United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Forest Service Draft Record of Decision

March 2018

USDA Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance 

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

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-

2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.
Figure 1. Project Area Map
Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

BHNF Black Hills National Forest

BHRL Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (Project)

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CTA Commercial Treatment Area

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

MA Management Area

NFAB National Forest Advisory Board

NFS National Forest System

POL Products Other than Logs

ROD Record of Decision

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Contents

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 FOREST PLAN.....................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT.....................................................................................................................1

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ..........................................................................................................................1

2 DECISION AND RATIONALE.............................................................................................................................2

2.1 MY DECISION.....................................................................................................................................................2

2.2 PERMITS, LICENSES, GRANTS, AND AUTHORIZATIONS ................................................................................................3

2.3 RATIONALE FOR MY DECISION...............................................................................................................................4

2.3.1 How the Selected Alternative Responds to the Purpose and Need........................................................4

2.3.2 How the Selected Alternative Considers and Addresses Public Issues...................................................8

2.3.3 Environmental Documents Considered in Making the Decision ............................................................9

2.3.4 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies............................................................................................9

3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................................................................9

3.1 PROJECT SCOPING...............................................................................................................................................9

3.2 DRAFT EIS.......................................................................................................................................................10

3.3 COLLABORATION AND OTHER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...............................................................................................10

4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED........................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .....................................................................................................................11

4.2 ALTERNATIVES NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL ..............................................................................................................11

4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE(S)...................................................................................................11

5 FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAWS AND REGULATIONS...................................................................................... 12

5.1 CLEAN AIR ACT ................................................................................................................................................12

5.2 CLEAN WATER ACT ...........................................................................................................................................12

5.3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .................................................................................................................................12

5.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ..............................................................................................................13

5.5 NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT.................................................................................................................13

5.6 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT...............................................................................................................13

5.7 OTHER LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS..................................................................................................................14

6 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................... 14

7 IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 15

8 CONTACT PERSON........................................................................................................................................ 16

9 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL................................................................................................................................. 16

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 17

Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Black Hills National Forest

Draft Record of Decision

Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest

Cooperating Agency: Wyoming State Forestry Division

Responsible Official: Mark Van Every, Forest Supervisor

1019 North 5th St, Custer, SD 57730

For Information Contact: Elizabeth Krueger, Team Leader, (307) 283-1361

Anne Davy, Project Manager, (406) 273-1836
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Location

The Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) project includes approximately 1,098,000 acres of National

Forest System (NFS) lands and approximately 226,000 acres of non-NFS lands in the Black Hills National 

Forest (BHNF), in western South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming. The project area does not include 

specially designated areas (e.g., Research Natural Areas, Botanical Areas, or Wilderness) or other 

ownerships.

1.2 Forest Plan

BHNF programmatic management direction is provided by the BHNF Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 2006a), as amended and as supported by the Phase II Amendment 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS; USDA Forest Service 2005) and the 1997 Revised Forest 

Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996). The Forest Plan sets forth goals and objectives of management 

actions and further directs these actions through standards and guidelines.

Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan assigns a management emphasis to each area of the National Forest. Land 

management practices that are appropriate in one management area may be constrained in another. The 

BHRL project area includes all or parts of 10 management areas (FEIS, page 5). 

1.3 Healthy Forests Restoration Act

This project is proposed under Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA; 16 USC §6591) authority. The 

entire project area lies within Designated Areas that were requested by the Governors of South Dakota 

and Wyoming (FEIS, page 7). 

HFRA Section 104 requires collaboration with State governments, local governments, and Indian tribes, 

and participation of interested persons during the preparation of authorized projects. For this project, 

collaboration with the National Forest Advisory Board and involvement of tribes, agencies, and other 

interested parties has occurred and is continuing.

Analysis and documentation has been carried out in accordance with Section 602(d) of HFRA. Projects 

within the Designated Areas must “reduce the risk of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease 

infestation” (602(d)(1)).

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

Mountain pine beetle infestation, response actions, and wildfire have moved forest structure away from 

desired conditions. Beetle infestation also resulted in hazardous levels of surface fuels and other hazards 

to public safety. As beetle-killed trees continue to fall and new pine stands grow, the forest’s resilience to 

wildfire and future infestation is expected to decrease.

In response to these needs, described in detail on FEIS pages 8-13, the BHRL project would 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, to contribute to public 

safety and the local economy, and to reduce the risk of wildfire to landscapes and communities.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

2

2 Decision and Rationale

2.1 My Decision

Title I, Section 104 of HFRA requires development of the proposed agency action, the no action 

alternative, and an additional action alternative if one is proposed during scoping or the collaborative 

process and it meets the purpose and need. Because no alternatives that met the purpose and need were 

proposed during scoping or collaboration, I have the option of choosing either the No Action alternative 

or the Proposed Action.

I am authorizing the activities listed in Table 1 (page 2). Each of these activities will occur on up to a 

specified maximum acreage within a defined area, as described on FEIS page 17. Combined, all of these 

defined areas total approximately 676,600 acres. Because each activity will occur on a fraction of its 

defined area acres, and because more than one activity will occur in some areas, the total area where 

activities will actually occur is estimated at 400,900 acres. This includes approximately 298,900 acres of 

mechanized activities.

