depth, organic matter 

levels, or depth of the topsoil (A horizon).
Page 61 of 95

To comply with the proposed Forest Plan Standard 1102 amendment, 80-90% of the activity 

slash is to be retained on any seed tree or patch clearcut harvest sites that may occur on a soil 

with one of the characteristics identified above. The map units listed had at least one of the 

dominant map unit soil components with a characteristic of that identified above.

Soil Bulk Density – Soil Compaction

Forest Plan Standard 1103 and WCPH Management Measure 13 provide direction to manage 

land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, 

and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area. Soil bulk density increases (soil 

compaction) has been documented in the Black Hills on some soils (reported in a number of 

BHNF monitoring reports that can currently be accessed at

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/blackhills/landmanagement/planning). This information has been 

collected through a past process of collecting and analyzing pre- and post-harvest soil core 

samples, or most recently through the use of a more recent national USFS soil disturbance 

assessment process identified in Forest Service Manual 2500, Chapter 2550 – Soil Management, 

Amendment No. 2500-2010-1 (effective November 23, 2010).

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) internet soil links through the main site at 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/ were reviewed to identify soils that 

would be expected to have a greater likelihood for increased potential soil compaction issues.

The FOR - Soil Rutting Hazard interpretation was primarily used for soil compaction 

identification potential with a primary indicator being that of soil strength listed for the soil 

series. Specific interpretations or ratings for compaction potential or compaction resistance are

not currently an option at this time for soils in this project area. During the review of the soil 

interpretations and ratings, issues were noted. Some feature of MLRA soil information is

affecting ratings and limitations for various uses, has affected how soil information can be 

queried, how information can be compared, etc. Based on soil interpretations knowledge 

associated with personal experience from working in the Black Hills for several years, it was 

noted that a number of soils in map units that had previously been identified to have limited to no 

limitations (good bearing strength with limited to low risk of potential for deformation) are now

identified as having a severe limitation rating in the NRCS Web Soil Survey tool. Based on 

review of the website information, the rating was often based on a low strength indicator. While 

uncertain, there may be issues with organic horizon depth changes mapped in MLRA 62. 

Organic fractions are known to influence soil properties. Organic materials increases porosity 

and lower bulk density, promote water infiltration, reduces plasticity and cohesion, and increases 

the available water capacity. Soils that are very high in organic matter have poor engineering 

properties and subside upon drying. Therefore, questions have risen regarding the potential that 

existing generated interpretations may not have been adjusted to reflect the change in soil pedon 

horizon depth data documentation. Through discussions with a local NRCS soil scientist, the 

rating is also focusing on just the fine earth fraction. The modelling does not appear to be 

considering levels of rock fragments located within the soil profile. Therefore, each soil series 

within MLRAs 61 and 62 with severe ratings within the project area were reviewed against other 

information such as the percentage of the rock fragment component. The severe rating was

adjusted if there was a significant rock component at the surface and throughout the soil profile.
Page 62 of 95

To comply with Forest Plan Standard 1103, Forest Plan 1105 and WCPH Management Measure 

13, Forest Plan Guideline 1104 and design criteria from the WCPH are basic Forest SOPs to be 

implemented during project activities. Map units included were identified to have had at least 

one of the dominant map unit components with a severe limitation.

Soil Erosion

Forest Plan Standard 1103 and WCPH Management Measure 13 provide direction to manage 

land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, 

and displaced soil to no more than 15% of an activity area. NRCS internet soil information links 

through the main site at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/soils/home/ to review 

dominant component soils of soil map units to identify erosion hazard interpretations. The rating 

feature selected was Erosion Hazard (Off Road or Off Trail). The ratings in this interpretation 

indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that 

could expose the soil surface. The ratings are based on slope and soil erosion factor K (particle 

size of the soil, organic matter content, soil structure and profile permeability). The soil loss is 

generally a result of sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 percent of 

the soil surface has been exposed by an activity such as logging, grazing, mining, or other types

of disturbance. The NRCS ratings are both text and numerical. The hazard is described as 

"slight," "moderate," "severe," or "very severe." A rating of "slight" indicates that erosion is 

unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; "moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely and 

that erosion-control measures may be needed; "severe" indicates that erosion is very likely and 

that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised; and "very 

severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site 

damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical.

Soil map units with a dominant soil map unit component with a rating of severe or very severe 

have been included in the FEIS as areas were Forest SOPs are expected to be implemented to 

limit the potential for erosion to occur at a level that is considered to be detrimental as defined in 

the WCPH. This WCPH definition for detrimental erosion is: Sheet erosion – the general loss of 

soil from the soil surface: Indicators of detrimental erosion include pedestalled rocks and plants, 

deposition of soil on the uphill side of rocks and plants and/or erosion pavement; Rills and 

Gullies.
Page 63 of 95

Black Hills Resilient Landscape (BHRL) Soil Map Unit Information

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P006C Alice fine sandy loam, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

2 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

No (up to 3%)

P010C Alice-Ucross complex, 

moist, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

8 Slight Moderate/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

No (2%)

P010E Alice-Ucross complex, 

moist, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

50 Slight Moderate/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

No (2%)

P030A Barnum very fine sandy 

loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, 

rarely flooded

23 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P034B Barnum-Rapidcreek, warm 

complex, 0 to 6 percent 

slopes, flooded

117 Slight Moderate/Slight Grassland/Riparian 

- Doesn't Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

P040B Boneek loam, 2 to 6 percent 

slopes

93 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P054D Butche-Boneek, dry 

complex, 3 to 15 percent 

slopes

67 Slight Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P056F Butche-Rock outcrop 

complex, 9 to 60 percent 

slopes

4 Moderate 

to Severe

Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P058C Butche-Spangler complex, 

3 to 10 percent slopes

103 Slight Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 64 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P058E Butche-Spangler complex, 

10 to 30 percent slopes

90 Moderate Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P080D Colby-Norka silt loams, 

cool, 6 to 15 percent slopes

<1 Slight Moderate/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P082E Colhill-Rothican complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

 

<1

Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P098E Corpening, warm-Rock 

outcrop-Tilford complex, 3 

to 30 percent slopes

14 Moderate Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P102C Cromack-Echeta-Leiter 

complex, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

217 Slight Severe/Severe/Se

vere

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P102E Cromack-Echeta-Leiter 

complex, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

117 Moderate Severe/Severe/Se

vere

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P128F Fairburn-Rock outcrop 

complex, 15 to 60 percent 

slopes

841 Severe Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P130E Fairburn-Ucross loams, 6 to 

30 percent slopes

285 Moderate Severe/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P136C Cromack clay loam, moist, 

2 to 10 percent slopes

36 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P148C Gurney, warm-Butche 

complex, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

46 Slight Severe/Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 65 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P154D Gypnevee-Rekop-Rock 

outcrop complex, 6 to 15 

percent slopes

3370 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P176C Iwait-Ucross-Ziggy loams, 

2 to 10 percent slopes

7 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P182A Jaywest loam, 0 to 2 

percent slopes

<1 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P184B Kadoka loam, 1 to 6 

percent slopes

19 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P184C Kadoka loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

45 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P188F Lakoa-Crownest complex, 

10 to 60 percent slopes

507 Moderate Severe/Slight Yes (Crownest) No (~2-3") No (Up to ~2-3%

P196B Lakoa-Recluse, moist 

loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes

5 Slight Severe/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)

P196C Lakoa-Recluse, moist 

loams, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

17 Slight Severe/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)

P196E Lakoa-Recluse, moist 

loams, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

67 Moderate Severe/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)

P198F Larkson, dry-Lakoa loams, 

10 to 60 percent slopes

875 Moderate 

to Severe

Severe/Severe No No No (Up to 6%)
Page 66 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P224F Mathias-Rockoa-Rock 

outcrop complex, 25 to 60 

percent slopes, stony

326 Severe Severe/Moderate No No (>2") No (>2%)

P226E Mathias, very stonySamsil-Rock outcrop 

complex, 15 to 30 percent 

slopes

28 Moderate Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P244D Nevee channery loam, dry, 

6 to 15 percent slopes

69 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P246C Nevee silt loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

4 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P248E Nevee silt loam, 10 to 30 

percent slopes, eroded

36 Severe Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P250C Nevee silt loam, dry, 2 to 9 

percent slopes

1623 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P252E Nevee, dry-Gullied land 

complex, 6 to 40 percent 

slopes

456 Severe Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P254F Nevee-Nihill, moderately 

deep complex, 10 to 50 

percent slopes

6 Severe Slight/Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P256D Nevee-Spearfish silt loams, 

6 to 20 percent slopes

3 Moderate Slight/Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P266E Nihill, moist-Suglo 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

15 Moderate Moderate/Moder

ate To Severe

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 67 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P270F Nihill-Ziggy complex, 15 to 

50 percent slopes

353 Severe/M

oderate

Moderate/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P276B Norka silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

9 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P284C Nuncho clay loam, moist, 6 

to 10 percent slopes

24 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P344B Rapidcreek very cobbly 

sandy loam, warm, 1 to 6 

percent slopes, nonflooded

17 Slight Slight Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

P352B Recluse loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

2 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P354B Recluse loam, dry, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

60 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P358B Recluse silt loam, 3 to 6 

percent slopes

50 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P362B Recluse-Hisle, deep 

complex, 2 to 6 percent 

slopes

<1 Moderate Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P364B Recluse-Fairburn loams, 1 

to 6 percent slopes

5 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P364C Recluse-Fairburn loams, 6 

to 10 percent slopes

59 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't

Apply

P386E Rekop-Gypnevee, dry-Rock 

outcrop complex, 15 to 40 

percent slopes

2,846 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 68 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P388D Rekop-Gypnevee, 

moderately deep-Tilford, 

dry complex, 6 to 15 

percent slopes

72 Slight Slight/Slight/Sev

ere

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P396D Rock outcrop-Butche 

complex, 2 to 25 percent 

slopes

2 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P398F Rock outcrop-Gypnevee, 

moderately deep complex, 

9 to 50 percent slopes

249 Moderate/

Severe

Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P400G Rock outcrop-MathiasButche complex, 30 to 75 

percent slopes, very stony

67 Severe Moderate/Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P402F Rock outcrop-Rekop 

complex, 40 to 60 percent 

slopes

424 Severe Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P404G Rock outcrop-Vanocker, 

dry complex, 40 to 75 

percent slopes

174 Very 

Severe

Slight No No (~ 2+") No (~ 2%)