I have also decided to approve a programmatic Forest Plan amendment as presented on FEIS pages 39-40. 

The amendment replaces an out-of-date standard with the updated language found in the Regional 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006b).

The selected alternative includes the Proposed Action’s design features (FEIS, pages 40-44) and 

monitoring requirements (FEIS, pages 45-46). These measures represent all practicable means to avoid or

minimize environmental harm. 

I have determined that my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency policy. I have 

considered potential cumulative effects. I believe the Proposed Action provides the best balance of 

management activities to respond to the purpose and need while considering and incorporating issues 

and input provided by the public and other agencies. 

Table 1. Summary of Activities

Fuel and Hazard Tree Treatments Maximum Acres

Mechanical and manual fuel treatments (shaded fuel break; 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. 

7,000 acres per year (70,000 

acres total)

Prescribed fire (broadcast) 10,000 acres per year (100,000 

acres total)

Hazard tree removal As needed 

Pine Structural Stage Modification Maximum Acres

Overstory removal 

By management area (MA):

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 (total)

Precommercial and/or products-other-than-logs (POL) thin 25,000 acres per year (250,000 

acres total)
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

3

Patch clearcut

By management area: 

MA 4.1: 1,300 acres

MA 5.6: 600 acres

1,900 acres (total)

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

Mechanical site preparation 4,000 acres (total)

Enhancement of Non-pine Vegetation and Within-stand Diversity Maximum Acres

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

Regeneration of aspen stands 4,000 acres (total)

Removal of pine/spruce from aspen inclusions in CTA* pine stands 22,500 acres (total)

Removal of pine/spruce from aspen inclusions in non-CTA pine stands 8,400 acres (total)

Removal of encroaching pine from oak stands 5,400 acres (total)

Removal of encroaching pine from grasslands 14,200 acres (total)

Uneven-age individual tree selection or group selection 9,600 acres (total)

Road Work Maximum Miles

Road construction – Specified 18 miles (total)

Road construction – Temporary 39 miles (total)

Temporary roads on existing templates 182 miles (total)

Road conversion (unauthorized to system) 20 miles (total; part of 182 miles, above)

Road maintenance 2,500 miles (total; estimated)

Road reconstruction 375 miles (total; estimated)

*CTA: Potential commercial treatment area

My decision to select the Proposed Action is a site-specific one (see defined-area maps and descriptions in 

FEIS chapter 2 and detailed maps available on the project web site). The selected alternative also includes 

flexibility to define treatment locations within the defined areas. The analysis of effects is based on sitespecific data (see Information Sources sections in chapter 3 of the FEIS) and relevant, often locally 

conducted research and monitoring.

I have been pleased with our collaboration with area residents and other interested parties. I sincerely 

appreciate the continued commitment and support of the collaborative participants and the local 

community. Together we have invested a lot of time and energy to design a resilient landscapes project 

that addresses the identified purpose and need at a landscape scale, protects environmental resources, 

and is consistent with the Forest Plan, regulatory laws, other Agency policy.

2.2 Permits, Licenses, Grants, and Authorizations

No federal permits will be needed for this project. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the 

Secretary of the Army to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands.

Silvicultural activities are exempt from the 404 permit process, as are associated road construction and 

maintenance that adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs; 33 CFR §323.4). Treatment of noxious 

weeds using herbicide was authorized under a previous decision (USDA Forest Service 2003). Any 

required permits that are unforeseen at this time will be obtained prior to implementation.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

4

2.3 Rationale for My Decision

In making my decision, I considered the purpose and need, public issues, the project’s relation to other 

relevant environmental documents, and its compliance with applicable law, regulation, and policy. Each 

aspect of my decision is discussed below. 

In response to public comments on the DEIS, three changes were made and analyzed in the FEIS. I 

considered these changes in making my decision (FEIS, p. 18):

1. Increased acreage of removal of conifers from aspen stands: Several commenting parties 

requested an increase in this activity, citing a belief that 2,400 acres was too low and pointing out 

that the original proposal was 6,000 acres. Based on reexamination of vegetation data, I believe 

6,000 acres is a more appropriate figure. There are no changes to the effects as a result of this 

change. The change is reflected in Table 1 (page 2). 

2. Removed activities proposed in Bureau of Reclamation administrative areas at Deerfield and 

Pactola dams: The Bureau expressed concern about possible effects of proposed activities near 

dam-related facilities at these locations. I agree with the Bureau’s concerns and have omitted 

approximately 23 administrative acres from the defined areas where the activities may occur. 

This change does not alter the acreage of proposed activities or the project’s effects.

3. Omission of activities proposed in montane grasslands: The DEIS analyzed effects of activities 

proposed on approximately 440 acres of montane grassland recommended for conservation. 

These activities were proposed based on erroneous stand delineation data and have been 

omitted. This change does not alter the acreage of proposed activities or the project’s effects.