P408E Rockerville-Pesowyo 

complex, warm, 10 to 30 

percent slopes

<1 Moderate Slight/Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

P410E Rockerville, warm-Rock 

outcrop complex, 6 to 30 

percent slopes

78 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

P412C Rockoa-Lakoa complex, 3 102 Slight Moderate/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)
Page 69 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

to 12 percent slopes

P414E Rockoa-Lakoa-Rock 

outcrop complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes

649 Moderate Moderate/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)

P416E Rockoa-Recluse complex, 6 

to 30 percent slopes

5 Moderate Moderate/Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)

P418F Rockoa, very boulderyRock outcrop complex, 25 

to 60 percent slopes

2,084 Severe Moderate No No (>2") No (>2%)

P438C Samsil-Cromack complex, 

2 to 10 percent slopes

2 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P438E Samsil-Cromack complex, 

10 to 30 percent slopes

982 Moderate Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P472C Spangler-Butche complex, 

6 to 10 percent slopes

82 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P474C Spangler-Norka loams, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

23 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P476E Spearfish-Nevee silt loams, 

dry, 9 to 30 percent slopes

134 Moderate Moderate/Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P480F Spearfish-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 60 percent 

slopes

26 Severe Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P482F Spearfish, dry-Rock 

outcrop complex, 10 to 60 

percent slopes

55 Severe Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 70 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P490B St. Onge loam, 1 to 6 

percent slopes

37 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P504B Suglo loam, 2 to 6 percent 

slopes

<1 Slight Moderate to 

Severe

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P506C Suglo-Nihill complex, 3 to 

10 percent slopes

46 Slight Moderate to 

Severe/Moderate

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P514B Tilford silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

4 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P514C Tilford silt loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

11 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P516B Tilford silt loam, dry, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

61 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P516D Tilford silt loam, dry, 6 to 

15 percent slopes

26 Moderate Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P522C Tilford, dry-Gypnevee, 

moderately deep complex, 

2 to 9 percent slopes

28 Slight Severe/Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P524C Tilford, dry-Rockerville, 

warm complex, 6 to 9 

percent slopes

48 Slight Severe/Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

P528E Turnercrest, moist-UcrossSodawells, occasionally

flooded complex, 2 to 40 

percent slopes

9 Moderate Severe/Severe/Se

vere

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 71 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

P538B Vale silt loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

54 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P546B Wages loam, 1 to 6 percent 

slopes

9 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P546C Wages loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

<1 Moderate Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P552E Work clay loam, 10 to 30 

percent slopes

101 Moderate Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P558D Ziggy-Fairburn complex, 2 

to 15 percent slopes

350 Slight Severe/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

P560D Ziggy-Nihill complex, 6 to 

20 percent slopes

50 Moderate Severe/Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0001E Buska-Mocmont-Rock 

outcrop complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes

17,05

7

Moderate Slight No Yes (Buska and 

Mocmont -No A)

Yes (Buska and 

Mocmont - 0% - No 

A)

Q0003C Mocmont gravelly loam, 2 

to 12 percent slopes

452 Slight Slight No Yes (Mocmont - No 

A

Yes (Mocmont - 0% 

- No A)

Q0004E Mocmont-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

1,089 Moderate Slight No Yes (Mocmont - No 

A

Yes (Mocmont - 0% 

- No A)

Q0005G Mocmont-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

8,073 Very 

Severe

Slight No Yes (Mocmont - No 

A

Yes (Mocmont - 0% 

- No A)

Q0006E Shirttail channery loam, 10 

to 40 percent slopes

2,599 Moderate Moderate No No (~6") No (>2%)
Page 72 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0100C Goldmine loam, 3 to 12 

percent slopes

196 Slight Severe No OK (Up to 11") Approx. 2%+

Q0102E Goldmine-Goldmine, 

moderately deep complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

1,488 Moderate Severe No OK (Up to 11") Approx. 2%+

Q0104G Goldmine-Rubbleland 

complex, 40 to 75 percent 

slopes

135 Very 

Severe

Severe No OK (Up to 11") Approx. 2%+

Q0106E Grizzly-Grizzly, thick 

surface complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes

2,433 Moderate Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0108E Grizzly-Mineshaft 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

5,702 Moderate Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0108G Grizzly-Mineshaft 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

5,739 Very 

E76Severe

Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0110E Grizzly-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

3,437 Moderate/

Severe

Moderate No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0110G Grizzly-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

4,197 Very 

Severe

Moderate No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0112G Grizzly-Rubbleland-Rock 

outcrop complex, 40 to 80 

percent slopes

1,540 Very 

Severe

Moderate No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)
Page 73 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0114D Grizzly-Virkula complex, 3 

to 15 percent slopes

4,936 Slight Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0114E Grizzly-Virkula complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

2,081 Moderate Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0114F Grizzly-Virkula complex, 

15 to 60 percent slopes

12,01

3

Severe Moderate/Severe No Yes (Grizzly - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Grizzly - 0% -

no A)

Q0200C Bullflat, moist-Cordeston 

silt loams, high mica, 2 to 9 

percent slopes

286 Slight Severe Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0202E Buska-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

23,32

9

Moderate Slight No Yes (Buska- no A 

horizon)

Yes (Buska - 0% -

no A)

Q0203D Buska-Virkula, high mica 

loams, 2 to 15 percent 

slopes

5,902 Slight Slight/Moderate 

(mica)

No Yes (Buska- no A) Yes (Buska - 0% -

no A)

Q0205C Cordeston loam, high mica, 

2 to 10 percent slopes, 

flooded

2,248 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0206B Cordeston-Marshbrook 

loams, 0 to 6 percent 

slopes, flooded

4,054 Slight Severe No Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0208E Heely channery loam, 10 to 

40 percent slopes

2,310 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0209D Heely-Cordeston complex, 

2 to 15 percent slopes

1,563 Slight Slight/Severe Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 74 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0211E Hilger, moist-Virkula 

complex, 2 to 30 percent 

slopes

633 Moderate/

Slight

Slight/Severe No No (~ 1") No (>2")

Q0213G Hisega-Buska complex, 40 

to 80 percent slopes

4 Very 

Severe

Slight No Yes (Buska- no A 

horizon)

Yes (Buska - 0% -

no A)

Q0214E Hisega-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

287 Moderate Slight No OK (4") No (Up to 4%)

Q0216B Marshbrook loam, 0 to 4 

percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded

522 Slight Severe Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0217C Marshbrook-Cordeston 

loams, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes, flooded

144 Slight Severe Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0219F Typic Udarents-Rock 

outcrop complex, 6 to 60 

percent slopes

8 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0221F Pactola-Buska channery silt 

loams, 20 to 60 percent 

slopes

436 Slight Slight/Moderate 

(mica)

No Yes (Buska- no A 

horizon)

Yes (Buska - 0% -

no A)

Q0225D Pactola-Virkula complex, 2 

to 15 percent slopes, 

extremely bouldery

1,512 Slight Slight/Severe No No (2 and 1") No (>2")

Q0226E Pactola-Virkula-Rock 

outcrop complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes

102,1

62

Moderate Slight/Severe No No (2 and 1") No (>2")
Page 75 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0227E Pactola-Virkula-Rock 

outcrop complex, 10 to 40 

percent slopes, extremely 

bouldery

1,226 Moderate Slight/Severe No No (2 and 1") No (>2")

Q0229C Rapidcreek very gravelly 

loam, noncalcareous, 1 to 9 

percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

288 Slight Slight Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

No (2%)

Q0231G Buska-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

3,486 Very 

Severe

Slight No Yes (Buska- no A 

horizon)

Yes (Buska - 0% -

no A)

Q0232G Pactola-Pactola, shallowRock outcrop complex, 40 

to 80 percent slopes

57,63

4

Very 

Severe

Slight Yes (Pactola, 

shallow)

No (2") No (>2")

Q0235G Rubbleland-Pactola-Rock 

outcrop complex, 40 to 75 

percent slopes

777 Very 

Severe

Slight Yes (Pactola, 

shallow)

No (2") No (>2")

Q0237F Typic Udarents, reclaimed, 

3 to 60 percent slopes

<1 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0239D Virkula-Pactola complex, 2 

to 15 percent slopes

16,02

4

Slight Severe/Slight No No (1 and 2") No (>2")

Q0300C Bullflat-Cordeston, dry silt 

loams, high mica, 2 to 9 

percent slopes

903 Slight Moderate Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0302E Buska, dry-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

16,62

9

Moderate Slight No Yes (Buska) Yes (Buska - 0% -

No A)
Page 76 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0304D Buska-Virkula, high mica 

loams, dry, 2 to 15 percent 

slopes

10,98

7

Slight Slight/Severe 

(Virkula)

No Yes (Buska) Yes (Buska - 0% -

No A)

Q0306C Cordeston loams, dry, high 

mica, 2 to 10 percent 

slopes, flooded

1,016 Slight Moderate Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0307B Cordeston, dry-Marshbrook 

loams, 0 to 6 percent 

slopes, flooded

633 Slight Moderate Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0309E Heely channery loam, dry, 

9 to 30 percent slopes

1,381 Moderate Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0310D Heely-Cordeston complex, 

dry, 6 to 15 percent slopes

499 Slight Slight/Moderate 

(Cord.)