The effects of these modifications are consistent with the Forest Plan (FEIS, page 73). 

2.3.1 How the Selected Alternative Responds to the Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the BHRL project is 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. 

The selected alternative responds well to the specific elements of the purpose and need.

• Increase ecosystem resilience to insect infestation and other natural disturbances: The recent 

mountain pine beetle epidemic and response actions (FEIS page 1) substantially reduced the 

amount of pine forest at high risk of further infestation. Natural regeneration of pine is, however, 

resulting in the potential for development of future landscape-scale expanses of mature, evenaged pine forest, similar to the conditions that existed before the epidemic. These conditions 

decrease the forest’s resilience to insect infestation, wildfire, and other disturbances.

The selected alternative will thin up to 250,000 acres of young pine. Thinning these stands will 

mitigate the immediate hazard of infestation by pine engraver beetles and reduce the potential 

for development of future hazard of mountain pine beetle infestation. Planned fuel treatments, 

including prescribed fire, will also reduce stocking of small pine trees. While beetle infestation 

will continue to occur over time, taking action now will begin the process of developing a forest 

that is resistant to landscape-scale epidemics. Because regeneration of pine has occurred almost 

simultaneously across such an extensive area, I believe it is critical to begin addressing the 

potential future hazard immediately. 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

5

The selected alternative will increase resilience of treated landscapes to future wildfires as 

demonstrated by effects on fire regime/condition class (FEIS, page 83). This increased resilience 

may persist for up to 20 years without further treatment. 

• Contribute to public safety and the local economy: The selected alternative will reduce hazards 

to public safety by removing damaged or unstable standing trees in areas of high public use, 

treating fuel accumulations near communities and along egress routes, and decreasing the 

potential for large, intense wildfires (FEIS, pages 83-85).

The selected alternative will also yield various wood products to local and regional forest 

products industries (FEIS, pages 214-215). It will contribute to the maintenance of a forest 

industry infrastructure, which provides markets for forest products, employment, and benefits 

for local communities. I recognize the need for a strong forest products industry to help 

accomplish forest restoration and other vegetation treatments now and in the future. I believe it is 

important for the Forest Service to support local communities and I look forward to continuing 

our work and coordination with partners and local governments. 

• Reduce risk of wildfire to landscapes and communities: In my review of the analysis in the Fire 

and Fuels section of the FEIS (pages 82-85), I found the planned activities will meet the purpose 

and need by reducing surface fuel loading, fuel contiguity, and other factors associated with the 

potential for severe fire effects. Overall, the selected alternative will moderate fire behavior

compared to the No Action alternative. While wildfires will continue to occur, most fires in 

treated areas will remain on the surface with only pockets of crown fire. These effects will 

provide additional opportunities for control, potentially limiting fire size. Fire hazard will

generally decrease in treated areas, resulting in increased resistance to development of highintensity wildfire.

The programmatic Forest Plan amendment (FEIS, pages 39-40) will allow harvest systems that 

minimize buildup of logging slash to be used in additional areas. I believe this programmatic 

plan amendment is a valuable addition to meeting the purpose and need for this project and 

future projects on the BHNF. Currently, Forest Plan standard 1102 contains outdated language. 

The updated language (FEIS, page 39), which is part of the Regional Watershed Conservation 

Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006b), will better align the Forest Plan with regional 

guidance and eliminate confusion. There are no substantial adverse effects directly related to any 

of the substantive requirements at 36 CFR §§219.9 through 219.11. The updated language speaks 

to the soil resource (§219.10(a)(1)) only and continues to balance soil quality requirements and 

fuel loading concerns.

My decision also will move landscape-level vegetation conditions toward achievement of the following 

Forest Plan goals and objectives.

• Forest Plan objective 10-07 prioritizes reduction of mountain pine beetle infestation risk. As 

described above, my decision includes activities such as precommercial thinning that will begin 

the process of developing stands that are at reduced risk of infestation. The selected alternative 

will contribute toward achievement of this objective.

• Forest Plan goal 10 and associated objectives 10-01 and 10-04 focus on establishing and 

maintaining a mosaic of forest conditions to reduce occurrence of stand-replacing fire and to 

facilitate firefighting capability. The recent mountain pine beetle infestation resulted in an 

increase of hazardous fuels in the form of dead, fallen trees. Although the potential for crown fire 

has decreased because there are fewer closed-canopy stands, increased loading of dead fuels
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

6

means that more of the project area is susceptible to, and may potentially be affected by, large, 

intense wildland fires. In addition, the scale and density of developing young pine stands, 

combined with heavy accumulations of woody debris, further increase fire hazard and 

complicate fire suppression. As a result, the planning team identified a need to manage fuel 

accumulations and young pine stands.

The selected alternative will result in potential wildfire behavior that is more manageable as 

compared to the No Action alternative. Following project implementation, modeling 

demonstrates that most wildfires in treated areas will remain on the ground. The dominant fire 

severity in these areas is expected to be low to moderate. Though it will not be possible to treat 

fuels in all stands that were affected by beetles, planned activities will break up the contiguity of 

these areas.