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0312E Roubaix-Virkula, complex, 

dry, 2 to 30 percent slopes

478 Moderate Slight/Severe 

(Virkula)

No No (1" No (~2%+)

Q0315E Pactola-Virkula-Rock 

outcrop complex, dry, 10 to 

40 percent slopes

25,09

9

Moderate Slight/Severe 

(Virkula)

No No (2 and 1") No (>2")

Q0317G Buska, dry-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

4,019 Severe Slight No Yes (Buska) Yes (Buska - 0% -

No A)

Q0319G Pactola-Pactola, shallowRock outcrop complex, dry, 

40 to 80 percent slopes

18,10

4

Very 

Severe

Slight Yes (Pactola, 

shallow)

No No (~2%)

Q0322D Virkula-Pactola complex, 

dry, 2 to 15 percent slopes

1,136 Slight Severe/Slight No No No (~2%)
Page 77 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0400B Crydeston silt loam, 0 to 6 

percent slopes, flooded

1,408 Slight Severe To 

Moderate

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0401B Crydeston-Marshbrook, 

cool complex, 0 to 6 

percent slopes, flooded

740 Slight Severe Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Q0403B Gillum silt loam, 0 to 6 

percent slopes

430 Slight Severe No No - 10" No (>2%)

Q0405D Jenksdraw-GillumRockerville, cool complex, 

2 to 25 percent slopes

2,754 Slight Severe/Severe/Sli

ght

Yes (Rockerville) No (>7") No (~2%+)

Q0407C Riflepit-Stovho complex, 2 

to 12 percent slopes

8,457 Slight Severe No Yes (Riflepit - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Riflepit - 0% -

no A)

Q0408E Riflepit-Stovho loams, 3 to 

30 percent slopes

4,673 Moderate Severe No Yes (Riflepit - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Riflepit - 0% -

no A)

Q0409E Riflepit-Trebor complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

14,12

9

Moderate Severe No Yes (Riflepit - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Riflepit - 0% -

no A)

Q0411C McCooley, cool-Riflepit 

complex, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

1,486 Slight Moderate/Severe No Yes (Riflepit - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Riflepit - 0% -

no A)

Q0411E McCooley, cool-Riflepit 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

723 Moderate Moderate/Severe No Yes (Riflepit - no A 

horizon)

Yes (Riflepit - 0% -

no A)

Q0412D Pesowyo-Rockerville 

complex, cool, 3 to 20 

percent slopes

478 Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (~6+") Yes (Pesowyo 0.5-

1%)
Page 78 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0413C Redbird-Gillum silt loams, 

2 to 9 percent slopes

5,629 Slight Severe No No (7-10") No (>2%)

Q0414E Rockerville, cool-Rock 

outcrop complex, 6 to 30 

percent slopes

304 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville, 

cool)

No No (>2%)

Q0415D Stovho silt loam, 2 to 15 

percent slopes

8,836 Slight Severe No No (~3") No (~2%+)

Q0416C Stovho-Riflepit-Trebor 

complex, 2 to 12 percent 

slopes

43,61

8

Slight Severe No Yes (Riflepit -No A) Yes (Riflepit)

Q0418E Stovho-Trebor complex, 10 

to 40 percent slopes

126,6

97

Moderate Severe No Yes (Trebor - No O 

Horizon)

Yes (Trebor - 0% -

No A)

Q0420G Trebor-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

20,56

1

Very 

Severe

Severe No Yes (Trebor - No O 

Horizon)

Yes (Trebor - 0% -

No A)

Q0422C Bullflat, cool-Crydeston silt 

loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes

368 Slight Severe Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Q0501B Bullflat silt loam, moist, 3 

to 6 percent slopes

63 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0501D Bullflat silt loam, moist, 6 

to 15 percent slopes

18 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0502C Bullflat, moist-Cordeston 

silt loams, 2 to 9 percent 

slopes

1,549 Slight Severe Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils and Riparian -

Doesn’t Apply
Page 79 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0506D Citadel silt loam, 2 to 15 

percent slopes

525 Slight Severe No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0508C Citadel-Hickok loams, 3 to 

10 percent slopes

225 Slight Severe No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0509C Citadel-Tollflat complex, 2 

to 12 percent slopes

1,836 Slight Severe No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0510E Citadel-Tollflat-Danjay 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

10,96

7

Moderate Severe/Moderate No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0512C Citadel-McCooley 

complex, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

8,815 Slight Severe/Moderate No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0512E Citadel-McCooley 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

20,82

2

Moderate Severe/Moderate No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0514C Citadel-Vanocker complex,

2 to 12 percent slopes

14,53

6

Slight Severe/Slight No No No (~2%)

Q0516C Colhill-Rothican complex, 

moist, 2 to 10 percent 

slopes

201 Slight Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0518B Cordeston loam, 1 to 6 

percent slopes, flooded

3,241 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0518C Cordeston loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

464 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0519B Cordeston-Hickok loams, 2 

to 6 percent slopes

705 Slight Severe No No (>2") No (>2%)
Page 80 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0520C Cordeston-Rapidcreek, 

rarely flooded complex, 2 

to 9 percent slopes

550 Slight Severe/Slight Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Q0528B Hilger cobbly loam, moist, 

0 to 6 percent slopes

29 Moderate Slight No Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0528E Hilger cobbly loam, moist, 

6 to 40 percent slopes

173 Moderate Slight No Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0530G Hopdraw-Sawdust-Rock 

outcrop complex, moist, 40 

to 80 percent slopes

1,539 Very 

Severe

Slight No No No (>2%)

Q0535C Bullflat silt loam, moist, 2 

to 10 percent slopes

339 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0538A Marshbrook silt loam, 

calcareous, 0 to 3 percent 

slopes, occasionally 

flooded

67 Slight Severe Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0540C McCooley-Tollflat 

complex, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

2,127 Slight Moderate/Severe No No (>2") No (~2%)

Q0540F McCooley-Tollflat 

complex, 10 to 60 percent 

slopes

920 Moderate/

Severe

Moderate/Severe No No (>2") No (~2%)

Q0551C Rockerville complex, 2 to 

12 percent slopes

1,377 Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0552D Rockerville-Gurney 

complex, moist, 2 to 15 

percent slopes

628 Slight Slight/Severe Yes (Rockerville) No No (>2%)
Page 81 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0553E Rockerville, moist-Rock 

outcrop complex, 6 to 40 

percent slopes

1,037 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0554F Rockerville, moistVanocker-Rock outcrop 

complex, 10 to 60 percent 

slopes

142 Severe Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0556C Pesowyo-Rockerville 

complex, moist, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

2,463 Slight Slight/Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0556F Pesowyo-Rockerville 

complex, moist, 10 to 60 

percent slopes

2,582 Moderate 

to Severe

Slight/Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0560C Rapidreek gravelly loam, 2 

to 10 percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

224 Slight Slight Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0562F Rock outcrop, limestone 814 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0563G Rock outcrop-Vanocker 

complex, 50 to 75 percent 

slopes

10,43

2

Severe Slight No No No (~2%)

Q0564C Hickok-Rockoa, moist 

complex, 3 to 12 percent 

slopes

2,686 Slight Moderate No No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0565E Rockoa, moist-HickokRock outcrop complex, 10 

to 40 percent slopes

2,893 Moderate Moderate No No (>2") No (>2%)
Page 82 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0566F Rockoa, moist-Rock 

outcrop complex, 25 to 60 

percent slopes

1,900 Severe Moderate No No (>2") No (>2%)

Q0568B Roubaix silt loam, 0 to 6 

percent slopes

565 Moderate Severe No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0568E Roubaix silt loam, 6 to 40 

percent slopes

1,542 Moderate Severe No No (>2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0570F Opechekahta-CitivarSchaeferville complex, 20 

to 60 percent slopes

1,583 Severe Moderate/Severe/

Moderate

No No (>1") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0571E Sawdust, moist-VanockerRockerville, moist 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

3,272 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No (~2%)

Q0572D Schaeferville-Citivar silt 

loams, 6 to 20 percent 

slopes

152 Moderate/

Slight

Moderate/Severe No No (>1") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0576C Tollflat-Vanocker complex, 

2 to 12 percent slopes

638 Slight Severe/Slight No No No (Up to 2%+)

Q0584E Vanocker-Citadel complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

58,43

6

Moderate Slight/Severe No No No (>2%)

Q0584F Vanocker-Citadel complex, 

20 to 60 percent slopes

13,64

4

Severe/M

oderate

Slight/Severe No No (~2") No (>2%)

Q0585G Vanocker-DanjayHopdraw, moist complex, 

40 to 80 percent slopes

8,168 Very 

Severe/Se

vere

Slight No No (~ 2+") No (Up to 2%)
Page 83 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0586E Vanocker-Danjay-Tollflat 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

3,310 Moderate Slight/Severe No No (~ 2+") No (Up to 2%)

Q0587E Vanocker-Hickok complex, 

10 to 40 percent slopes

8,829 Moderate Slight/Severe No No No (~2%)

Q0588D Vanocker-Rockerville, 

moist complex, 2 to 15 

percent slopes

3,162 Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No (~2%)

Q0589G Vanocker-Sawdust, moistRock outcrop complex, 40 

to 80 percent slopes

28,59

8

Severe Slight No No No (~2%)

Q0590E Sawdust-HopdrawRockerville complex, 

moist, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

390 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No (up to 2%) 

Q0591G Sawdust, moist-Rock 

outcrop complex, 40 to 80 

percent slopes

2,236 Very 

Severe

Slight No No No (~2%)

Q0602A Barnum very fine sandy 

loam, cool, 0 to 3 percent 

slopes, rarely flooded

155 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0603B Barnum, cool-Rapidcreek 

complex, 0 to 6 percent 

slopes, rarely flooded

974 Slight Moderate/Slight Grassland, 

Floodplains and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland, 

Floodplains and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland, 

Floodplains and 

Riparian - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0608B Bullflat silt loam, 3 to 6 

percent slopes

444 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 84 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0609C Bullflat-Cordeston, dry silt 

loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes

2,037 Slight Severe Grassland and 

Meadows - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Meadows - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland and 

Meadows - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0611C Citadel-Vanocker complex, 

dry, 2 to 12 percent slopes

1,275 Slight Moderate/Slight No No No (~2%)

Q0613F Colhill-Ziggy, cool 

complex, 15 to 50 percent 

slopes

375 Severe/M

oderate

Slight/Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0615D Colnevee channery loam, 6 

to 15 percent slopes

74 Slight Slight Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0616C Colnevee silt loam, 2 to 9 

percent slopes

54 Slight Moderate Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0617B Colombo loam, cool, 0 to 4 

percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

<1 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0619C Cordeston loam, dry, 2 to 

10 percent slopes

66 Slight Moderate Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland Meadow 

Soils - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0620C Cordeston-Rapidcreek, 

rarely flooded complex, 

dry, 2 to 9 percent slopes

2,194 Slight Severe/Slight Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Q0622F Crownest-Rock outcrop 

complex, 9 to 60 percent 

slopes

161 Moderate Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0625B Sodawells fine sandy loam, 

cool, 0 to 4 percent slopes, 

rarely flooded

25 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply
Page 85 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0629B Hilger cobbly loam, 0 to 6 

percent slopes

640 Slight Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0629E Hilger cobbly loam, 6 to 40 

percent slopes

777 Moderate Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0630E Hilger-Metre, cool 

complex, 10 to 40 percent 

slopes

14 Moderate Slight/Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0632E Hilger-Virkula, dry 

complex, 2 to 30 percent 

slopes

124 Moderate Slight/Severe No No No

Q0634G Hopdraw-Sawdust-Rock 

outcrop complex, 40 to 80 

percent slopes

15,90

7

Very 

Severe/ 

Severe

Slight No No No (up to 2%) 

Q0640B Norkool silt loam, dry, 2 to 

6 percent slopes

9 Slight Severe Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0645C Rapidcreek cobbly loam, 

dry, 2 to 10 percent slopes, 

rarely flooded

406 Slight Slight Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Q0646C Rapidcreek loam, dry, 3 to 

9 percent slopes, rarely 

flooded

19 Slight Slight Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Floodplains and 

riparian areas -

Doesn't Apply

Q0653D Crownest-Rock outcrop 

complex, 2 to 25 percent 

slopes

487 Slight Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0655G Sawdust-Rock outcrop 

complex, 40 to 80 percent 

slopes

5,565 Very 

Severe

Slight No No No (up to 2%) 
Page 86 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0657D Rockerville-Boneek, cool, 

complex, 6 to 15 percent 

slopes

300 Slight Slight/Severe Yes (Rockerville) No No

Q0658D Rockerville-Gurney 

complex, 2 to 15 percent 

slopes

15,52

6

Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No (up to 2%) 

Q0659E Rockerville-Rock outcrop 

complex, 6 to 30 percent 

slopes

9,159 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (~14") No (up to 2%) 

Q0660F Rockerville-Sawdust-Rock 

outcrop complex, 9 to 60 

percent slopes

1,466 Severe Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No

Q0664E Sawdust-HopdrawRockerville complex, 10 to 

40 percent slopes

14,24

4

Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No Yes (Hopdraw)

Q0665E Sawdust-Vanocker, dryRockerville complex, 10 to 

40 percent slopes

57,33

2

Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No No (up to 2%) 

Q0668F Spearfish, cool-Rock 

outcrop complex, 9 to 50 

percent slopes

42 Severe Moderate Yes (Spearfish) No No (Up to 3%)

Q0670B Tilford silt loam, cool, 2 to 

6 percent slopes

47 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0672C Tilford, cool-Rockerville 

complex, 6 to 9 percent 

slopes

80 Slight Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0675E Vanocker-Citadel complex, 

dry, 10 to 40 percent slopes

7,285 Moderate Slight/Severe No No (~2-3") No (up to 2%) 
Page 87 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0676E Vanocker-Hickok complex, 

dry, 10 to 40 percent slopes

5,390 Moderate Slight/Severe No No (~2-3") No (up to 2%) 

Q0677D Vanocker, dry-Rockerville 

complex, 2 to 15 percent 

slopes

3,617 Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No (~2-14") No (up to 2%) 

Q0678G Vanocker, dry-SawdustRock outcrop complex, 40 

to 80 percent slopes

15,50

7

Severe Slight No No No (up to 2%) 

Q0680D Ziggy, cool-Colhill 

complex, 6 to 15 percent 

slopes

749 Slight Severe/Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0701F Orthents, loamy, earthen 

dams, 0 to 75 percent 

slopes

<1 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0702F Pits, quarry 197 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0704E Udarents, abandoned gravel 

pits

78 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0705D Udarents, reclaimed gravel 

pits

75 NA NA NA NA NA

Q0801B Boneek loam, cool, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

85 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0801C Boneek loam, cool, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

10 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0803E Shingle-Ucross loams, cool, 

10 to 30 percent slopes

106 Moderate Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0807C Alice-Ucross complex, 

cool, 3 to 10 percent slopes

17 Slight Moderate/Moder

ate

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply
Page 88 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0808A Coaliams loam, cool, 0 to 3 

percent slopes, flooded

312 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0811C Colsavage clay loam, 2 to 