Public comments indicated concerns about high fire hazard in the vicinity of communities. The 

selected alternative will decrease fire hazard, especially in areas near developed non-NFS lands

and egress routes. Planned activities will contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 

10-01 by increasing the total area with moderate or low fire hazard to approximately 67 percent 

of the project area. 

Because these conditions will increase the probability of success during initial fire suppression 

efforts, the selected alternative is likely to improve firefighter and public safety, reduce the 

potential for damage to communities and natural resources, and reduce suppression costs. For 

these reasons, I believe the selected alternative will contribute substantially toward achievement 

of Forest Plan goal 10. 

• Forest Plan objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 5.4-206, 5.43-204, and 5.6-204 address desired distribution 

of ponderosa pine structural stages by management area. Structural stage classifies forest 

structure based on tree diameter and stand density. 

By comparing existing and desired structural stage distributions across each MA, the planning 

team identified a need to:

o increase early succession (grass-forb) stage in MAs 4.1 and 5.6,

o increase young pine forest in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, and 5.6,

o decrease open, mature pine forest in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, and 5.6,

o increase moderately dense, mature stands in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, and 5.43,

o increase late succession forest in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, and 5.6, and

o generally maintain dense, mature forest in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.43, and 5.6

See FEIS, Figure 3, page 6 for a map of management areas.

The selected alternative includes a number of activities that will change structural stage in pine 

forest, including overstory removal, patch clearcut, precommercial thin, POL thin, tree planting, 

mechanical site preparation, and shaded fuel break construction in mature forest.

Overstory removal harvest is a substantial component of my decision. This treatment method 

will release young stands from competition with older, overstory pine and reduce stocking levels 

in overstocked stands. Based on the analysis in the FEIS (pages 58, 60-63, 65), I believe this 

activity contributes significantly to meeting the purpose and need for this project. Overstory 

removal treatments will increase the acreage of early succession, younger pine across the project 

area.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

7

As a result of the activities listed above, the selected alternative will generally move individual 

structural stages toward objectives in each MA. Additionally, the selected alternative will 

generally move conditions closer to the objectives than would the No Action alternative. Mature 

and late succession stages that are currently below objective levels will not increase immediately, 

though modeling indicates they are likely to achieve objectives over the next 20 to 40 years.

Averaged across each MA, the selected alternative will move overall distribution of structural 

stages closer to objective levels both in the near future and over the next 20 years as compared to 

the No Action alternative (Table 2). 

Table 2. Average percent deviation from structural stage objectives 

by alternative and management area

Management 

Area Existing Selected Alternative

Selected Alternative 

+ 20 Years

No Action 

+ 20 Years

4.1 65 43 24 58

5.1 57 52 29 49

5.4 63 54 34 48

5.43* 106 104 75 76

5.6 51 34 21 53

*Management area 5.43 is an outlier due to the effects of recent wildfires.

Management of the forest for variety in pine stand structure, size, and shape, distributed across 

the landscape, is essential to providing for wildlife species viability and reduced fire and insect 

hazard (USDA Forest Service 2005). I find that the analysis demonstrates that the selected 

alternative will move structural stage conditions toward these objectives (FEIS, pages 55-72).

While unforeseeable events may affect future distribution of structural stages, I believe the 

selected alternative puts the forest on the best track to achieve these objectives both in the near 

term and over time.

In order to accomplish these Forest Plan objectives, my decision includes construction of up to 18 

miles of new, permanent National Forest System (NFS) roads and conversion of up to 20 miles of 

existing, unauthorized roads to NFS roads. I am also approving construction of up to 39 miles of 

new, temporary roads and use of up to 182 miles of existing, unauthorized roads for temporary 

access. Proposed activities will require approximately 375 miles of road reconstruction and 2,500 

miles of road maintenance.

Although there will be impacts to roads and trails during project implementation due to 

increased truck traffic, construction equipment operations, and additional vehicles using the 

roads, this level of road work would be seen by the public as normal because State, county, and 

Forest Service road projects and related heavy equipment traffic have been occurring 

simultaneously for decades (FEIS, page 185). 

Other effects may include closures and traffic delays. Safety considerations will be included in 

road design for new and reconstructed roads and during active road work. New roads would not 

increase open road density because they would be closed to all motorized use after the project.

• Forest Plan objectives 201 and 205 emphasize the importance of quaking aspen, bur oak, and 

grasslands. These plant communities diversify habitat and scenery while increasing ecosystem 

resilience to disturbance. Encroachment of pine is causing some aspen and oak stands and 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

8

grasslands to lose vigor and shrink. The planning team identified a need to maintain and 

perpetuate these ecosystem components.

The selected alternative includes regeneration of aspen and removal of conifers encroaching on 

aspen, oak, and grasslands. These activities will occur on a total of approximately 60,500 acres

and will help to maintain species diversity, which has decreased over time due to fire 

suppression and other factors. Broadcast prescribed fire, which will occur on up to 100,000 acres, 

will also reduce conifer encroachment. 