10 percent slopes

25 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0812C Colsavage-Bahl-Leiter clay 

loams, cool, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

93 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0812E Colsavage-Bahl-Leiter clay 

loams, cool, 10 to 30 

percent slopes

175 Moderate Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0813A Cordeston silt loams, 0 to 3 

percent slopes, flooded

326 Slight Moderate Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0815C Crownest-Regnaps 

complex, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

508 Slight Slight/Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0815E Crownest-Regnaps 

complex, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

57 Moderate Slight/Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0817A Frazerton silty clay loam, 

cool, 0 to 3 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded

208 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland - Doesn't 

Apply

Q0826C Lakoa-Crownest complex, 

moist, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

592 Slight Severe/Slight Yes (Crownest) No (~2") No (Up to 2%+)
Page 89 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0826F Lakoa-Crownest complex, 

moist, 10 to 60 percent 

slopes

4,665 Severe/M

oderate

Severe/Slight Yes (Crownest) No (~2") No (Up to 2%+)

Q0827C Lakoa-Reicess loams, 

moist, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

203 Slight Severe No No (~2"+) No (Up to 2%+)

Q0827E Lakoa-Reicess loams, 

moist, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

32 Moderate Severe No No (~2"+) No (Up to 2%+)

Q0828C Tollflat-Hickok loams, 3 to 

10 percent slopes

15,56

0

Slight Severe/Moderate No No (3.5 - 7") No(Up to 2 %+)

Q0828F Tollflat-Hickok-Vanocker 

complex, 10 to 60 percent 

slopes

36,81

1

Moderate Severe/Moderate/

Slight

No No (3.5 - 7") No(Range up to 

9%+)

Q0830C Maitland loam, moist, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

32 Slight Severe No No No (Range up to 

4%)

Q0834B Nunnston clay loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

99 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0834C Nunnston clay loam, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

60 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0836B Nunnston loam, thick 

surface, 1 to 6 percent 

slopes

65 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0836C Nunnston loam, thick 

surface, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

6 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply
Page 90 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0838B Norkool loam, moderately 

deep, moist, 2 to 6 percent 

slopes

3 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0838C Norkool loam, moderately 

deep, moist, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

19 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0840C Regnaps-Crownest 

complex, 3 to 10 percent 

slopes

158 Slight Severe/Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0841B Reicess loam, moist, 1 to 6 

percent slopes

79 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0842C Reicess-Shingle loams, 

moist, 6 to 10 percent 

slopes

63 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0848B Nunnston loam, moderately 

deep, 1 to 6 percent slopes

34 Slight Severe No No (8") No (Range up to 

2%)

Q0852C Samsil-Gaynor complex, 

cool, 2 to 10 percent slopes

31 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0852E Samsil-Gaynor complex, 

cool, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

658 Moderate Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0854B Work clay loam, 2 to 6 

percent slopes

276 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0854C Work clay loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

27 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0854E Work clay loam, 10 to 30 

percent slopes

2,353 Moderate Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply
Page 91 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0901B Boneek silt loam, moist, 2 

to 6 percent slopes

30 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0906D Colnevee-Spearfish, cool 

silt loams, moist, 6 to 20 

percent slopes

5 Slight/Mo

derate

Moderate Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0910E Corpening-Rock outcrop 

complex, 3 to 30 percent 

slopes

310 Moderate Slight Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0912B Norkool loam, 1 to 6 

percent slopes

14 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0912C Norkool loam, 6 to 10 

percent slopes

63 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0913B Nunnston, thick surfaceCordeston loams, 1 to 6 

percent slopes

46 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0918C Rockerville-Pesowyo 

complex, 3 to 12 percent 

slopes

26 Slight Slight Yes (Rockerville) No(~ 6+ inches) Yes (Pesowyo 0.5 -

1%)

Q0918E Rockerville-Pesowyo 

complex, 10 to 30 percent 

slopes

1 Moderate Slight Yes (Rockerville) No(~ 6+ inches) Yes (Pesowyo 0.5 -

1%)

Q0922B Sugakool loam, moist, 1 to 

6 percent slopes

31 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0922C Sugakool loam, moist, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

87 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply
Page 92 of 95

Map Unit 

Symbol

Map Unit Name Acres Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

Compaction 

Potential

*When Soils Are 

Wet

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Depth to Bedrock 

less than 15"

*NRCS makes the 

break on <20"

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil < 1"

(2.5 cm)

Slash Retention 

Criteria

Topsoil Organic 

Matter <2%

*A horizons

Q0924C Tilford silt loam, cool, 6 to 

10 percent slopes

3 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0926G Rock outcrop-Vanocker, 

dry complex, 50 to 75 

percent slopes

6,821 Very 

Severe.

Slight No No (~ 2+") No (~ 2%)

Q0928B Vassett silt loam, moist, 1 

to 6 percent slopes

4 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Q0928C Vassett silt loam, moist, 6 

to 10 percent slopes

8 Slight Severe Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

Grassland Soils -

Doesn't Apply

QW Water 24 NA NA NA NA NA