Many of the public comments on the DEIS expressed interest in aspen. Based on this input, I 

chose to increase removal of conifers from aspen stands from 2,400 to 6,000 acres. I believe this 

figure more accurately represents the need for treatment. Effects of this change are disclosed in 

the FEIS (page 73). In addition, some parties requested widespread conversion of pine stands to 

aspen. Because forest species composition is currently in a state of transition following the recent 

mountain pine beetle epidemic, I do not consider large-scale cover type change to be prudent at 

this time.

Non-pine vegetation communities are critical to the resilience of Black Hills ecosystems to fire, 

beetle infestation, and other disturbances. The No Action alternative would allow continued 

decline of aspen, oak, and grasslands. In some cases, conifers could displace these communities. 

For this reason, I am choosing to take action at this time.

In making a decision between taking action and not taking action, I believe it is not only appropriate to 

select the action alternative, but it is the clear choice to meet the purpose and need. The selected

alternative will allow us to begin addressing the changed conditions that have occurred across most of 

the landscape of the BHNF in recent years due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic, large fires, and our 

management actions in response to these events. We can now move toward meeting Forest Plan 

objectives across the entire forest landscape, which is not only more efficient and cost-effective than 

focusing on smaller areas but also appropriate for the scale of the forest-wide conditions we are working 

to resolve. 

2.3.2 How the Selected Alternative Considers and Addresses Public Issues

The following public issues relevant to the analysis were identified and are described on FEIS page 16.

Potential negative effects on scenery from fuel reduction and timber harvest activities: The scenic 

integrity analysis in the FEIS (pages 195-203) documents that although fuel reduction will have shortterm visual impacts (e.g., processed woody material on the ground, small patches of scorched ground 

after burning piles), these effects will diminish as revegetation occurs, blending into the surroundings in

one to three years.

The analysis shows that commercial timber harvest and associated activities such as road construction 

may have a negative effect on scenery. Large slash piles, skid trails, and exposed soil will be visible for a 

time following timber harvest. Project-specific design features (FEIS page 41) will be applied to minimize 

these effects, especially in highly visible areas. The analysis discloses that, despite these measures, there 

will be periods when viewers may find these effects distracting and out of character with the landscape. I 

understand these concerns. I am confident, however, that the long-term benefits of conducting these 

activities justify the temporary negative effects. 

Among planned activities, overstory removal and patch clearcut will result in the greatest change from 

existing visual conditions. Because harvest units will be designed in accordance with Forest Plan 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

9

guidelines, they will appear different from the existing condition but similar to natural forest openings or 

young stands. The resulting appearance will not be out of character for the area.

Potential increase in noxious weed infestation from ground-disturbing activities: The FEIS discloses

that infestation of noxious weeds is likely to increase over time under either alternative. Forest Plan 

guideline 231 states that management should “prevent new infestations and manage to reduce 

established noxious weed infestations.” Because the selected alternative will reduce forest canopy and 

expose soil, it could result in a greater increase in noxious weed infestation than taking no action at this 

time. The analysis concludes, however, that taking no action would over time increase the potential for 

severe wildfire, which provides suitable conditions for weed infestation.

Continuing treatment of noxious weeds and adherence to project-specific and other design features (FEIS, 

page 40) will reduce the likelihood of new weed species introduction and substantial spread of existing 

infestations.

Noxious weeds are a source of increasing concern in the Black Hills area. I recognize this and support 

ongoing and new collaborative efforts to address the diverse causes of weed introduction and spread. 

While my decision may result in somewhat more weed infestation compared to taking no action, I believe 

the analysis demonstrates that this should not prevent taking action to respond to public concerns and 

work toward achievement of other Forest Plan goals and objectives.

Potential reduction in landscape-level structural diversity from timber harvest: The analysis shows that 

the selected alternative will move structural stage distribution toward Forest Plan objectives, both in the 

near future and in 20 years (FEIS pages 59-64). Figures 13-17 on FEIS pages 60-62 clearly indicate that the 

selected alternative will generally move structural stage distribution in each management area closer to 

the objectives as compared to the No Action alternative. The exception is in MA 5.43, where the effects of 

both alternatives would be similar. The selected alternative will diversify landscape-level structural 

diversity.

2.3.3 Environmental Documents Considered in Making the Decision

A number of documents were specifically incorporated by reference into the analysis in the FEIS for this 

project. Among these documents are the Forest Plan as supported by the Phase II Amendment FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2005) and the 1997 Revised Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996); Forest 

Plan monitoring and evaluation reports; and resource reports and other supporting information and 

analysis.

2.3.4 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies

For a complete discussion of how my decision complies with laws, regulations and policy, see section 5

starting on page 12 of this document.

3 Public Involvement

3.1 Project Scoping

The Forest Service solicited comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for 

managing the BHRL project area from members of the public, other public agencies, tribal governments, 

adjacent property owners, interest groups, and agency specialists. Various methods were used to request 

comments, as described below.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

10

 A scoping letter was mailed on August 15, 2016 to approximately 103 interested parties, 

including adjacent property owners, American Indian tribal representatives, state and federal 

agencies, and other organizations. This letter included a description of the project area, an 

overview of the planning process, a general explanation of the proposed actions, and an 

invitation to comment.

 The Forest Service submitted a news release to local news media on August 22, 2016. This release 

introduced the project to the public by providing a description of the project area and an 

explanation of the proposal. The release also solicited public comment on the project.

 The Federal Register published a notice of intent to prepare the EIS on August 25, 2016 (81 Fed. 

Reg. 58470). The notice asked for public comment on the proposal by September 26, 2016. 

Twenty-nine comment letters were received. 

 Project information was published in the BHNF Schedule of Proposed Actions and on the BHNF 

website.

 The NFAB discussed the project at its meetings during project development and scoping (March, 

April, May, June, and September 2016). These meetings were open to the public. 

3.2 Draft EIS

The Forest Service solicited comments on the DEIS from interested parties, including members of the 

public, other public agencies, tribal governments, adjacent property owners, interest groups, and agency 

specialists. The following notification methods were used.

 The Federal Register published a notice of availability of the DEIS on September 15, 2017 (82 Fed. 

Reg. 43359). The notice announced the availability of the DEIS and initiated the 45-day comment 

period, which ended on October 30, 2017.

 The Rapid City Journal published a legal notice announcing the availability of the DEIS and 

proposed Forest Plan amendment on September 20, 2017. This notice solicited comments from 

interested parties.

 The Forest Service submitted a news release to local news media on September 14, 2017. The 

release announced availability of the DEIS and solicited comments. 

 Public open houses were held at the Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City, South Dakota on 

October 5, 2017 and at the Crook County Courthouse in Sundance, Wyoming on October 12, 

2017. Each meeting was attended by less than 10 interested parties who met with Forest Service 

officials to review maps of the project area and discuss proposed activities.

 The NFAB discussed the DEIS at its meeting in September 2017, which was open to the public. 

The Forest Service received 44 comment letters from 40 parties within the comment period. Four 

additional letters were submitted after the close of the comment period. Timely comments and Forest 

Service responses are presented in FEIS Appendix A. Comments prompted changes to the proposal, 

additional analysis of effects, and several clarifications in the FEIS.

3.3 Collaboration and Other Public Involvement

Collaboration with communities and the public is required by HFRA and has been an important aspect of 

this project. The National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) is our formal collaborator on this project. Board 

members represent diverse sectors, including developed outdoor recreation, dispersed recreation, 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

11

economic development, the forest products industry, national and regional environmental organizations, 

historical interests, sportsmen’s groups, livestock grazing, State natural resource agencies, and elected or 

appointed officials from Tribal government and State, local, or county government. Updates have been 

presented at all NFAB meetings since March 2016. Forest Service representatives have met with the 

NFAB committee responsible for reviewing project documents and drafting input.

The Wyoming State Forestry Division is a cooperating agency for this project. The Division was provided 

an opportunity to review the preliminary DEIS in June 2017 prior to its public release.

I believe the Forest has worked diligently to ensure collaboration and public involvement through 

mailings, news releases, public comment periods, open houses, and through NFAB meetings, which are 

open to the public. See also FEIS Appendix A, Public Comments on the Black Hills Resilient Landscapes 

Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Service Responses.

4 Alternatives Considered

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

HFRA Title I, Section 104, requires development of the proposed agency action, the no action alternative, 

and an additional action alternative if one is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process and 

meets the purpose and need. No alternatives that met the purpose and need were proposed during 

scoping or collaboration; therefore, only the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives were fully 

developed and analyzed.

The No Action alternative (FEIS, page 48) assumes none of the elements of the Proposed Action would 

take place in the BHRL project area in the next 10 to 15 years. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions 

would continue, including timber harvest, precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, fuel reduction, 

noxious weed treatment, recreation, development of private land, prospecting and mining, livestock 

grazing, and use of surface and ground water. Public comments indicated both support for and objection 

to the No Action alternative. Because of the clear, existing needs in the project area, I am unwilling to 

forego action. 

The Proposed Action (FEIS, pages 17-48) was designed to respond to the purpose and need for action and 

to move conditions in the project area toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. This is 

the alternative I selected. This alternative protects key resources while addressing the needs in the project 

area. My rationale for this decision is described in Section 2.3 of this document.

4.2 Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail

The interdisciplinary team considered eight additional alternatives that were not carried forward for 

detailed analysis. Descriptions of these alternatives and reasons for their elimination from detailed 

analysis are located on FEIS pages 49-51.

4.3 Environmentally Preferable Alternative(s)

Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferable alternatives is required (NEPA Section 101; 40 CFR

1505.2(b)). The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the alternative that will be 

implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It must, however, cause 

the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance 

historical, cultural, and natural resources.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

12

In the immediate future, the No Action alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative. It would 

not directly cause ground disturbance or add new roads. Noxious weed infestation would be somewhat 

less than the probable results of the selected alternative. It would have no short-term negative effects on

scenery. Over the course of coming decades, however, I find the selected alternative to be 

environmentally preferable because it will provide more diverse habitat, moderate potential size and 

severity of wildfires, and generally increase resilience to potential disturbance and environmental change. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (Region 8) provided comments on the DEIS but did not identify an 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

5 Findings Required by Laws and Regulations

The EIS was prepared in accordance with the following laws and regulations.

5.1 Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC §7401 et seq.), protect and enhance the nation’s air 

resources. Federal and state ambient air quality standards are not expected to be exceeded as a result of 

implementing the selected alternative (FEIS, pages 178-179). This action is consistent with the Clean Air 

Act.

5.2 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC §1251 et seq.), regulates dredging and filling of freshwater and 

coastal wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharging dredged or fill material into 

waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations 

(Sections 401 and 404). Any permits required for watershed improvement activities will be acquired prior 

to implementation. This project is consistent with the Clean Water Act (FEIS, pages 159-174).

5.3 Endangered Species Act

I considered impacts to federally listed or proposed species, as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. These species include the black-footed ferret (endangered), the northern long-eared bat 

(threatened), and Leedy’s roseroot (a threatened plant). Effects on these species were analyzed in the 

Wildlife and Botany Biological Assessments prepared in accordance with the legal requirements set forth 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 USC §1531 et seq.). These 

effects are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and summarized here. The Proposed Action will have no 

effect on the black-footed ferret or Leedy’s roseroot. The Proposed Action may affect the northern longeared bat, but implementation involves no purposeful take and the action area is located wholly outside 

of the white-nose syndrome zone. Based on this information, I met my ESA Section 7 consultation 

responsibilities by using the 4(d) rule streamlined consultation framework. My decision includes the 

design features listed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS and described in this ROD that will avoid or minimize the 

potential adverse effects of management actions on the northern long-eared bat. There will be no adverse 

modification of critical habitat because none is designated on the BHNF.

On February 13, 2018, we received a letter of concurrence from the Fish and Wildlife Service, stating, in 

part, “We concur with your determination and any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not 

prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(o)).” 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

13

5.4 National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC §4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to 

complete detailed analyses of proposed actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human 

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

provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects of a proposed 

action prior to adoption and to inform the public of (and encourage their comments on) such effects. The 

FEIS analyzes the alternatives and displays the environmental effects in conformance with NEPA 

standards. I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process comply with each of the 

major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council for Environmental Quality for implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR §§1500-1508).

5.5 National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 16 USC §1604) and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 

of 1960 (16 USC §§528–531) give direction to National Forests to develop Forest Plans that 1) ensure

consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource 

management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest resources, to provide 

for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish; and 2) provide 

for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land 

area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of 

tree species. As set forth by these Acts, the BHNF Forest Plan, as amended, sets specific standards and 

guidelines to follow during project-level planning and implementation. By the inclusion of design 

features as part of my decision to minimize or eliminate environmental effects from this project, as well as 

the inclusion of standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan, as amended, I have determined this 

project complies with NFMA. 

5.6 National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) provides comprehensive direction to federal agencies to 

identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties. It expands the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and State 

Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). NHPA Section 106 directs all federal agencies to take into account 

effects of their undertakings (actions, financial support, and authorizations) on properties included in or 

eligible for the NRHP. Section 106 is implemented by ACHP regulations (36 CFR §800). 

As reported in FEIS chapters 1 and 2, I anticipate implementing BHRL activities on NFS lands in both 

Wyoming and South Dakota. Since 2009, the BHNF has been a signatory to a programmatic agreement 

(renewed in 2014) that governs undertakings on NFS lands located in the state of Wyoming (USDA Forest 

Service 2014). Appendix F of that document addresses vegetation management projects. Subsection B of 

Appendix F specifically addresses landscape-scale projects such as the BHRL project, for which specific 

effects cannot be identified prior to the Agency signing a project decision. That stipulation, in addition to 

others, is cited as the legal authority for this project on NFS lands in the state of Wyoming.

The BHNF and the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer executed a vegetation management 

programmatic agreement in order to fulfill the Agency’s NHPA Section 106 obligations for this and other 

potential undertakings (USDA Forest Service 2018). Stipulations in that document govern how the Forest 

Service implements projects under authority of the BHRL Record of Decision.

Tribal governments were consulted and invited to participate in the development of the programmatic 

agreements that will govern how the Forest meets NHPA Section 106 mandates for BHRL project 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

14

activities. Tribal authorities will continue to be consulted when exact project locations associated with 

BHRL activities are identified during the implementation phase. This will permit Tribal representatives to 

submit location-specific comments where desirable. 

5.7 Other Laws and Executive Orders

Executive Order 11988

This order requires that federal activities generally avoid occupancy and modification of floodplains. The 

selected alternative will not change floodplain function or value and complies with EO 11988 (FEIS, page 

171).

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires that federal activities generally avoid 

modification or destruction of wetlands. The selected alternative complies with EO 11990 and will not 

negatively affect wetlands (FEIS, pages 171-172). 

Executive Order 12898

A specific consideration of equity and fairness in resource decision-making is encompassed in the issue of 

environmental justice. EO 12898 provides that “each federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations.” No adverse effects from the selected alternative have been 

identified on minority or low-income populations (FEIS, page 211).

Executive Order 13112

This order requires federal agencies to avoid actions that will spread invasive species unless the benefits 

of the actions clearly outweigh the potential harm and all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk 

of harm will be taken. The analysis shows that the selected alternative will comply with this order (FEIS,

pages 101-102).

6 Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities

This draft decision is subject to predecisional administrative review (objection) pursuant to 36 CFR §218,

Subparts A and C, for planned activities and also 36 CFR §219, Subpart B, for the programmatic Forest 

Plan amendment. Objections, including attachments, must be filed via postal service, e-mail, handdelivered, or messenger service to: Objection Reviewing Officer, Regional Forester, US Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Region, 1617 Cole Blvd, Building 17, Golden, CO 80401; fax to (303) 275-5134; or email to 

r02admin_review@fs.fed.us. Office hours for hand-delivery are Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 4:30 

PM, excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be submitted in a commonly used format (such as .doc, 

.docx, .pdf, .txt, or .rtf) with subject: BHRL FEIS. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an 

electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide 

verification.

It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure timely filing of a written objection with the reviewing officer 

pursuant to 36 CFR §§218.9(a) and 219.56(c). All objections are available for public inspection during and 

after the objection process.
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

15

The FEIS is available at http://www.tinyurl.com/BHRLProject or by request (see contact information

below). 

Objections Filed Under 36 CFR §218, Subparts A and C:

The planned activities implementing the BHNF Forest Plan, as amended, are subject to objection under 36 

CFR §218. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments 

during the scoping period or DEIS comment period (§218.5). Issues raised in objections must be based on 

previously submitted comments unless based on new information arising after the designated comment 

periods. Objections must comply with requirements of §218.8(d). Documents may be incorporated by 

reference only as provided for at §218.8(b).

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 30 days from the publication date of the legal 

notice in the Rapid City Journal (Rapid City, South Dakota), the newspaper of record. The publication date 

in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those 

wishing to object to this project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any 

other source. 

Objections Filed Under 36 CFR §219, Subpart B:

The programmatic Forest Plan amendment is subject to objection under 36 CFR §219, Subpart B. Only

those who previously submitted substantive formal comments specific to the proposed plan amendment 

are eligible to file an objection under §219.53. Objections must be based on previously submitted 

substantive formal comments attributed to the objector unless the objection concerns an issue that arose 

after the opportunities for formal comment. Incorporation of documents by reference is permitted only as 

provided in §219.54(b). Objections must meet the minimum content requirements of §219.54(c). 

Objections, including attachments, filed under 36 CFR §219, Subpart B must be in writing and filed with 

the Objection Reviewing Officer within 60 calendar days following the publication of a legal notice in the 

Rapid City Journal (Rapid City, South Dakota), the newspaper of record, announcing the Opportunity to 

Object (§219.56). The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating 

the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information 

provided by any other source. 

7 Implementation

Implementation will occur under the Final Record of Decision (ROD), which will be issued following the 

close of the objection resolution periods (36 CFR §§218.12, 219.58). If no objections are received, 

implementation of the decisions may begin on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close 

of the objection filing periods (§§218.12(c)(2), 219.58(c)). If an objection is received, the Final ROD will not 

be signed until the close of the objection resolution process (§§218.12(a), 219.58(a)).

The FEIS will be filed with EPA and notice of its availability posted in the Federal Register. 

Implementation may not occur until 30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice. The Federal 

Register notice is not tied to objection process timelines. 
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

16

8 Contact Person

This document and the FEIS may be viewed and downloaded at https://tinyurl.com/BHRLProject. For 

additional information concerning the decision, contact Anne Davy, Project Manager, email 

adavy@fs.fed.us or by phone at (406) 273-1836. For questions on the Forest Service objection process 

contact Kelly Honors, Forest Environmental Coordinator, at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, 1019 North 5th

Street, Custer, SD 57730, email khonors@fs.fed.us, or by phone at (605) 673-9200. 

9 Responsible Official

Mark Van Every

Forest Supervisor

Black Hills National Forest
Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Draft Record of Decision

17

10 References

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest.

Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Environmental Assessment for the Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed 

Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. USDA Forest Service, 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsm9_012673

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Record of Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. October 2005. USDA Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. Available online: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5112510

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National 

Forest, as Amended by the Phase II Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. Available online: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/blackhills/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5112303

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Service Handbook 2509.25, Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. 

Rocky Mountain Region Amendment No. 2509.25-2006-2, effective May 5, 2006. Available online: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/91

137_FSPLT3_2553041.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Wyoming Forests, 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding 

Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act on the National Forests and Grasslands of Wyoming.

Manuscript on file, Supervisor’s Office, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2018. Programmatic Agreement among the Black Hills National Forest and the South 

Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Vegetation Management Projects Implemented in the 

State of South Dakota. Manuscript on file, Supervisor’s Office, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota.