i

Table of Contents

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

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

Alternatives Considered........................................................................ 2

Alternative A – Proposed Action....................................................... 2 

Alternative B – No Action.............................................................. 4

Design Features................................................................. 4

Analysis Methods...............................................................5

Field Surveys.................................................................... 5

Assumptions.....................................................................5

Impacts on Wildlife Habitat.................................................................. 6

Alternative A – Proposed Action ............................................ 6 

Alternative B – No Action .................................................. 7

Effects to species dependent on mature, dense pine stands........................8

Snags (dead trees) and Down woody material........................................8

Riparian Habitat ......................................................................... 9

Management Indicator Species (MIS)..................................................... 9

White-tailed Deer.............................................................. 10

Beaver........................................................................... 12

Black-backed Woodpecker................................................... 13

Brown Creeper................................................................. 15

Golden-crowned Kinglet...................................................... 16

Grasshopper Sparrow......................................................... 17

Ruffed Grouse..................................................................18

Song Sparrow................................................................... 19

Mountain Sucker............................................................... 20

Species of Local Concern (SOLC).......................................................... 21

American Dipper...............................................................23

Black-and-white Warbler..................................................... 23

Broad-winged Hawk and Cooper’s Hawk..................................23

Northern Saw-whet Owl..................................................... 24

Pygmy Nuthatch............................................................... 25

Sharp-shinned Hawk.......................................................... 25

Bats..............................................................................26

Meadow Jumping Mouse..................................................... 26

Mountain Goat..................................................................26

Northern Flying Squirrel......................................................27

Butterflies (Atlantis Fritillary and Tawny Crescent)........................27

Snails............................................................................ 28
ii

Rocky Mountain Elk.......................................................... 28

Migratory Birds.................................................................................29

Golden Eagle................................................................... 30

Red-headed Woodpecker..................................................... 30

Black-billed Cuckoo.......................................................... 30

Prairie Falcon.................................................................. 31

Recreational Fisheries ........................................................................31

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.........31

Biological Evaluation Process........................................................ 32

Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................... 32

Black-footed Ferret............................................................ 32

Northern Long-eared Bat...................................................... 33

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species............................................................. 34

American Peregrine Falcon.................................................. 35

Bald Eagle..................................................................... 35

Northern Goshawk........................................................... 36

Northern Harrier...............................................................40

Burrowing Owl.................................................................41

Flammulated Owl............................................................. 41 

Lewis’s Woodpecker......................................................... 43

Black-backed Woodpecker...................................................44

Grasshopper Sparrow..........................................................45

Loggerhead Shrike.............................................................46 

Long-billed Curlew............................................................46

Yellow-billed Cuckoo.........................................................47

Bats (Fringed Myotis, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Hoary Bat).......... 47

American Marten...............................................................49

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep............................................ 51

Black-tailed Prairie Dog.......................................................52 

Northern Leopard Frog.........................................................52 

Black Hills Redbelly Snake................................................... 53

Regal Fritillary (butterfly)..................................................... 54

Monarch Butterfly............................................................. 54

Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail ............................................ 55

Western Bumble Bee........................................................... 56

Finescale Dace................................................................. 57

Lake Chub...................................................................... 58

Mountain Sucker............................................................... 59

Determination Summary Table.................................................... 60

Cumulative Impacts............................................................................ 61

Climate Change................................................................................. 62

Literature Cited................................................................................. 63
1

Introduction

This report analyzes and discloses the effects to wildlife and their habitat in the Black Hills 

Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) project area on the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) and serves 

as a Biological Assessment (BA) for federally listed Threatened and Endangered species, a 

Biological Evaluation (BE) for Region 2 sensitive species, and a Wildlife Report for 

Management Indicator species (MIS), Species of Local Concern (SOLC), migratory birds and 

other emphasis species of the Black Hills. 

The report considers the habitat needs for wildlife species and potential changes to that habitat 

resulting from proposed BHRL activities. Data in this report were compiled from field surveys, 

District wildlife observation data, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) surveys, literature 

reviews, communication with District personnel across the Forest, and the BA/BE completed for 

the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (Forest Plan) and 

the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment (USDA-Forest Service 1996, 2005). It is prepared in 

accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §402) and tiers directly to the 

revised Forest Plan and the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment EIS (USDA-Forest Service 1996, 

2005) and the associated Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluations (BA/BE), (Appendices 

H and C respectively). The Forest Plan, as amended, provides direction and ensures compliance 

with applicable laws, regulations and policies. BHRL activities implemented consistent with the 

Forest Plan likewise ensure compliance with relevant law, regulation and policy.

Forest Plan goals and objectives for the BHRL project area and for wildlife resources are to 

provide a variety of life through the management of a biologically diverse landscape. These 

goals and objectives along with the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines seek to provide and 

maintain an appropriate mix and balance of habitats over the long term. This diversity of habitats 

is intended to maintain populations of all vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife and plant species in 

the area. A variety of wildlife recreational opportunities, ranging from consumptive to nonconsumptive activities (e.g. hunting/fishing to wildlife viewing) will also be provided.

Project Description

Purpose and Need

The Black Hills National Forest 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. 

Area Affected by the Project

The project area includes National Forest System (NFS) lands that are managed by the Black 

Hills National Forest 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 

1,098,425 acres of NFS lands. 
2

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

Alternatives Considered

Alternative A – Proposed Action 

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. Pine would be cut from encroached grasslands on up to 14,200 

acres. Uneven-age management would occur on up to 10,000 acres of SS 4A stands.
3

Pine Structural Stage (SS) Modification

These activities would occur in MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, and/or 5.6. Structural stage percentages 

comparing existing to desired conditions are shown below.

Overstory removal would occur on up to 185,210 acres of SS 4A stands (Commercial Treatment 

Areas; CTAs). 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. 

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.

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
4

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)

Alternative B – No Action

This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison of environmental consequences and is a 

management option that could be selected by the deciding official. Under this alternative, the 

proposed activities would not occur. 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. Vegetation structure would change over 

time through natural growth and mortality and events such as wildfires, storms, and insect and 

disease outbreaks.

Design Features

Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, Regional Watershed Conservation Practices 

(WCPs, Forest Service Handbook 2509.25), Forest Plan standards, guidelines, goals and 

objectives, South Dakota and Wyoming Best Management Practices and other management 

requirements apply to the proposed activities. Additional BHRL-specific design features are 

identified as part of the proposed action (see the Proposed Action description in the EIS).
5

Analysis Methods

A pre-field review was conducted utilizing wildlife species information to describe habitat 

requirements for all special status wildlife species. Sources of this information included BHNF 

wildlife biologists, BHNF records and files, NRIS-Wildlife database, South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), published 

research and reports derived from field work conducted in the Black Hills and elsewhere. The

information served as the basis for determining the effects of the alternative on wildlife species. 

Impact analyses on wildlife species was conducted using existing data and the habitat 

requirements for each species. Habitat requirements were used to determine the effects of the 

alternative on each wildlife species. The habitat impacts and risks to species were estimated 

based on the best available science and data. Conclusions and determinations were derived from 

anticipated trends, probable risks, and degree of uncertainty under the proposed alternative. 

Wildlife species effects are based primarily on direct impacts on wildlife (mortalities, collisions, 

etc.) and indirect impacts of habitat changes and disturbance. The effects of disturbance to 

wildlife are based on potential miles of new motorized routes open to public use and potential 

acres of vegetation treatments as well as the seasonality of these activities. Habitat changes were 

analyzed based on the amounts of potential treatments proposed.

The indirect and cumulative impacts analysis are bounded in time as the next 10 years. This 

temporal scale is based on the time over which one can expect to predict reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Some longer term (10-100 year) impacts are projected, but accurate prediction of these 

effects become speculative. 

For wildlife species (with the exception of elk, white-tailed deer and raptors), the spatial scale for 

cumulative impacts analysis generally encompasses the area within the Forest boundary. This 

area was chosen because it encompasses similar ecosystem components and species’ home 

ranges/territories that occur on the Forest. Cumulative impacts extended beyond the BHNF 

boundary (5 mile buffer) for deer, elk and raptors because they are mobile species with large 

home ranges and seasonal ranges, frequently located outside the BHNF boundary. All references 

to Forest Plan structural stage objectives in relevant MAs refer to Objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 

5.4-206, 5.43-204 and 5.6-204. 

Field Surveys

Wildlife occurrence and distribution was based on existing survey information and assumptions 

based on habitat suitability. Field reconnaissance has occurred incidental to work on other 

projects and various field trips. Additional surveys may occur as needed to identify areas to 

protect and seasonal restrictions when specific activities are implemented. Under some 

circumstances, it is acceptable to analyze and document expected effects based on the 

assumption that a certain species is present, in lieu of conducting site-specific surveys (USDA 

Forest Service 2015a; FSM 2672.43-Exhibit 01).

Assumptions

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

• All figures are approximate.
6

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

factors.

• Proposed activities will be implemented as designed. 

• Mapped stand boundary locations are approximate. Stand delineation is subject to corrections 

based on field review.

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

SS 4A commercial treatment stands. Miles of road actually constructed may 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.

• The habitat structural stage percentages as defined in the existing condition include 

implementation of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project (MPBRP) which include 

timber sales anticipated to be sold in FY2018.

Impacts on Wildlife Habitat

Alternative A - Proposed Action

Vegetation management activities that generate loud noise from motorized equipment may 

disturb and/or displace wildlife such as goshawks and other nesting raptors. These effects tend to 

be more adverse when they occur during reproductive seasons when adults and young are more 

vulnerable to disturbance or during the winter when species may be stressed due to weather and 

reduced food supplies.

Overall, proposed vegetation management activities are expected to move most targeted habitats 

toward desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. The “coarse-scale” approach to provide 

diversity for forest-dependent species is represented by the structural stage objectives. Dense, 

mature pine forest (which is below objectives in some management areas due to past wildfires, 

the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and subsequent response treatments) may require decades to 

increase to objective levels. Forest structural diversity design features promote the retention of

some existing mature forest in treatment areas when opportunities arise. Snag abundance, which 

is currently above levels specified by Forest Plan objective 211, will decline in the future under 

both alternatives as existing snags fall to the ground. The Proposed Action would remove some 

snags that pose a safety hazard to human life and property or during prescribed burning 

operations, but otherwise complies with standards 2301 and 2305 to retain snags.

In general, prescribed fire is expected to have positive effects on wildlife habitat. Prescribed fire 

may create some smaller-diameter snags for wildlife use, depending on the mortality level 

identified in the burn prescription. For a species like the black-backed woodpecker, which is 

adapted to natural disturbance events, prescribed fire has some benefit, but not to the same 

degree as wildfire and insect epidemics (Rota et al. 2014a). The timing of prescribed burning 

typically occurs outside the breeding season for most wildlife species, with some exceptions, 

thereby avoiding the time of year when adults and young may be more susceptible to 

injury/direct mortality or disturbance/displacement.
7

Prescribed fire prescriptions typically result in lower flame heights, reduced burn intensity, 

slower rate of spread, and thus less heat/smoke than wildfire. This in turn reduces tree mortality, 

impacts on soils, and general severity of effects. Based on these factors, negative effects on most 

wildlife species are avoided or minimized. Some ground-based species with limited mobility, 

such as land snails, are more susceptible to adverse effects from prescribed burning.

Road-related activities may affect wildlife and its habitat. Similar to vegetation management 

activities, construction, maintenance, and use of roads may generate loud noise from heavy 

equipment that may create a zone of disturbance and/or displace wildlife, with effects being 

more harmful during breeding seasons and winter. Species lacking mobility, such as land snails, 

may be vulnerable to injury or mortality from road construction at any time of year. Road use 

may have greater seasonal impacts on species like the Black Hills redbelly snake, which may 

bask on roads or cross roads when moving to and from winter hibernacula. The proposed 18 

miles of new roads would not increase open road density because they would be closed to public 

motorized use after the project.

Road construction is likely to result in the modification of wildlife habitat. In the case of 

permanent roads and conversion from unclassified to system roads, this change may be 

permanent. An estimated 25 acres of vegetated habitat is predicted to be permanently modified 

due to roads. The 18 miles of new road proposed would result in additional habitat 

fragmentation. The resultant effects on wildlife will differ by species, the length/width of the 

road template, the location of the road (ridgeline, midslope, valley bottom) and the habitat 

affected among other factors. Linear openings created by roads in forested habitat may be used 

as foraging or travel corridors by some wildlife species. Impacts from new temporary roads (39 

miles) are typically short-term as revegetation occurs during the growing season after use has 

ended. Additional analysis of road-related impacts on aquatic habitat can be found in the Soil and 

Water Specialist Report.

Alternative B - No Action

Throughout the BHNF, forest succession would largely be allowed to take place over time 

without additional vegetation activities, human activity and disturbance proposed in the BHRL

project. Vegetation structure would change over time through natural growth and mortality 

events such as wildfires, storms, insects and disease outbreaks. Changes would also occur 

through on-going activities, such as Forest protection efforts, fire suppression, noxious weed 

treatment, and recurring road maintenance on system roads as directed by the Forest Plan.

The BHNF would generally increase in ponderosa pine density and extent. Ponderosa pine 

forests would mature into larger trees and expand in distribution to become the dominant tree 

species in some areas currently dominated by hardwoods, grasses (meadows) and riparian and 

wetland habitats. White spruce habitat will likely increase and expand with no vegetation 

activities in spruce stands.

Uncertainty exits regarding the occurrence of wildfires and future climatic patterns, regenerating 

ponderosa pine will likely increase across the BHNF landscape and expand into other habitats. 

Ponderosa pine is a prolific regenerating tree species on the BHNF. Risk of wildfires and insect 

infestations will likely increase. Wildlife, such as woodpeckers, would benefit from and are 

dependent on habitat created by wildfires and insects. 
8

Wildlife species adapted to and requiring dense, mature pine stands would be maintained or may 

benefit from increased habitat. Some benefitted wildlife species include the northern goshawk, 

brown creeper, golden crowned-kinglet, northern flying squirrel and American marten. Other 

species adapted or requiring open pine, hardwoods, grasslands, riparian areas and wetlands 

would likely face decreases to suitable habitat. Species facing negative impacts of decreased 

habitat include grasshopper sparrow, black and white warbler, song sparrow, monarch butterfly, 

meadow jumping mouse and black-tailed prairie dog.

Wildlife species requiring open forest conditions, hardwoods, grasslands, riparian areas and 

wetlands would be dependent on natural processes (wildfire, storms, insects and disease) to 

retard succession and provide needed habitat. Provision of these habitats would be uncertain and 

unpredictable. And species that use these habitats may realize decreases in suitable habitat as 

ponderosa pine stands expand with forest succession.

Most wildlife species have some beneficial, neutral or negative impacts to either alternative A 

and/or alternative B. Overall, the analysis of impacts depends on the quality and quantity of 

changes to habitat and range of suitable habitats available. Some species are more adaptable to 

change while others are not. 

Effects to species dependent on mature, dense and late-successional Ponderosa Pine stands

In a managed, resilient ecosystem the importance of mature, dense canopy and late-successional 

landscapes and its presence across the landscape becomes greatly magnified. This habitat serves

as refugia for various wildlife species and the natural processes that support them. Some species 

requiring this habitat on the BHNF include the northern goshawk, brown creeper, black-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owls, broad-winged, sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks, saw-whet 

owls, pygmy nuthatches, northern flying squirrels and the golden-crowned kinglet. For these 

species, and additional species whose habitat they represent, the quantity of mature, dense and 

late-successional habitat (4B, 4C and 5) combined is below the desired percentage in the habitat 

structural stage objectives. 

Snags and Down Woody Material

Snags and down woody material provide homes, security cover and foraging habitat for 

countless animals, from beetles to bears. Snags are an important habitat component for cavity 

nesting birds and mammals. The majority of the snags on the Forest are ponderosa pine. Forest 

Plan Objective 211 direction is to provide 3 hard snags greater than 9-inch diameter at breast 

height (dbh) and 25 feet tall per acre, well dispersed across the Forest, 25 percent of which are 

greater than 14-inch dbh, within a management area in conifer-forested portion of the Forest 

(USDA-Forest Service 2006). Forest Plan Standard 2301 provides direction to retain all snags 

greater than 20-inch dbh unless they are a safety hazard. If snag densities within a project area 

are below Objective 211, retain all snags unless they are a safety hazard. If large snags (>14-inch 

dbh) are not available, retain snags in the largest size class available. This standard does not 

apply to areas salvaged under Objective 11-03. All soft snags should be retained unless they are 

a safety hazard (USDA-Forest Service 2006). 

Forest Plan Standard 2308 provides direction to retain an average of at least 50 linear feet per 

acre of down woody debris with a minimum diameter of 10 inches during vegetation 
9

management activities in ponderosa pine forested sites (USDA-Forest Service 2006). Large and 

small wood debris across the forest floor provide homes, cover from predators and foraging 

habitat for many bird and mammal species.

Current conditions across the BHNF include large areas of pine beetle damage and aging wildfire 

habitats and has created more snags and downed wood in recent years across the BHNF. Areas 

where mountain pine beetles (MPB) were active generally have higher snag and down woody 

material and snag clumping is common. Snags created by MPB have short life spans and will 

typically fall within 5 to 7 years, contributing then, to down woody habitat. Currently adequate 

snags and large woody debris exist across most of the project area. 

Riparian Habitat

Riparian habitat is located along the edges of streams and wetlands. It is the transitional zone 

between the aquatic habitat and the upland terrestrial habitat and is defined by soils, vegetation 

and water. Riparian habitat is important to all terrestrial and aquatic species because of their 

basic need for water. The Forest is directed to manage for high quality riparian communities by 

providing stable stream banks, retaining woody vegetation along streams and lakes, and 

providing large woody material for aquatic species (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Guideline 

3212). The Forest provides riparian habitat diversity through vegetation treatments in 

conjunction with other habitat improvement activities (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Guideline 

3211). In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and 

wetlands, only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian 

ecosystem condition are allowed (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Standard 1301). Long-term 

ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in wetlands are maintained to 

sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Standard 

1302). Log landing, decking areas and mechanical slash piling are prohibited within riparian 

areas unless the integrity of the riparian area can be protected (USDA-Forest Service 2006, 

Standard 1306). Vegetative type conversion should only be done in riparian areas to reestablish 

riparian vegetation for the protection and/or enhancement of those ecosystems (USDA-Forest 

Service 2006, Guideline 1303).

Specific to the BHRL project, any vegetation activity, if close to or contacting riparian or 

wetland areas may result in localized short-term degradation of habitat. Some localized, minor

negative impacts are anticipated. However, overall water quality and quantity and riparian and 

wetland habitats are expected to be maintained and may be enhanced due to tree removal in 

commercial and non-commercial thinning activities and prescribed fire. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Trends in MIS or their habitats are representative of a variety of habitats and can indicate overall 

changes in the forest ecosystem. MIS also suggest the welfare of other species with similar 

habitat needs. MIS are used to assess the impacts of management activities on themselves, other 

species and the quality and quantity of the habitat they occupy. MIS will generally be monitored 

using trends in habitat: however, when available, population trends may be used as an indicator 

of management response. Cumulative impacts analyses for the following species are bounded by 

the BHNF except for white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer are migratory and utilize winter ranges 
10

on private lands surrounding the BHNF. For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative impacts 

analyses for deer extend from the BHNF boundary to a five mile buffer surrounding the BHNF.

Population viability was evaluated in the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS. The Phase II 

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

population if standards and guidelines are followed, and if conditions move towards habitat 

objectives. Monitoring of MIS is accomplished through coordinated efforts involving US Forest 

Service biologists, District data, research, contracted monitoring surveys and State agencies. 

More information on MIS monitoring can be found in the Forest Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report (USDA-Forest Service 2015b).

MIS species considered in this report are: 

• White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

• Beaver (Castor canadensis)

• Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides acticus)

• Brown creeper (Certhia americana)

• Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa)

• Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

• Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)

• Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia)

• Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus)

White-tailed deer

White-tailed deer inhabit a wide variety of habitats and are extremely adaptable, making this 

species the most widespread deer in North America. White-tailed deer live in every habitat type, 

including grasslands, mountains, deserts, tropical rainforests, swamps and urban settings 

(Higgins et al. 2000). In the Black Hills, white-tailed deer inhabit a variety of forest types and 

structural stages. The BHNF has designated the white-tailed deer as a MIS for early successional 

ponderosa pine forests (Sieg and Severson 1996). White-tailed deer in the Black Hills migrate 

between distinct summer and winter ranges. Hardwood stands of aspen and birch are prominent 

features in white-tailed deer’s selection of home ranges and their use of sites within these ranges 

(Stefanich 1995). Kennedy (1992) suggested aspen stands are highly selected during fawning. 

There are 44,184 acres of aspen and birch habitat within the BHNF. There are also 56,512 acres 

of mixed pine and aspen that contribute to selected deer habitat. White-tailed deer in the Hills are 

largely migratory and during winter, most deer move to privately-owned winter ranges that 

include lower elevation forests that offer cover and browse, and open habitats adjacent to 

wooded draws (Stefanich 1995). The BHNF is utilized in all seasons, but less so during late 

winter (January-April) by white-tailed deer when deep snows often preclude use and plant 

phenology is not conducive to foraging. 

Forage and habitat preferences change seasonally. During summer, deer in the northern Hills 

prefer hardwood stands of aspen and birch (Kennedy 1992, Stefanich 1995). During winter in the 

central Black Hills, white-tailed deer selected dense young ponderosa pine/deciduous mixed 

forests and open burned ponderosa pine/ grass habitats (DePerno et al. 2002). In the northern 

Black Hills in winter, low-growing shrubs such as Oregon grape and bearberry are important 
11

forage during mild winters, but in severe winters with deep snow, ponderosa pine needles, bur 

oak twigs, and common juniper are consumed (Hill 1946, Schenck et al. 1972, Schneeweis et al. 

1972, Sieg and Severson 1996). Forbs have been reported to dominate the white-tailed deer diet 

in the Black Hills in the summer (Schenck et al. 1972, Sieg and Severson 1996). However, in the 

central Black Hills, DePerno et al. (2002) reported populations ate mostly graminoids and 

moderate amounts of shrubs and forbs.

Forage production can be increased through logging, prescribed burning, ponderosa pine stand 

thinning, and pine litter reduction (DePerno et al. 2002). Prescribed burning of browse species 

such as chokecherry, serviceberry, and aspen can be beneficial since these species are prolific 

root or crown sprouters. Thinning ponderosa pine stands allows more sunlight to reach the forest 

floor and increases forage production (Uresk and Severson 1998). In mixed oak-pine stands, 

selective removal of pine trees may enhance reproduction of oak and associated shrubs (Sieg and 

Severson 1996). This is predominately evident in the northern Black Hills. 

Road construction and road density can affect deer habitat. High road densities (miles of 

road/square mile area) alter both human and animal behavior, which contribute to animal 

displacement and stress (SAIC 2003). Roads may cause a direct loss in habitat and increased 

vehicular volume may indirectly degrade habitat quality. In the 1990s up to 1,400 deer per year 

were killed in vehicle collisions in the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996). Screening cover is 

defined as: being able to hide 90% of an adult deer or elk from human view at a distance of 200 

feet or less (of the road). There are many collector and arterial roads in the project area where the 

screening cover requirement (Guideline 3203) applies. The project area consists of denser 

ponderosa pine stands (Structural Stages 2, 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C) which is screening cover for 

deer.

White-tailed deer numbers are increasing across the Black Hills. In the South Dakota portion of 

the BHNF, the population in 2016 was estimated to be approximately 51,000 animals (Robling 

2017). The SDGFP Deer Management Plan, 2017-2023, provides historical background and 

biological information for the formulation of sound deer management. Within the Wyoming 

Black Hills, the increasing white-tailed deer population was estimated at 52,080 in 2015 

(Sandrini 2016). White-tailed deer are currently above the population objective in South Dakota 

and 5% below objective in Wyoming. Forest wide, foraging habitat is increasing and security 

and thermal cover habitat is decreasing (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). This deer is very 

common throughout the project area. Impacts from this project are expected to have negligible 

impacts to habitat and deer numbers Forest wide. The BHRL project is consistent with 

Objectives 217 and 238. Under either alternative, white-tailed deer are likely to persist on the 

Forest.

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Proposed activities would result in younger, more open forest, indicating an increase in deer 

foraging habitat and a decrease in security and thermal habitat. Activities that remove or thin 

pine would reduce screening cover for up to a decade and thermal cover for up to 20 years. 

Aspen enhancement would increase preferred summertime habitat, while oak enhancement 

would benefit fall and winter habitat. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest 
12

Plan objectives 217 (“Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state objectives in 

effect in 1996”) and 238a (maintain or enhance habitat for MIS) by conserving or enhancing 

white-tailed deer habitat.

Alternative B

No direct impacts (mortalities) are anticipated. Project area is expected to maintain current 

mature, large trees and develop dense, young pine regenerating stands that will become a 

dominant landscape component in the absence of wildfires and insects. Deer foraging habitat is 

expected to decrease and security and thermal cover habitat expected to increase. Pine expansion 

into grassland, aspen and oak habitat will likely decrease deer habitat. 

Summary

Overall, alternative A would likely improve white-tailed deer habitat more than alternative B. 

White-tailed deer will persist under either alternative. 

Beaver

The American beaver (Castor canadensis) was selected as an MIS because of its influence on 

riparian/aquatic habitat conditions and its status as a keystone species (USDA-Forest Service 

2005). Beaver are found in suitable habitat throughout much of North America, ranging as far 

south as northern Mexico. Beaver are semi-aquatic and occupy large rivers and lakes with 

constant water levels, marshes, small lakes, and streams with weak flows adequate for damming 

(Higgins et al. 2000). General habitat requirements of beaver include suitable riparian habitat 

dominated by stands of willow, aspen, or cottonwood. 

In Wyoming and South Dakota, beaver are widely distributed and ranked apparently secure (S4), 

and secure (S5), respectively (NatureServe 2006). Likely limits to persistence include 

degradation and/or loss of riparian shrubs and forests due to historical management activities, as 

well as the loss of hardwood components on adjacent uplands. Early explorers noted the 

abundance of beavers in the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996). Beavers were heavily trapped in the 

Black Hills, and by the late 1800s beaver populations were low and restricted to remote portions 

of the Black Hills (Parrish et al. 1996). During the 1930s, efforts were made to increase beaver 

populations in the Black Hills; harvest restrictions were imposed, and populations were 

supplemented with animals from the eastern part of South Dakota (Parrish et al. 1996). Beaver 

are periodically transplanted onto the Forest in cooperation with State Game and Fish agencies. 

Beaver abundance and distribution were last monitored in 2012, and has occurred on a 5-year

basis. A Forest survey in 2007 estimated about 38 beaver colonies on the Forest (USDA-Forest 

Service 2010). A Forest wide beaver cache survey conducted in 2012 documented 60 caches 

(USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

Objective 238a is being met based on the increase in beaver abundance and distribution from 

2007 to 2012 (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). This is likely due to a combination of 

environmental and human-related factors, such as increased rainfall and stream flows and beaver 

transplants. 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA-Forest Service 2005) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population if standards are followed. Due to the 
13

creation of more diverse habitats and vegetation treatments that may increase hardwoods (aspen) 

adjacent to riparian habitat, this project will likely contribute to Objective 238. Under either 

alternative, beaver are likely to persist on the Forest.

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Proposed aspen enhancement near streams and wetlands would increase potential foraging 

habitat. Proposed activities would not result in a measurable increase in streamflow. Proposed 

activities would contribute toward achievement of objective 238a by maintaining or enhancing 

beaver habitat.

Alternative B

No direct impacts (mortalities) are anticipated. The No Action alternative would have no 

immediate effects on beavers. Foraging habitat may decrease over time.

Summary

Overall, alternative A would likely improve forest conditions more for the beaver. Beaver will 

persist under either alternative. 

Black-backed woodpecker

The black-backed woodpecker is associated with montane coniferous forests, primarily in spruce 

and fir forests (Anderson 2003). They also inhabit ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests.

These woodpeckers feed primarily on bark beetle larvae.

In the Black Hills, black-backed woodpeckers are highly associated with ponderosa pine forests 

that are recently burned (< 5 years) or have high bark beetle populations (Rota et al. 2014a, Rota 

et al. 2014b, Matseur 2017). Their home range in the Black Hills was estimated to be from 75 

acres (Kistler and Fager 1981) to 500 acres (Rota et al. 2014a). Another essential habitat for this 

woodpecker is ponderosa pine forests that have dense, mature or late successional structure (i.e., 

structural stages 4C and 5). A study (Mohren et al. 2016) in the Black Hills, suggests blackbacked woodpeckers are found in both immature (3C) and mature (4C, 5) ponderosa pine stands 

with high (>60%) canopy cover. This third habitat type is especially important when neither 

recently burned areas or high beetle populations are available. The population in the Black Hills 

is somewhat isolated from the rest of the North American population (Anderson 2003). The 

black-backed woodpecker population in the Black Hills was petitioned in 2012 for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. On October 5, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined 

the bird did not warrant listing under the ESA.

Black-backed woodpecker densities peaked after the 2000 Jasper Fire during the second post-fire 

year when one bird/36 acres (or 6.9 birds/km2

) were observed (Panjabi 2003). Relative densities 

in burned habitat declined in the Jasper Fire as expected following a fire (Hutton et al. 2007). 

Forest-wide densities of black-backed woodpeckers have spiked upward in 2009 (White et al. 

2010), probably due to MPB outbreaks. Matseur (2017) estimated approximately 1,460 and 

1,720 pairs of black-backed woodpeckers, in the Black Hills in 2015 and 2016, respectively. This

population estimate is more than 2 times as high as Mohren et al. (2014), (2000 data), which is 

likely a result of the high levels of disturbance the forest has experienced in the past 15 years. 
14

As large wildfires age and MPB numbers return to endemic levels, preferred habitat will decline. 

Woodpecker numbers will also decline. 

Current snag availability and distribution, largely the result of pine beetles, have short life spans 

and will typically fall within 5 to 7 years, contributing then, to down woody habitat. Currently 

adequate snags and large woody debris exist across most of the project area. 

In the short-term (1-10 years) snag habitat for this species is currently provided, consistent with 

Objective 238b, Objective 221 and Objective 11.03. The “aging” of large burned areas, such as 

the Myrtle Fire, into habitat less suitable for black-backed woodpeckers is currently being offset

by the acreage of insect-infested timber stands. However, insect availability has (and continues 

to) decline significantly. The beetle epidemic has ended, and reliance on dense, both immature 

(3C) and mature Ponderosa stands (4C and dense 5) will become a more important habitat 

feature. However, late-successional pine habitat has declined about 40% since 1997 (USDAForest Service 2015b). And time is needed for forest stands to develop into late-successional 

structural stage 5 (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Implementation of the Proposed Action could cause direct mortality and loss of potential habitat 

in the form of snags (hazard tree removal) and live, dense forest. In accordance with Forest Plan 

standards 2301 and 2305, snags would be retained unless they pose a hazard. The Proposed 

Action does not include post-fire salvage.

Proposed fuel break construction would decrease potential habitat in the form of dense, mature 

stands of live pine by up to 4,000 acres, but this impact would be reduced by coordination with 

wildlife biologists to retain the best habitat when possible. The Phase II Amendment FEIS 

determined that adequate habitat for maintaining viable populations would exist if standards and 

guidelines are followed and conditions move toward habitat objectives. Due to mountain pine 

beetle infestation and response actions, dense, mature pine forest is below the Forest Plan 

objective level in MA 5.1, and late succession pine forest is below objectives in all MAs that 

have objectives. No activities that may decrease late succession characteristics would occur in 

structural stage 5 stands (design features). Fuel breaks may occur in various management areas 

but would be focused on MA 5.4, which has a higher percentage of dense forest than other MAs. 

Close coordination with wildlife biologists would be required during layout and implementation 

to assess tradeoffs between potential habitat and fuel break location. The Proposed Action would 

conserve most of the suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat in live forest while increasing 

potential public and firefighter safety in key locations.

Proposed precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and fuel treatments would reduce density of 

stands of small trees, facilitating growth of residual pine seedlings and saplings. Instead of 

stagnating, thinned stands would transition into mature forest within 20 to 40 years.

The Proposed Action would reduce the potential for large, stand-replacing wildfires, which 

create preferred black-backed woodpecker habitat. It may also decrease the potential scale of a 

future mountain pine beetle infestation. Under both alternatives, however, stand-replacing fires 
15

and beetle infestations will continue to occur. The objective of the Proposed Action is to reduce 

the scale of these events and the severity of their effects, where possible. Subsequently, this 

alternative would maintain or permit some level of disturbance and heterogeneity within stands 

and at the landscape-level as identified by Matseur (2017) as needed to benefit the diverse needs 

of birds. It would conserve habitat for this species in accordance with Forest Plan objective 221 

by minimizing the additional loss of dense, mature forest while trending toward the desired 

structural stage percentages in the long term.

Alternative B

Over time, the No Action alternative would allow development of additional closed-canopy 

forest. Increased difficulty of fire suppression and potential for high-severity fire could result in 

large, stand- replacing fires that would create black-backed woodpecker habitat.

Summary

Overall, alternative B would likely improve forest conditions more for the woodpecker. The 

black-backed woodpecker is expected to persist under either alternative. 

Brown creeper

The brown creeper is selected as an MIS because of its association with old-growth ponderosa 

pine stands. Creepers prefer large, unfragmented, mature and old-growth stands with dense 

canopies and large live and dead trees (Hejl et al. 2002, Wiggins 2005a). Hejl et al. (2002) 

suggested that the most critical feature related to the selection of breeding areas is the presence 

of large trees and snags.

Breeding bird surveys in the BHNF have revealed that well over 90 percent of observations of 

brown creepers during the breeding season are in mature or old-growth forests, primarily spruce 

and late- successional ponderosa pine (Panjabi 2001, 2003, Giroir et al. 2007). Creepers are very 

sensitive to habitat fragmentation and changes in forest structure resulting from all forms of tree 

harvesting (Dykstra et al. 1999, Hutto 1995). Brown creepers generally prefer unburned forests 

(Hutto and Young 1999, Kotliar et al. 2002) but also use moderately burned forests. Matseur 

(2017) found the bird closely linked with white spruce and four- to five-year-old wildfire areas.

In 2005, data suggested that brown creepers were well distributed throughout the Black Hills 

(USDA Forest Service 2007a). Relative density decreased between 2013 and 2014, the most 

recent year for which data are available (USDA Forest Service 2015b). It is unknown whether 

this was a temporary drop or the beginning of a downward trend. Efforts to determine population 

trend are ongoing. Overall, the species appears to occur in very low densities, being most 

abundant in late successional pine forests and spruce habitats (Matseur 2017).

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

The Proposed Action would have the potential to cause loss of nesting and foraging habitat in 

ponderosa pine. Adherence to snag standards and the limited treatment of spruce (which is above 

the Forest Plan objective) would address this to some degree. The BHNF currently meets Forest 

Plan objective 211 regarding snag habitat. The Proposed Action would not reduce snag 

occurrence below Forest Plan objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch clearcuts would 
16

retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be relatively small (less 

than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live forest.

Structural stage objectives for MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, and 5.6 were designed to ensure wildlife 

population viability and provide a balance of habitat conditions across the BHNF. Due to 

mountain pine beetle infestation, timber harvest, and wildfire, structural stages providing brown 

creeper habitat are currently below objectives. The objectives state that dense, mature pine 

should form a combined 10 percent of the pine forest area. In the five MAs combined, these 

structural stages currently form approximately six percent of the pine forest area. Most of this 

habitat is in the northern and eastern Black Hills and the Bear Lodge Mountains. Very little 

exists in the central Black Hills.

Potential nesting habitat may decrease by up to 4,000 acres due to proposed fuel break 

construction in dense stands. These treatments are focused in the WUI, along roads, and near 

infrastructure in areas typically less sustainable for dense nesting habitat. No activities that may 

decrease late succession characteristics would occur in late succession pine stands (design 

features). Fuel breaks may occur in various management areas but would be focused on MA 5.4, 

which has a higher percentage of dense, mature forest than other MAs. Close coordination with 

wildlife biologists would be required during layout and implementation to assess tradeoffs 

between potential habitat and fuel break location. While potential habitat may decrease, the 

above measures would decrease the likelihood of adverse effects on nests and maintain most 

existing, potential nesting habitat while increasing potential public and firefighter safety in key 

locations.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Over time, additional preferred 

habitat would develop. Increased difficulty of fire suppression and potential for high-severity fire 

could provide the recently burned habitat used by the species. 

Summary

Overall, alternative B would likely improve forest conditions more for the brown creeper. Both 

alternatives would conserve habitat for this species in accordance with Forest Plan objective 

238a. 

Golden-crowned kinglet

In the Black Hills, golden-crowned kinglets are found primarily in white spruce forests (Panjabi 

2003, Giroir et al. 2007, White et al. 2010) and this is the basis for its MIS selection. Panjabi 

(2003) also found them in small numbers in late-successional ponderosa pine (4B, 4C and 5), 

aspen, and wet meadows, although these areas likely had a spruce component. Golden-crowned 

kinglets on the Black Hills are likely limited by the abundance, distribution and condition of 

white spruce habitat.

Golden-crowned kinglet habitat (white spruce) appears relatively stable or slowly increasing on 

the Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). Relative to ponderosa pine, spruce habitat is naturally 

patchy and of low abundance on the Black Hills. White spruce occurs at high elevations, on 

north aspects, and in cool canyon bottoms of the Forest. Spruce habitat is found on 24,289 acres 
17

on the Forest which exceeds Objective 239-LVD of 20,000 acres. This project proposes activities 

that may reduce spruce and late successional pine habitat across the project area decreasing 

habitat for this bird. The Forest is meeting Objective 238a based on the acres of preferred habitat. 

However, relative density across the Forest has declined considerably since 2009 (RMBO Avian 

database). This has coincided with the reduction of late successional pine habitat available across 

the BHNF. Continued efforts to conserve spruce and late successional pine habitats is needed to 

conserve habitat for this species (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). This project has the potential to 

move away from Objectives 238a and 239 if more than 4,000 acres of spruce is removed. 

Proposed activities in dense, late successional pine move Forest away from Objective 238. 

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Proposed prescribed fire, shaded fuel breaks, and removal of conifers from aspen may result in 

incidental decreases in spruce habitat, though these activities would be unlikely to occur in 

spruce- dominated stands. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan 

objective 238c by conserving spruce habitat. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred habitat may increase over 

time.

Summary

Overall, alternative B would likely improve forest conditions more for the kinglet. The goldencrowned kinglet is expected to persist under either alternative. 

Grasshopper sparrow 

The grasshopper sparrow is selected as an MIS because this bird is likely a good indicator of 

prairie grassland habitat condition. The grasshopper sparrow breeds from southern Canada south 

through the majority of the United States including northwest portions of Washington, Oregon 

and California (Slater 2004). It does not breed in the arid southwest. This species winters in 

southern United States and Mexico (Sibley 2003). In Wyoming, it breeds mainly in the eastern 

portion of the state, and occurs almost statewide except in the south central portion (Orabona et 

al. 2009). In South Dakota, there are breeding records throughout the state, including the Black 

Hills and this species is considered a locally common migrant and summer resident (Tallman et 

al. 2002).

Grasshopper sparrows have been monitored on the Black Hills since 2002 in cooperation with 

the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Panjabi 2003, 2005). It occurs widely in native mixedgrass prairies in the southern Black Hills, and locally further north in the central Black Hills 

(Panjabi 2005, USDA-Forest Service 2005). Panjabi (2005) found them in the highest density in 

mixed-grass prairie habitat. They may also occur in other types of grasslands (Panjabi 2003). 

With active management (Alternative A) grassland habitat will be maintained and likely increase 

across the Forest. Grasshopper sparrow numbers will likely remain stable and may increase 

slightly as well. 

Current grassland acreage across the project area exceeds the objective by approximately 33,785 

acres so the Forest is conserving meadow habitat (Objective 238a). Efforts to reduce pine 
18

regeneration and encroachment into grassland and meadow habitats will be continually needed to 

enhance and maintain grassland habitat (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). This project is consistent 

with Objective 238.

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality. Proposed removal of encroaching pine from 

grasslands and prescribed fire would maintain treated grassland habitats in the project area. The 

project would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 by maintaining or enhancing 

grasshopper sparrow habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred habitat may decrease over 

time due to pine encroachment.

Summary

Overall, alternative A would likely improve forest conditions more for the grasshopper sparrow. 

The sparrow is expected to persist under either alternative. 

Ruffed grouse

Ruffed grouse are selected as MIS due to their strong association with aspen. They are more 

abundant in the northern Black Hills then the rest of the forest probably due to the increased 

presence of aspen and hardwood stands in general. All of the aspen structural stages provide this 

grouse with certain life history requirements, but sapling-pole structural stages are considered 

optimal (Wiggins 2006). Early aspen stands provide broods with cover and display sites for 

breeding males. Although they do eat buds and fruits of other plants, research has shown that 

populations decline when aspen is removed even if alternative food sources are plentiful. Some 

authors have indicated that conifers in close proximity to aspen stands are desirable for winter 

cover (DeGraaf et al., 1991). Ruffed grouse are fairly sedentary and tend to spend their entire 

lives within 1 mile of the natal nest site. 

Mehls et al. (2014) assessed habitat use of male ruffed grouse to identify the most appropriate 

scale to manage for aspen and ruffed grouse in the Black Hills. Aspen with >70% overstory 

canopy cover was important to the occurrence of ruffed grouse, but was most influential within 

one-mile of drumming sites. Ruffed grouse also selected for areas with many small, regular 

shaped patches of aspen over those with few large patches. Ruffed grouse selected drumming 

logs in close proximity to high stem densities of aspen with a minimal presence of roads.

Ponderosa pine had a negative influence on site selection at the 125- 400-m (~50 ha), 1600-m 

(~804 ha), and 4800-m (~7200 ha) scales. They recommended management efforts should 

incorporate multiple age and size classes of aspen with an emphasis on enhancing early 

successional habitat to provide valuable cover through increased stem densities.

The Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA-Forest Service 2005) determined that there would be 

adequate habitat for maintaining a viable population of ruffed grouse if standards and guidelines 

are followed at the project level, and if conditions move towards aspen and hardwood objectives. 

The long-term habitat and population trend for grouse suggest declining aspen habitat and grouse 
19

numbers (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). In Wyoming, hunter participation and harvest levels 

suggest grouse populations have been generally stable the last seven years (WGFD 2017). 

Impacts from this project are expected to increase preferred habitat and perhaps grouse numbers 

Forest wide. The ruffed grouse would likely persist under either alternative and the BHRL 

project is consistent with Objective 238.

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Proposed activities would maintain and increase aspen habitat. This would be a beneficial effect 

in relation to implementing the management recommendations identified by Mehls et al. (2014). 

The Proposed Action would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 238a by 

conserving and enhancing ruffed grouse habitat. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred habitat may decrease over 

time unless it is regenerated by wildfire or other natural disturbance events.

Summary

Overall, alternative A would likely improve forest conditions more for the ruffed grouse. Ruffed 

grouse are expected to persist under either alternative. 

Song sparrow

In the Black Hills, the song sparrow is strongly associated with riparian habitats (Giroir et al. 

2007). They occur predominantly in and are dependent upon willows and streamside thickets 

(Giroir et al. 2007). Song sparrows are selected as MIS because of their dependence on these 

riparian areas. Throughout the breeding range, females build and incubate open-cup nests in 

grasses and shrubs near fresh water, at forest margins wherever suitable cover and insect food are 

present. Primary forage includes seeds, fruits, and invertebrates as available. They are 

uncommon winter residents in the Black Hills, many likely spending the winter on adjacent 

prairie habitat (Tallman et al. 2002).

Song sparrows are found throughout the Black Hills, but are more common in the northern Hills. 

Forest wide habitat trends are not known at this time because BHNF data on riparian condition is 

not collected (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). Breeding Bird Survey data showed sparrow 

populations were stable to slightly increasing in the Black Hills (Sauer et al. 2011). Population 

estimates ranged from approximately 8,000 to 14,000 birds associated with riparian habitat 

(USDA-Forest Service 2005). However, sparrow densities decreased from 2012 to 2014 (USDAForest Service 2015b). Impacts from this project may have short-term (1 to 5 year) negative 

impacts but longer riparian habitat improvement (3-25 years) and a negligible impact on sparrow 

numbers. Negligible impacts to Forest wide habitat or sparrow numbers are anticipated. This 

project is consistent with Objective 238 with projected long-term benefits to riparian habitat. The 

song sparrow is expected to persist under either alternative.
20

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Proposed activities would result in no more than minor, temporary increases in streamflow. 

Adherence to Forest Plan standards (1301, etc.) as well as Watershed Conservation Practices 

(WCPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would prevent substantial or widespread 

adverse effects on riparian habitat. The Proposed Action would contribute toward achievement 

of Forest Plan objective 238a by conserving song sparrow habitat. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred habitat is likely to remain 

stable over time.

Summary

Overall, alternative A would likely improve forest conditions more for the sparrow. The song 

sparrow will likely persist under either alternative. 

Mountain sucker

The mountain sucker occurs most often in cool, clear mountain streams with moderate water 

velocities. Stream substrate associated with mountain sucker habitat varies widely and ranges 

from mud to sand, gravel, and boulders, although cobbles are most common. This species is 

found on the stream bottom and is closely associated with cover (exposed roots, undercut banks, 

logjams, and boulders). Mountain suckers are bottom feeders and their diet is primarily simple 

plants like diatoms and green algae. Mountain sucker adults spawn over gravel riffles and use 

lower velocity, deeper habitats during non-breeding periods and young-of-year mountain sucker 

require shallow low velocity habitats (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). 

Mountain suckers are native to the Black Hills and comprise the eastern-most extent of the 

species. Belica and Nibbelink (2006), Isaak et al. (2003) and Schultz (2011) assessed the status 

of the mountain sucker in the Rocky Mountain Region and the Black Hills. Schultz (2011) 

studied the environmental factors affecting long-term trends in mountain sucker populations and 

their thermal tolerance on the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills. Factors negatively 

affecting mountain sucker populations included non-native trout, recurrent droughts and stream 

fragmentation. Overall, results of this study indicate that the mountain sucker is currently not 

limited by water temperature in the Black Hills, but some areas that are currently suitable for 

mountain sucker may be lost due to climate change (Hirtzel 2012). Fisheries surveys indicate 

that the population trend for mountain sucker has declined since the 1960s (Schultz 2011).

Direct and indirect impacts:

Alternative A

Potential direct effects of the Proposed Action relate to in-water actions, such as culvert 

installation or repair at road-stream crossings that may kill or injure mountain suckers. Adult 

mountain sucker usually swim away to avoid harm, but eggs or very young fish are more 

vulnerable. These impacts would be largely avoided through design features to minimize inwater construction activities during the mountain sucker spawning season. No new road-stream 

crossings are proposed on streams where mountain sucker are known to occur, but some existing 

crossings may need to be improved in occupied habitat. The reconstruction of existing road-
21

stream crossings may have the indirect benefit of improving fish passage and stream connectivity 

if the existing culvert being replaced is a barrier to fish passage. Other indirect effects generally 

relate to ground-disturbing activities with potential to add sediment to the stream network, 

impact streambank stability, or degrade riparian habitat. Increased sediment delivery to streams, 

whatever the source, tends to result in less diverse physical habitats, decrease water quality, 

denude spawning substrates, and decrease availability of deep pools (Isaak et al. 2003). These 

impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, 

WCPs, and other design features that ensure non-point source water pollution is controlled at 

levels that maintain water quality standards and fisheries beneficial uses. Some beneficial 

changes would occur; a more resilient landscape would be likely to reduce the potential for 

watershed-scale adverse effects on aquatic habitat due to high- severity wildfire, though it should

be noted that mountain suckers have persisted over time in the Black Hills despite its disturbance 

ecology.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would not result in direct effects. Indirect effects may include 

increases in tree biomass. This may increase tree evapotranspiration but the effect would 

probably be overshadowed by precipitation patterns. Therefore, no discernable effect on flow 

regimes or mountain sucker habitat would occur. Fire hazard and risk of mountain pine beetle 

infestation may increase over time. Some sediment input may occur from natural erosion 

processes and other activities but effects on aquatic habitats would be minimal.

Summary

Overall, Alternative A proposes more ground-disturbing activities on more acres than Alternative 

B, but both alternatives implement the same Forest Plan standards/guidelines, watershed 

conservation practices and design criteria to ensure water quality standards are met and fisheries 

beneficial uses are maintained. Under both alternatives, habitat quality, quantity and connectivity 

are likely to be maintained at the Forest-level consistent with Objective 238d. Therefore, the 

mountain sucker will likely persist under either alternative. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC)

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are plant, fish and wildlife species (including subspecies or 

varieties) that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These could include species with 

declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of 

diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as NFS lands within the BHNF. All SOLC 

species on the Forest occur in the project area or habitat occurs in the project area and are carried 

forward and analyzed in this document. Potential impacts of either alternative are presented.

Table 1. Habitat descriptions for Black Hills National Forest Species of Local Concern occurring within the 

project area.

Species of Local Concern Habitat

Birds

American Dipper 

(Cinclus mexicanus)

Swift-flowing montane streams; occur primarily in Spearfish Creek and 

its tributaries and Whitewood Creek in the Black Hills (Anderson 2002). 

Black-and-White Warbler 

(Mniotilta varia)

Found primarily in bur oak woodlands and associated edges, mainly at 

lower elevations (Hutton et al. 2007). 
22

Broad-winged Hawk 

(Buteo platypterus)

Primarily found in habitat with prominent deciduous component, but also 

found in late successional pine stands (Stephens and Anderson 2003). 

Cooper’s Hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii)

Ponderosa pine, white spruce, riparian, shrubland and burned areas 

(Stephens and Anderson 2002). 

Northern Saw-whet Owl 

(Aegolius acadicus)

Forest habitat generalist; dense coniferous or mixed forest; prefers conifer 

stands and willow thickets for roosting; hunt along edges or openings in 

forest (Johnson and Anderson 2003). 

Pygmy Nuthatch 

(Sitta pygmaea)

Mature ponderosa pine stands with large trees and snags (Ghalambor 

2003). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

(Accipiter striatus)

A variety of forested areas, but nesting habitat typically restricted to dense 

young conifer stands (Stephens and Anderson 2002). 

Mammals

Long-eared Myotis 

(Myotis evotis)

Mostly coniferous montane habitats; roosts in snags; no known 

hibernacula in Black Hills (Schmidt 2003a).

Long-legged Myotis 

(Myotis volans)

Primarily in montane coniferous forests; uses caves and mines as 

hibernacula; roosts in abandoned buildings, rock crevices, under bark; in 

Black Hills occur primarily between 4500 and 6500’ (Schmidt 2003b). 

Meadow Jumping Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius campestris)

Strongly associated with riparian habitats along small streams in 

meadows (Orabona et al. 2009). 

Mountain Goat 

(Oreamnos americanus)

Rugged terrain with cliffs, rock faces, ledges and talus slopes. Limited 

primarily to Black Elk Wilderness Area and Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

(USDA-Forest Service 2005). 

Northern Flying Squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus)

Preferred habitat is closed canopy, mature ponderosa pine forest with

fewer snags, though snags and cavities in live deciduous trees are 

important for denning (Hough 2008, Hough and Dieter 2009). 

Northern Myotis 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest; roosts in 

caves, mines, tunnels, and under bark of snags; elevation ranges between 

4000 to 6500’ in the Black Hills (Schmidt 2003c). 

Small-footed Myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum)

Variable habitats, but usually associated with rocky areas like bluffs, 

dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs and major rock outcrops; Roosts include 

mines, caves, rock features, and under bark (Schmidt 2003d). 

Invertebrates

Atlantis Fritillary Butterfly 

(Speyeria Atlantis pahasapa)

Prefer wet meadows and boggy areas near springs and headwaters of 

small streams (Marrone 2002).

Tawny Crescent Butterfly 

(Phyciodes batesii)

Open meadows and riparian woodlands (Stefanich 2001). 

Callused Vertigo Snail 

(Vertigo arthuri)

Moist, relatively undisturbed forest with diverse understories, deep litter, 

and abundant woody material. Calcareous or shist soils. (Frest and 

Johannes 2002, Anderson 2004a)

Frigid Ambersnail 

(Catinella gelida)

Limestone soils, usually in open ponderosa pine forest (sometimes 

spruce), often with a secondary deciduous tree and shrub component 

(Frest and Johannes 2002). 

Mystery Vertigo Snail 

(Vertigo paradoxa)

On limestone or schist soils, usually in spruce forests (but sometimes 

pine) with relatively closed canopy, abundant litter, and well-developed 

understories (Frest and Johannes 2002, Anderson 2004b). 
23

Striate Disc Snail 

(Discus shimekii)

Found in litter of rich mesic forests with limestone soils, generally on 

shaded, north-facing slope bases; often bordering or ranging slightly onto 

stream flood plains (Frest and Johannes 2002). 

American dipper

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action would conserve habitat for dippers in accordance with Forest Plan 

objective 221 through fuel reduction treatments that would reduce fire hazard in watersheds with 

known or potential dipper habitat. Proposed activities would result in no more than minor, 

temporary increases in streamflow. Adherence to Forest Plan standards (1113, 1203, 1301, etc.), 

WCPs, and BMPs focused on protection of streams and riparian areas would prevent substantial 

or widespread adverse effects on dipper habitat. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no effect on dippers.

Summary

Both alternatives would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by 

conserving dipper habitat. This species is expected to continue to persist in the BHNF under 

either alternative.

Black-and-white warbler

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action could result in direct mortality. Proposed activities would increase open, 

diverse, and resilient forests. Enhancement of oak woodlands by removing pine may benefit 

warblers. At lower elevations in and near oak woodlands, these effects would conserve and 

improve habitat for this species (Forest Plan objective 221).

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Eventually, lack of action could 

result in loss of some suitable habitat due to pine encroachment. Should a high intensity fire 

occur, oak is a prolific sprouter, and would rapidly increase and expand in the absence of pine 

competition to the benefit of warblers.

Summary

This species would persist under either alternative.

Broad-winged hawk and Cooper’s hawk

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality if unknown nests are affected by proposed 

activities. Adherence to Forest Plan standard 3204 (protection of known raptor nests) would 

prevent negative effects on known nests. Proposed fuel breaks in dense, mature pine stands could 

reduce potential nesting habitat. Generally, these treatments would occur in the WUI, along 

roads, and near infrastructure, which is not the most sustainable nesting locations for these 

species. Site-specific coordination with a wildlife biologist to design treatments would help to 

avoid/minimize the loss of nesting habitat. Proposed aspen treatments may improve foraging 
24

habitat and, for broad-winged hawk, nesting habitat. New roads could result in disturbance of 

unknown nests.

Due to mountain pine beetle infestation and response actions, moderately dense, mature pine 

forest is currently below Forest Plan objectives in most management areas. In addition, dense, 

mature pine forest is below the objective in MA 5.1, and late succession forest is below 

objectives in all MAs that have objectives. No activities that may decrease late succession 

characteristics would occur in late succession stands (design features). Fuel breaks may occur in 

various management areas but would be focused on MA 5.4, which has a higher percentage of 

dense forest than other MAs. Because proposed activities would protect known nests, conserve 

most potential nesting habitat, and enhance foraging habitat, the Proposed Action would 

contribute toward achievement of objective 221 for these hawks.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would not affect these species or their habitat. 

Summary

Broad-winged and Cooper’s hawks would persist on the BHNF under either alternative.

Northern saw-whet owl

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality or disturbance if unknown nests are affected 

by proposed activities. Adherence to Forest Plan standard 3204 would protect known nests. 

Proposed fuel breaks in dense, mature pine stands could reduce potential nesting habitat. 

Overstory removal would move open, mature pine stands to younger stages, conserving habitat 

diversity (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Precommercial thinning and prescribed fire would 

decrease density in young pine stands, which this owl uses for roosting. Foraging habitat, which 

consists of diverse, open stands and forest edges, would increase.

The potential effects on dense, mature pine forest habitat described above for the broad-winged 

hawk and Cooper’s hawk, may be similar for the saw-whet owl, though this species nests in a 

variety of habitats (Johnson and Anderson 2003). The Proposed Action would not reduce snag 

occurrence below objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch clearcut would retain live trees 

that may provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) 

and scattered within a matrix of live forest.

Because proposed activities would protect known nests, conserve most potential nesting habitat, 

and enhance foraging habitat, the Proposed Action would contribute toward achievement of 

objective 221 for the saw-whet owl. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Over time, roosting and foraging 

habitat could decrease as pine stands age and become denser. 

Summary

This species would persist in the BHNF under either alternative.
25

Pygmy nuthatch

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality or disturbance if unknown nests or roosts are 

affected by proposed activities. The Proposed Action would not reduce snag occurrence below 

objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch clearcuts would retain some live trees that may 

provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and 

scattered within a matrix of live forest. Preferred mature pine habitat would also decrease, 

though not to the extent of becoming a limiting factor.

Because proposed activities would conserve most snags and foraging habitat, the Proposed 

Action would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 for the pygmy nuthatch. 

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no effect. 

Summary

This species would persist in the BHNF under either alternative.

Sharp-shinned hawk

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality or disturbance if unknown nests are affected 

by proposed activities. Adherence to Forest Plan standard 3204 would protect known nests. 

Proposed overstory removal would increase preferred nesting habitat (dense to moderately dense, 

young pine forest), as would regeneration of previously infested and thinned stands. At the same 

time, proposed precommercial thinning and prescribed fire would reduce density in some of the 

same stands.

Projections indicate that preferred forest structures would increase over the next 20 years. 

Foraging habitat would remain stable, with management activities providing a variety of 

structural stages and cover types used by diverse prey species. The project would contribute 

toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving and enhancing sharp-shinned 

hawk habitat.

Because proposed activities would protect known nests and conserve potential nesting and 

foraging habitat, the Proposed Action would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 for 

the sharp- shinned hawk. 

Alternative B 

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effect. Over time, nesting habitat could 

decrease as young pine stands age. 

Summary

This species would persist in the BHNF under either alternative.
26

Bats: Long eared myotis, Long-legged myotis, Northern myotis and Small-footed myotis

Alternative A

The Proposed Action could result in direct mortality due to tree and snag (hazard tree) felling. 

Activities conducted when maternity roosts consist of females with pups that cannot yet fly pose 

the greatest mortality risk to bats. Potential loss of occupied daytime roost trees may negatively 

impact individuals. The Proposed Action would reduce the number of large trees in open, mature 

pine stands and snags (hazard tree removal) while increasing open forests. Proposed activities 

would not reduce snag occurrence below objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch 

clearcuts would retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be 

relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live forest.

Maintenance of aspen and oak would perpetuate foraging habitat. Insect prey populations may 

increase with understory vegetation in treated areas. Adherence to Forest Plan standards 1401 

and 3207 would protect known and potential nurseries and hibernacula in accordance with

standard 3102. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by 

conserving and enhancing habitat for these bat species.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no direct or immediate indirect effects. Over time, 

formation of additional snags may increase roosting habitat.

Summary

These bats are likely to persist in the BHNF under both alternatives due to protection of caves 

and mines as well as the availability of foraging habitat and expected snag densities.

Meadow Jumping Mouse

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct or indirect mortality. This effect would not occur at a 

scale that could result in population decline across the BHNF. Adherence to Forest Plan 

standards 1301, 1302, and 3106 (protection and avoidance of riparian areas), in addition to 

WCPs and BMPs, would conserve habitat in accordance with objectives 213 and 221. Proposed 

mechanical site preparation and tree planting would decrease moderately suitable jumping mouse 

habitat (dry upland areas dominated by grass) in the southern portion of the project area.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred meadow and grassland 

habitat would decrease over time due to pine encroachment.

Summary

This species is likely to persist in the BHNF under both alternatives due to protection of riparian 

and meadow habitats.

Mountain Goat

Alternative A

The Proposed Action would increase preferred open forest conditions. If this effect occurs near 

cliffs that serve as escape terrain, it may result in improved foraging habitat for mountain goats. 
27

No activities are proposed in Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, where the majority of the goat 

population occurs. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 

221 by conserving mountain goat habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred open habitats may 

decrease over time as pine regenerates.

Summary

Mountain goats are expected to persist on the Forest under either alternative.

Northern Flying Squirrel

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality and could displace flying squirrels. These 

effects would not occur at a scale that could result in population declines across the BHNF. 

Diversity in pine habitats would increase in treated areas. Proposed activities may remove roost 

trees and snags (hazard trees) and decrease occurrence of large, live trees that could provide 

future snags. Proposed activities would not reduce snag occurrence below objective 211 levels. 

Activities other than patch clearcuts would retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch 

clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live 

forest.

Dense, mature pine forest may decrease by up to 4,000 acres in shaded fuel breaks, primarily 

along roads, the WUI and other infrastructure. Site-specific coordination with a wildlife biologist 

may retain some of this habitat where it would not compromise the effectiveness of the 

treatment. Any decrease in 4C in MA 5.1 would move conditions further from Forest Plan 

objective 5.1-204. Because activities in dense, mature forest are to be focused away from this 

management area, any decrease is expected to be minor. Overall, this alternative would attempt 

to maintain or increase preferred pine habitat (structural stages 3c, 4b and 4c) that Hough and 

Dieter (2009) found to be optimal habitat for protection from aerial predators and for moving 

efficiently and safely during nighttime activity.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred dense forest and snag 

habitats may increase over time. Both alternatives would contribute toward achievement of 

Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving northern flying squirrel habitat.

Summary

Because flying squirrels can exist in a variety of habitats, they would persist under either 

alternative.

Butterflies: Atlantis fritillary and Tawny crescent

Alternative A 

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality of adults and larvae, particularly in meadow 

and riparian areas. Most activities would maintain or enhance preferred open forests, aspen and 

oak habitats, and grasslands in accordance with objective 221. Mechanical site preparation and 
28

tree planting in the southern Hills would decrease open areas. The project would contribute 

toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving Atlantis fritillary and tawny 

crescent habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Preferred habitats may decline over 

time.

Summary

The Atlantis fritillary and tawny crescent would persist in the BHNF under either alternative.

Snails: Callused Vertigo, Frigid Ambersnail, Mystery Vertigo, Striate Disc 

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may cause direct mortality and change microclimates, damaging or 

destroying unknown snail colonies. Management of known colonies consistent with Forest Plan 

standard 3103 would protect microsite conditions and minimize adverse effects on these 

colonies. The project would generally contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 

221 by conserving snail habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Fire hazard may increase over time; 

high-severity wildfire could threaten snail colonies.

Summary

These snail species would persist in the BHNF under either alternative.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Elk are not a designated special status species for the BHNF but strong public interest and 

questions on forest management effects to elk suggest potential impacts of the BHRL project 

should be disclosed. Recent estimates place the population level at about 7,200 elk in the South 

Dakota Black Hills, based on a 2016 aerial survey (SDGFP 2016). The SDGFP Elk Management 

Plan (2015-2019) outlines a Black Hills population objective (excluding Custer State Park and 

Wind Cave National Park) at 7,000 wintering elk, with a range of 6,000 to 8,000 elk depending 

on habitat conditions. The same 2016 aerial elk survey estimated a population of 1,100 elk for 

the Wyoming portion of the Black Hills. Anecdotally, the Wyoming Black Hills elk population 

was estimated at about 2,700 animals at the end of the 2016 hunting season, although only about 

half that number occupy national forest lands at any point in the year (WGFD 2017).

Elk use a wide variety of vegetation types on the Forest but show a preference for forested 

riparian areas, forested stringers in meadows, and deciduous stands of birch or aspen (SAIC 

2003). Elk find cover (thermal or hiding or both) on the Forest in the denser stands of conifers 

(summer and winter) and hardwoods (summer only). For forage, however, they rely on more 

open stands and meadows and prairies, all of which may provide an abundance of grasses, forbs, 

and/or shrubs (SAIC 2003). 
29

Roads negatively impact elk in various ways. The loss of habitat to road construction is 

unknown, but is often estimated at 5 acres per linear mile (Rowland et al. 2004). Roads may 

impact habitat by reducing the amount of patches of forest cover large enough to function 

effectively as elk habitat (Rowland et al. 2004). Roads may also impact elk habitat by facilitating 

the spread of invasive, exotic vegetation (Rowland et al. 2004). Roads and motorized trails can 

also impact animals directly. In addition to mortality from collisions with vehicles, elk avoid 

areas near open roads, are more vulnerable to hunter harvest, and exhibit higher stress levels in 

areas or higher road density (Rowland et al. 2004). Several studies in the Black Hills have shown 

elk are adversely impacted by roads (Millspaugh et al. 2000, Millspaugh 1999, Rumble et al. 

2005). Rumble et al. (2005) found that elk movements increased with increased human activity 

during the hunting season. They suggested this response to hunters may reflect a pattern of elk 

responses to human disturbance during other times of the year. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality and displacement. Calves would be most 

vulnerable from approximately May to July. Proposed activities would also create more diverse 

and open conditions suitable for foraging. Dense forest would decrease while aspen may expand. 

Aspen enhancement would maintain or increase preferred calving habitat.

Suitability of elk habitat would decline in the vicinity of roads temporarily opened during 

implementation of the Proposed Action. This decline would persist as long as the roads are open 

to motorized vehicles.

Elk population response to habitat changes depends on the arrangement of cover and forage. Elk 

may not use potential foraging areas if lack of cover increases susceptibility to predation or 

disturbance.

The arrangement of cover and forage resulting from this project would depend on the exact 

locations of proposed activities, which would be determined in an interdisciplinary setting.

Adherence to guideline 3203 would provide big game screening along at least 20 percent of the 

edges of arterial and collector roads.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Security and thermal cover may 

increase over time while foraging areas decrease.

Summary

Elk would be likely to persist in the BHNF under either alternative.

Migratory Birds

The USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) 

partitions North America into 37 Bird Conservation Regions. The Black Hills is included in BCR 

17 – Badlands and Prairies. Of the 38 bird species found in BCR 17 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2008), twenty species are not expected to occur in the Black Hills due to lack of habitat. 

Eleven are on the Region 2 Sensitive species list and are evaluated above if they have potential 

to occur in the Black Hills. Of the remaining species, four may occur in the project area; the 

golden eagle, red-headed woodpecker, black-billed cuckoo and prairie falcon. 
30

Golden Eagle

This eagle inhabits open country, from barren areas to open coniferous forests, primarily in hilly

or mountainous regions, but is also found in deserts and grasslands. It prefers to nest on cliff 

ledges, but will occasionally use trees for nesting. The golden eagle utilizes hilltops, cliff ledges 

and trees for roosting (DeGraff et al. 1991). Within the Black Hills, this eagle prefers to nest on 

sandstone and limestone cliffs. Contiguously forested habitats, such as those found within the 

project area are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be used for roosting or perching if 

suitable nesting or foraging habitat is nearby. Forest Plan direction provides direction to protect 

known golden eagle nests (Forest Plan Standard 3204).

The Proposed Action could disturb nesting birds. Hunting success may increase due to the 

creation of more open habitat. Reduction of pine overstory in treated areas would improve 

habitat for many eagle prey species. Proposed commercial timber harvest would reduce the 

number of potential nest trees, but trees large enough to be used for nesting are not a limiting 

factor. The No Action alternative would have no impact on the eagle. Golden eagles would 

persist under either alternative.

Red-headed Woodpecker 

Red-headed Woodpecker prefers open, park-like woodlands, including open ponderosa pine, but 

is most prevalent along riparian areas within forested areas. They use more open and edge forest 

habitats than some other woodpeckers, but are still dependent on snags and decaying trees 

(Anderson 2003). In the Black Hills, they are generally uncommon to rare. Currently they occur 

in very low densities across the Forest except in burn areas where they were found in higher 

densities in 2009 (White et al. 2010). They are a generalist species feeding on mast, a wide 

variety of berries, as well as insects and other birds' young and they often appear in areas with 

insect outbreaks (Anderson 2003).

The Proposed Action would not reduce snag occurrence below objective 211 levels. Activities 

other than patch clearcuts would retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch clearcuts

would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live forest.

Proposed activities would maintain or expand existing aspen and oak habitats. Though use of the 

project area by red-headed woodpeckers is rare, these effects may benefit the species through 

increased mast production and decreased forest density (Anderson 2003). Activities proposed in 

burned habitat, such as tree planting, are not expected to negatively affect this species. 

The No Action alternative would have little effect on this species. Potential habitat may 

eventually decrease if forest becomes denser and encroaches on openings. Red-headed 

woodpecker would persist under either alternative.

Black-billed Cuckoo

This species favors areas of upland woods that provide a variety of trees, bushes and vines. Also 

occurs in brushy pastures, hedgerows, open woodlands, thickets, and along wooded roadsides. 

Preferred habitat includes low, dense, shrubby vegetation (DeGraff et al. 1991). They will also 

inhabit open woods, avoiding extremely dense woods and high elevations (Haldeman 1980). 
31

The Proposed Action may disturb nesting birds. Reduction of pine canopy cover may result in an 

increase in understory vegetation productivity, which may enhance potentially potential habitat.

Suitable habitat would remain under either alternative. The No Action alternative may eventually 

allow pine overstory to increase, decreasing potential cuckoo habitat. This species is likely to 

persist under either alternative.

Prairie falcon

Prairie falcons are year-round residents of Wyoming and far western South Dakota. They nest on 

cliffs (Tallman et al. 2002, DeGraff et al. 1991). Hunting occurs in open areas. Observations in 

the Black Hills are primarily along the outer edges where cliffs provide nest sites adjacent to 

open grasslands (Panjabi 2003).

The Proposed Action would maintain or expand open habitats. Though prairie falcons are rare or 

absent in most of the project area, this effect may enhance habitat where it occurs near the edge 

of the Black Hills. The No Action alternative would have little effect on this species. Potential 

habitat may eventually decrease if forest continues to encroach on openings. Prairie falcons 

would persist under either alternative.

Recreational Fisheries

Executive Orders 12962 and 13474 regarding Recreational Fisheries direct federal agencies to 

conserve, restore and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing 

opportunities nationwide and to ensure that recreational fishing is managed as a sustainable 

activity. Under both Alternatives, a design criteria to avoid inwater work during the trout 

spawning season applies to avoid/minimize direct effects. Aquatic habitat and the food base, 

such as aquatic macroinvertebrates, would be conserved through the implementation of Forest 

Plan standards/guidelines, watershed conservation practices and design criteria which address 

sediment issues from non-point sources, thereby providing for sustainable recreational fishing 

opportunities. Additional water resource-related information and analysis can be found in the 

Watershed Report in the Project Record.

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

The purpose of this biological evaluation is to analyze and determine the likely impacts of the 

alternatives on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed) and Forest Service 

sensitive species (FSM 2670.31-2670.32). This Biological Evaluation (BE) conforms to legal 

requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 

50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their 

authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal 

agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of federally-listed species, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. 

Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through a biological 

evaluation (BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on threatened and endangered 

species, species proposed for listing, and sensitive species (FSM 2670.3). Under the ESA, a 

Biological Assessment (BA) must be prepared for federal actions that are “major construction 

activities” to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species. The 

contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of 
32

the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). A BE may be used to satisfy the ESA requirement to 

prepare a Biological Assessment. Preparation of a Biological Evaluation as part of the NEPA 

process ensures that TEPS species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

Biological Evaluation Process

A pre-field review was conducted to assemble occurrence records and describe habitat needs and 

ecological requirements for each species. Sources of information included BHNF wildlife 

biologists, Forest Service records and files, databases and published research (citations). This 

information constitutes the best available science for determining the impacts of the alternatives 

on Region 2 sensitive species. Field reconnaissance has continued to be gathered during work on 

other projects and Forest-wide monitoring efforts. In addition, publications based on field work 

conducted by other parties in the Black Hills and elsewhere were also used as appropriate. 

The intensity and detail of the biological evaluation may vary and should be commensurate with 

the risk associated with the action and the vulnerability of the species involved (FSM R-2 

Supplement 2600-2017-1). The analysis of potential impacts on sensitive species was conducted 

using existing data and the habitat requirements for each species. The overall conclusions were 

derived from anticipated trends, probable risks, and degree of uncertainty under either 

alternative. The determination language is set forth in Region 2 Supplement 2600-2011-1 to the 

Forest Service Manual 2670. 

The basis for each determination is potential habitat, expected occurrence, distribution, impacts 

from Forest activities, and proposed design features used to alleviate the potential impacts 

resulting from Forest-management activities. Species viability was evaluated in the Phase II 

Forest Plan Amendment Biological Evaluation (USDA-Forest Service 2005). 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Threatened, endangered, and proposed species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) located on 

the BHNF and occurring in the project area potentially affected by this project are the blackfooted ferret and northern long-eared bat (NLEB).

Black-footed Ferret

The black-footed ferret is a nocturnal, solitary carnivore of the weasel family with the narrowest 

range of ecological tolerance of any North American predatory mammal (USDA Forest Service 

1996). In the Black Hills, as elsewhere, the key habitat component for black-footed ferrets is the 

distribution and abundance of prairie dogs (Forrest et al. 1985). Vacated prairie dog burrows 

provide shelter and are where ferrets spend most of their time.

There are 11 prairie dog towns in the BHNF, covering about 225 acres (USDA Forest Service 

2015b). Black-footed ferrets were recently released as part of an experimental population in 

Wind Cave National Park, adjacent to the southeastern part of the project area. There are no 

prairie dog towns in the BHNF large enough to independently support ferrets nor are there any 

prairie dog towns in the BHNF adjacent to Wind Cave National Park. There is no designated 

critical habitat for black-footed ferrets in the BHNF.
33

Determination: Either alternative is expected to have no effect on black-footed ferrets because 

the ferret or suitable habitat does not occur in the project area.

Northern long-eared bat

Northern long-eared bats are forest-dwelling and insectivorous. They hibernate in suitable cave, 

mineshaft, and adit habitats. The hibernation season on the BHNF has been defined as October 

1-May 15 (USDA Forest Service 2015c). During the summer, bats use live and dead trees for 

daytime roosting. Females with young pups congregate in larger trees and snags in communal 

maternity roosts. Males have shown less specificity and will choose a variety of snag sizes and 

cavities in both live and down dead trees. A study conducted in the Black Hills indicated that this 

bat selects the largest snags available and sites with a greater abundance of snags when 

compared to random sites (Cryan et al. 2001). There is no designated critical habitat for northern 

long-eared bat on the BHNF.

In June-July 2017, researchers from the University of Wyoming (WYNDD) identified sixteen 

trees being used by reproductive (pregnant or lactating) female northern long-eared bats

(unpublished data) on the Bearlodge Ranger District, BHNF. Large diameter hard snags were 

being utilized as roosts as expected, but a number of roost trees were live, large-diameter (≥18”) 

ponderosa pine with large burn scars that had started to rot out. Many of these burn scars also 

had old woodpecker cavities that bats were observed exiting at some roosts. Three live aspen 

trees, with cavities or cracks, were also being used by reproductive females as roost trees.

As described by the BHNF northern long-eared bat Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA; 

USDA Forest Service 2015c), activities of the types proposed by this project may have positive 

or negative effects on northern long-eared bat. “On the landscape scale, activities to make 

forested stands more resilient to catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease epidemics are 

likely to have an overall positive effect, though these natural disturbance events do create snags 

that may become suitable roost trees. Maintaining a mosaic of forest stand structure through 

vegetation management activities has more benefit in the long-term for bat conservation than an 

‘ocean of snags’ that may be present on the landscape for a relatively short time following large 

scale wildfires and mountain pine beetle infestations”.

The Programmatic BA also concluded that implementation of Forest Plan snag conservation 

measures should ensure that northern long-eared bats will continue to have adequate roosting 

habitat. The Proposed Action would retain snags consistent with Standards 2301a-b and 2305. 

Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to directly reduce snag occurrence below 

objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch clearcuts would retain live trees that may 

provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and 

scattered within a matrix of live forest.
34

Direct mortality could result if unknown, occupied maternity roost trees are cut. Of the known 

roost trees described above, one is within a potential CTA and a 150-foot buffer around it 

includes part of another CTA. Aspen regeneration treatments may potentially affect two known 

bat maternity roost trees in a 131-acre stand. One additional maternity roost tree is within a nonCTA stand that may be treated to enhance aspen. Lastly, one roost tree is within a proposed fuel 

treatment area. In total, five known maternity roost trees are within potential treatment areas. 

Design features to protect known roost trees and the adjacent habitat should maintain roost site 

suitability.

Cryan et al. (2001) concluded that timber harvest and tree thinning activities are not expected to 

decrease the long-term suitability of these areas as northern long-eared bat roosting habitat (as 

studied in the southern Black Hills). Prescribed burning is expected to have negligible effects on 

the bat given the timing of these burns (generally during the hibernation season) and burn plans 

that mitigate the effects from smoke and heat.

Proposed vegetation management activities would create noise that may disturb roosting bats 

during the active season. This noise disturbance may result in adverse effects if female bats flee 

maternity roost trees, resulting in abandonment or reduced survival of their young.

The No Action alternative would cause no immediate effects to the bat or its habitat. Neither 

alternative is likely to result in the introduction or spread of the fungus that causes white-nose 

syndrome, the primary threat to the bat’s continued existence.

Determination: The Proposed Action may affect the northern long-eared bat. Pursuant to the 

Optional Framework to Streamline Section 7 Consultation for the Northern Long-Eared Bat, 

each action agency must make a two-step determination as to whether its activity is excepted 

from incidental taking prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. To that end, the Proposed Action would 

not purposefully take the bat. Second, the BHRL project area is located wholly outside the whitenose syndrome zone. In the absence of white-nose syndrome, none of the proposed activities, 

alone or in combination, would be likely to have significant population-level effects. Overall, 

adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines would conserve the bat and its habitat. The No 

Action alternative would not affect this species.

Region 2 (R2) Sensitive Species

Sensitive species (SS) are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for 

which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: Significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density. And significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2670.5).

The most recent Region 2 SS wildlife list (FSM R-2 Supplement 2600-2017-1, effective June 29, 

2017) was reviewed and species that may occur in or near the Black Hills were identified. A prefield wildlife review of the project area for all Region 2 SS was completed using Heritage 

database records, district data, literature reviews, communication with district personnel and the 

Forest Plan to identify which SS occur within the project area or have potential habitat within the 

project area. All sensitive species on the Forest occur within the project area or have potential 
35

habitat within the project area and are carried forward in the impacts analysis. Cumulative 

impacts are discussed on page 60 of this report.

The black-backed woodpecker and grasshopper sparrow are also designated as MIS and are also 

discussed under the MIS section. 

American Peregrine Falcon

In the Black Hills, the peregrine falcon is an uncommon spring and rare fall migrant and rare 

winter visitor. Nest sites may occur in deep rocky canyons or other places with tall cliffs. 

Historical records indicate peregrine falcon nesting occurred in the Black Hills in the 1960s. 

Efforts to reestablish a breeding population through cross-fostering and hacking in the late 1970s 

and late 1990s (Sharps and O’Brien 1985) were unsuccessful. Between 2001 and 2007, the 

Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills program did not detect peregrines in the Black Hills 

(Giroir et al. 2007). In 2017, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks located two 

pairs of breeding peregrines in the Black Hills, but the exact nest locations are unknown to us at 

this time. Peregrine falcons eat mostly birds, though mammals and other species may be taken. 

When hunting, peregrines start by watching from a high perch or by flapping slowly or soaring at 

great height. Aerial dives begin above their prey and end either by grabbing the prey or by 

striking it with their feet hard enough to stun or kill it.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

No direct or indirect effects on nesting habitat are anticipated under either alternative because of 

the inaccessibility of rock cliffs preferred for nesting and the lack of proposed activities in these 

areas. The No Action alternative would not affect foraging habitat or nesting behavior. Under the 

Proposed Action, implementation of standard 3204 (which protects raptor nests) in coordination 

with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, is expected to prevent disturbance 

that would disrupt normal nesting behavior.

Determination: Both alternatives would have no impact on peregrine falcons because nest sites 

would not be disturbed and nesting/foraging habitat or behavior would not be modified to a 

degree that would adversely impact individuals.

Bald Eagle

Bald eagles are primarily winter residents in the Black Hills, usually arriving in early November 

and leaving by March or April. Bald eagles are often associated with large lakes and rivers. The 

bald eagle population is in an upward trend (Burns 2012).

An unsuccessful nesting attempt was reported adjacent to the southern BHNF in 2004. In 2007, 

another unsuccessful nesting attempt occurred at Deerfield Lake in the central Black Hills. This 

was the first recorded nesting attempt in the BHNF in recent times. The nest has continued to be 

active with young successfully fledged. Suitable nesting habitat occurs in dense, mature pine 

stands near major lakes and streams in the project area (Burns 2012).

In 2006, a winter night roost was discovered at Pactola Reservoir (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

Approximately 18 to 22 eagles were observed at the roost on four separate occasions between 

late December 2005 and late January 2006. The roost covers at least 100 acres of mature to latesuccessional ponderosa pine forest on very steep slopes. Large trees and snags are abundant. The 

lake was not completely frozen over at the time.
36

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

No direct mortality would occur at the Deerfield Reservoir nest because it is in MA 8.2 

(Developed Recreation Complexes), which is not within the project area. Some individual bald 

eagles may avoid treatment areas when proposed activities are in progress, but alternative 

roosting/foraging habitat is likely available nearby. Indirect effects may occur if suitable 

nesting/roosting habitat is removed through vegetation management activities. Potential 

nesting/roosting habitat around Pactola, Deerfield, and Sheridan Reservoirs is excluded from the 

project area (Figure 2, page 4) and would not be affected by proposed activities. Potential nesting 

habitat near other water bodies may decline, but this is not likely a limiting factor. The Proposed 

Action would not affect the availability of carrion, which is the primary winter food source. 

Proposed activities may be restricted within one mile of the communal roost at Pactola Reservoir 

from November 1 through April 1 (Forest Plan standard 3101c). Any newly discovered nests 

would be protected through avoidance and timing restrictions (standards 3204 and 3101). 

Alternative B

No direct or indirect impacts are expected because no new activities would occur under this 

alternative. The primary winter food source, deer carrion, is expected to continue to be available. 

Suitable nesting and roosting habitat is likely to increase through forest succession with no active 

management. 

Determination 

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. This alternative would 

comply with Forest Plan standards relevant to bald eagle protection. The No Action alternative 

would have no impact.

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk is a large predatory bird. It is easily disturbed, secretive, and very 

defensive of its young. In the northern Rocky Mountains, a typical goshawk nest area is a singlestoried, mature or late successional coniferous stand with a dense canopy and clear forest floor 

on a north-facing, moderate slope (Hayward and Escano 1989, Squires and Ruggiero 1996, 

Kennedy 2003). Goshawks tend to select stands that have relatively large trees and relatively 

high canopy closure (Kennedy 2003). Reynolds et al. (1992) characterized the nest area as 

mature and old stands with canopy closure greater than 50 percent. Dense, mature ponderosa 

pine stands (SS 4C and 5) at least 30 acres in size likely best meet these conditions in the Black 

Hills. Moderately dense, mature pine forest (SS 4B) may also provide some additional nesting 

habitat. Goshawks return to the same territory year after year.
37

Reynolds (USDA-Forest Service 2000) estimated the BHNF could potentially accommodate 300 

territories, based on densities found on the Kaibab Plateau in Arizona and assuming the Black 

Hills has the same densities, under the right conditions. BHNF biologists have documented and 

manage for approximately 132 territories across the BHNF. Habitat conditions at some of these 

historic nest areas have changed over time, due to wildfire, mountain pine beetle infestation or 

vegetation treatments. For example, nine historic and/or active goshawk territories were lost in 

2000 from the Jasper Fire. Occupancy at nest sites is likely to decrease when conditions are no 

longer suitable for goshawk nesting. Forestwide, the percent of territories occupied has 

fluctuated over the years in large part as a result of survey effort (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

In part this is expected because the mature, dense forest conditions that are favorable to goshawk 

nesting are also susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestation and subsequently may not be

sustainable at the optimal level for goshawks.

Reynolds et al. (2017) reported the results of a 20-year 

investigation of goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau and 

found large inter-annual variation in the proportion of

pairs laying eggs, brood sizes, nest failure rates, and 

fledgling production. Inter-annual variation in 

reproduction closely tracked inter-annual variation in

precipitation, which they hypothesize influenced 

primary forest productivity and bird and mammal prey

abundance. This relationship has not been studied on the 

Black Hills where the amount of annual precipitation 

may be similar to the Kaibab Plateau, but where the 

majority of precipitation falls as rain between April-July 

versus the Kaibab Plateau where most of the 

precipitation occurs in the winter as snow. Information 

on the historic precipitation regime can be found in the 

Watershed Report in the Project Record.

In the Black Hills, goshawks nest in dense, mature stands, primarily those with basal area 

ranging from 130 to 245 square feet per acre (Bartelt 1977, Erickson 1987). Preferred nest trees 

are ponderosa pine, often the largest tree in the stand (Erickson 1987). In the first long-term 

study of goshawks in the Black Hills, Knowles and Knowles (2010) documented that nest stands 

in mature and old-growth ponderosa pine stands averaged 266 trees per acre, a basal area of 128 

square feet per acre, and an average tree diameter of 10.2 inches. Squires (USDA-Forest Service 

2000) indicated nesting habitat is the most important component of goshawk management; 

nesting is what tends to limit distribution and numbers of birds, even though there are foraging 

requirements as well.

Graham et al. (2015) alluded that prey availability may be a more important factor than a 

shortage of nest sites when it comes to goshawk reproduction. Goshawks use a mosaic of 

structural stages for foraging (Kennedy 2003). Goshawks hunt in diverse habitats and are 

considered generalist predators, feeding mostly on prey that occupies the ground through lower 

canopy zones. Graham et al. (2015) designed a silvicultural system to create and maintain forest 

conditions for the goshawk and its prey. This system arranged trees in clumps and groups with 
38

minimal ladder fuels present and high canopy cover within the larger tree clumps/groups for tree 

squirrel (prey) habitat while minimizing the risk of bark beetle attack. Snags, downed logs, and 

woody debris are an important component of the post-fledging family and foraging habitat. The 

BHNF currently has more than three snags per acre, of which at least 25 percent are greater than 

14 inches in diameter (objective 211, USDA-Forest Service 2015b). Many of the existing snags 

resulted from the recent mountain pine beetle epidemic.

Because beetle-killed snags typically stand for only five to seven years (Schmid et al. 2009), 

areas with high levels of tree mortality due to beetle infestation are expected to have few 

standing snags in the near future. Structural stage objectives for MAs 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 5.43, and 5.6 

were designed to provide a diversity of ponderosa pine habitats where vegetation management 

activities are most likely to occur, with the intent of providing a balance of conditions for 

goshawk foraging and nesting habitat (among other species) across the BHNF. Due to mountain 

pine beetle infestation, timber harvest, and wildfire, structural stages that may provide nesting 

habitat are currently below objectives. The objectives’ desired condition for dense, mature pine 

totals 35 percent of the pine forest area. These structural stages currently form approximately 22 

percent of the pine forest area in the five management areas with structural stage objectives. 

Most of this habitat is in the northern and eastern Black Hills and the Bear Lodge Mountains 

(Graham et al. 2015). Very little exists in the central Black Hills, and areas such as the Jasper 

Fire, which burned 83,500 acres in 2000 in the southern Black Hills is low-quality nesting 

habitat. Due to the habitat’s range in quality and uneven distribution, along with the territorial 

nature of goshawks, not all of the existing potential nesting habitat is occupied.

According to Forest Plan standard 3108, nest areas shall consist of 180 acres best suited for 

nesting habitat within one-half mile of the nest and greater than 300 feet from buildings. Nest 

areas need not be contiguous, but must occur in 30-acre units or larger and include alternate nests 

if known. If these conditions cannot be met, then nest areas will include stands that are not 

currently suitable but that could be managed to meet nesting conditions over time. Vegetation 

manage activities within nest areas shall be limited to those that maintain or enhance the stand’s 

value for goshawk.

As part of the BHRL project analysis, BHNF wildlife biologists assessed existing conditions in 

known goshawk territories. Using data from nest surveys, the BHNF vegetation database, and 

aerial imagery, the biologists identified potentially suitable nesting habitat (dense, mature pine) 

within one-half mile of each individual nest or concentration of nests in a single territory.

The assessment revealed that, on average, approximately 18 percent of each half-mile buffer is 

potentially suitable nesting habitat. Twenty-four of the 132 known territories include at least 180 

acres of suitable nesting habitat. Over the last 20 years, most nest areas have undergone a 

significant reduction in dense, mature pine habitat due to mountain pine beetle infestation, timber 

harvest, and wildfire. Most of the existing suitable habitat is in the northwestern part of the 

BHNF, where beetle infestation and associated timber harvest have been less extensive. 

Forest Plan standard 3111 directs the Forest Service to minimize additional human-caused noise 

and disruption beyond that occurring at the time of nest initiation within one-half mile of active 

goshawk nests from April 1 through August 15 or until fledglings have dispersed or the nest has 
39

failed. In some cases, due to the urgency associated with activities in beetle-infested stands, this 

timing restriction has been lifted if biologists find no evidence of goshawk activity. Disturbance 

during courtship and brooding can cause nest failure or cessation of nest construction (Lynch 

pers. comm. 2017).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action would have the potential to cause mortality and loss of nesting and 

foraging habitat. Known goshawk nest areas would be protected in accordance with Forest Plan 

standards 3108 and 3111.

Adverse impacts could occur if there are existing, unknown goshawk nest areas that are not 

detected prior to implementation of proposed activities. Knowles and Knowles (2010) reported 

that 29 of 30 active nests were abandoned when commercial timber harvest occurred within onequarter mile. If new nests are found during implementation, adherence to Forest Plan standard 

3115 (“R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after contract or permit issuance 

will be appropriately managed...”) would protect the nest from further disturbance.

In Management Areas 4.1, 5.1, 5.2A, 5.4, 5.43, and 5.6, commercial removal of trees (DBH ≥ 9 

inches) from shaded fuel break construction is proposed on up to 4,000 acres along roads, in the 

WUI and around infrastructure. Of the approximately 144 nest area complexes (multiple nest 

areas may be included in one territory), no fuels treatments of structural stages 4B and 4C would 

occur in 61 nest areas. There are about 1,490 acres of 4B stands and 570 acres of 4C stands 

within the 0.5 mile buffer around the remaining 83 known goshawk nest areas that are within 

300 feet distance of the shaded fuel breaks along roads. Per the Forest Structural Diversity 

Design Feature 3b, fuels managers and silviculturists would design shaded fuel breaks in SS 

4B/4C stands in coordination with a Forest Service wildlife biologist to avoid/minimize the loss 

of this potential goshawk nesting habitat.

The Phase II Amendment FEIS determined that adequate habitat for maintaining a viable 

goshawk population would exist if standards and guidelines are followed and conditions move 

toward habitat objectives. Due to mountain pine beetle infestation and response actions, 

moderately dense, mature pine forest is currently below Forest Plan objectives in most 

management areas. In addition, dense, mature pine forest is below the objective in MA 5.1, and 

late succession forest is below objectives in all MAs that have objectives. 

No activities that may decrease late succession characteristics would occur in late succession 

stands (design features). Fuel breaks may occur in various management areas but would be 

focused on MA 5.4, which has a higher percentage of dense forest than other MAs. Close 

coordination with wildlife biologists would be required during layout and implementation to 

assess tradeoffs between potential habitat and fuel break location. While potential habitat is 

likely to decrease, the above measures would prevent loss of known nest areas, decrease the 

likelihood of adverse effects on unknown nest areas, and maintain most existing, potential 

nesting habitat while increasing potential public and firefighter safety in key locations focused in 

the WUI, along roads and near infrastructure. Also, a forest structural diversity design feature 

would retain some of the structural stage 4A stands with higher canopy closure to transition into 
40

structural stage 4B, which is below the Forest Plan objective and may provide future goshawk 

nesting habitat.

Foraging habitat in treated areas would differ by treatment and over time. This may increase 

goshawk prey associated with open habitat, such as flickers and chipmunks, and decrease prey 

associated with closed canopy habitat, such as red squirrels and northern flying squirrels. 

Goshawks may be disturbed in foraging areas by proposed activities. Spring prescribed fire may 

result in nest abandonment, though Reynolds et al. (1992) recommend prescribed fire to 

perpetuate forests of different ages as this may enhance nest stand characteristics, provide habitat 

for goshawk prey, and improve hunting habitat. Thinning of small trees in potential and current 

goshawk nest stands would help maintain desirable nest stand characteristics. Road construction 

and use may cause nest abandonment if conducted near nests during nesting season. Aspen and 

oak enhancement activities would maintain or improve these habitats for goshawk foraging.

Alternative B

Over time, the No Action alternative could result in loss of some foraging and nesting habitats as 

density of small pine and other understory vegetation increases. Additional closed-canopy 

potential nesting habitat would be likely to develop in the long-term as some of the open, mature 

pine stands grow toward denser conditions and as young forest continues to mature. Increased 

difficulty of fire suppression and potential for high-severity fire could raise the risk of habitat 

loss.

Determination and Rationale

The combined representation of potential goshawk nesting habitat is below management area 

structural stage objectives. The Proposed Action would add minimally to these losses in the 

interest of public safety by constructing shaded fuel breaks in the WUI, along roads and around 

infrastructure. It may result in harm to individual goshawks, though adherence to Forest Plan 

standards is expected to minimize this potential. At the same time, the Proposed Action would 

reduce density of regenerating pine and other understory vegetation through precommercial 

thinning, prescribed fire, and other fuel reduction activities, facilitating development of mature 

stands and enhancing goshawk foraging habitat. The No Action alternative could result in an 

eventual decrease in suitability of foraging and nesting habitats. As a result, both alternatives 

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

Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. With implementation of Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, goshawks are expected to persist on the BHNF.

Northern Harrier

The northern harrier is an uncommon migrant and summer resident in the Black Hills. Harriers 

are open-country hawks that are commonly found in prairies, wetlands, marshes, meadows, 

croplands, and shrublands (Slater and Rock 2005). Associated topography is generally flat. Most 

nest sites are in undisturbed wetlands or grasslands dominated by thick vegetation (Slater and 

Rock 2005). Large open areas are limited on the Forest, which probably constitute the most 

limiting factor for harriers on the Forest. Currently, there are approximately 75,307 acres of 

grassland and meadow habitat on the Forest, but much of this occurs in linear meadows or 

isolated patches that are likely too small to support birds. Larger blocks of grassland habitat 

occur across the Black Hills due to past wildfires, particularly in the southern Black Hills. Forest 
41

Plan Standard 3204 provides direction to protect known raptor nests. There are no known harrier 

nests on the Forest or in the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

Under the Proposed Action, removal of pine from grasslands on 14,200 acres may maintain or 

enhance potential harrier foraging habitat. Any harrier nests would be protected consistent with 

Forest Plan standard 3204. Both alternatives would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan 

objective 221 by conserving habitat for harriers.

Alternative B

No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated. Forest succession may result in negligible 

decrease in suitable open harrier habitat. 

Determination

Alternative A may have a slight beneficial impact by creating and enhancing open habitat. 

Alternative B is expected to have no impact.

Burrowing Owl

The western burrowing owl is a grassland specialist of western North America, occupying open 

areas with short vegetation and bare ground (Klute et al. 2003). Burrowing owl nesting habitat 

typically consists of level, open landscapes with sparse grassland vegetation that either has low 

structure or is heavily grazed, either by cattle or prairie dogs (McDonald et al. 2004). They are 

dependent on burrowing mammals whose vacant burrows are used for nesting and roosting. The 

burrows of prairie dogs, particularly black-tailed prairie dogs, are used (Johnson and Anderson 

2002, Klute et al. 2003). Habitat for burrowing owls on the Forest is limited; the availability of 

black-tailed prairie dog colonies may be the greatest limiting factor (Johnson and Anderson 

2002). 

Burrowing owls were observed in 2004 and 2006 by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

during ongoing breeding bird monitoring (USDA-Forest Service 2010). The 2004 observation 

was associated with a prairie dog town on the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Two adults and three 

chicks were observed at two nests in 2007 (Burns 2012). 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated from either alternative. Neither alternative 

proposes treatments in prairies or prairie dog towns on the Forest nor are treatments expected to 

create large, open grasslands of sufficient size to be used by prairie dogs or burrowing owls. 

Determination

Either alternative would likely have No Impact.

Flammulated Owl

Flammulated owls are associated primarily with ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine habitats. In the 

Black Hills, only ponderosa pine is present. Flammulated owls select older seral stages for 
42

breeding and nesting (Hayward and Verner 1994). Clumped tree distributions, multi-layered 

canopy, and a well-developed shrub component contribute to internal forest edge. Low-tomoderate canopy closure prevails in most sites used by the owl (Hayward and Verner 1994). The 

ponderosa pine structural stages corresponding most closely to flammulated owl nesting and 

foraging habitat on the Forest are 4A, 4B, 4C and 5. 

Flammulated owls appear to prefer denser vegetation for roosting (Hayward and Verner 1994). 

Across the species range, they have been found roosting in mixed conifer stands, thickets, and 

other conditions with high foliage density or multi-layered canopy that were in close proximity 

to nest sites (e.g., <300 feet). In Oregon and Colorado, the species did not select pure stands of 

ponderosa pine for roosting but instead used mixed conifer stands where pine was a component 

(Hayward and Verner 1994). Roosting habits are unknown in the Black Hills, but if range-wide 

patterns hold true here, the species may roost in spruce or in stands where pine and spruce cooccur. Nest site characteristics across three studies in New Mexico and Oregon documented owl 

in snags that averaged between 19 and 28 inches dbh. Large snags such as these are rare in the 

Black Hills.

There have been two reports of flammulated owls in the Black Hills in the past 10 years that 

could be valid sightings. These could represent periodic use by transient individuals, or the 

beginning of a range expansion. An effort was made to verify flammulated owls at the two recent 

observation areas and other seemingly suitable sites during 2003, but was not detected (Fauna 

West Wildlife Consultants 2003). At present, there is no indication suggesting that flammulated 

owls are established or breeding in the Black Hills.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

If flammulated owls are present in the Black Hills, the Proposed Action could cause direct 

mortality and decrease suitable habitat by removing large trees and snags (in the form of hazard 

trees) and thinning dense stands. The Proposed Action would treat 185,210 acres of open, mature 

pine forest, but the remaining acreage would still be above the desired structural stage percent. 

Dense, mature pine forest may decrease on up to 4,000 acres for shaded fuel breaks, but this 

impact would be reduced by retaining the best habitat when possible through coordination of 

activities with wildlife biologists. A percentage of snags would be lost through hazard tree 

cutting, typically adjacent to roads and infrastructure, which is not considered the highest value 

habitat. Any decrease in dense, mature pine acreage in MA 5.1 would move conditions further 

from Forest Plan objective 5.1-204.

The Proposed Action would not reduce snag occurrence below objective 211 levels. Activities 

other than patch clearcuts would retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch clearcuts 

would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live forest.

The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving 

potential flammulated owl habitat, unless dense, mature pine forest is decreased in MA 5.1. 

Because activities in dense, mature forest are to be focused away from this management area, 

any decrease is expected to be minor.
43

Alternative B

Selection of the No Action alternative may eventually result in increased potential flammulated 

owl habitat in the form of dense forest.

Determination

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing, though the risk is very 

low given the unconfirmed status of a breeding population in the BHNF. The No Action 

alternative would have no impact.

Lewis’s Woodpecker

The Lewis’s woodpecker is an edge specialist that prefers open mature pine forests, mature 

cottonwood forests, and areas with large burned trees (Tobalske 1997). Burned stands are used 

most often after they have aged several years (Tobalske 1997). A well-developed shrub layer is 

usually present (Anderson 2003, Abele et al. 2004). In the Black Hills, this woodpecker is most 

often observed in burned pine forests, but it could also be found in mature to late-successional 

ponderosa pine stands that have an open canopy (structural stages 4A and some 5). 

Lewis’s woodpeckers typically excavate nest cavities in soft ponderosa pine or cottonwood 

snags, although they will also re-use cavities made by other woodpecker species. Lewis’s 

woodpeckers nest in large snags; review of several studies across the bird’s range show snag 

sizes vary from 12 to 45 inches dbh (Anderson 2003). Snag (greater than 9 inches diameter) 

densities around nests in burned and logged areas in Idaho were 40 snags per acre and around 

nests in unlogged areas were 80 snags per acre (Anderson 2003).

Recent bird monitoring on the Black Hills has detected an average of 6 birds each year since 

2001 (White and Giroir 2009). Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data suggests that many populations 

of Lewis’s woodpeckers may have declined since the 1960s (Sauer et al. 2011; Tobalske 1997). 

Risks to Lewis’s woodpeckers include activities that reduce open or old growth ponderosa pine 

forests and snags (e.g., fire suppression and clearcutting) (Anderson 2003). Loss of cottonwood 

riparian habitat and human encroachment on breeding and wintering habitat are also negative 

factors (Tobalske 1997), although little cottonwood habitat exists on the Forest. 

Relevant MAs within the project area include 435,730 acres of open, mature to old ponderosa 

pine forest (Structural stage 4A and 5). Pockets of open forest could also occur within the denser 

structural stages in the project area. Suitable habitat exists well above desired objectives for this 

bird.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The project area includes approximately 410,000 acres of open, mature or late succession 

ponderosa pine forest. Pockets of open forest also occur within the denser structural stages in the 

project area. Suitable open habitat exists well above desired objectives.

The Proposed Action could result in direct mortality if occupied nest trees are cut, but adherence 

to standards 2301 and 2305 would prevent cutting of snags except those that are a safety hazard. 
44

Mature trees and open, mature pine forests preferred by Lewis’s woodpeckers would decrease. 

Acreage of these stands would remain above Forest Plan objectives and are not expected to be a 

limiting factor.

The Proposed Action would not reduce snag occurrence below Forest Plan objective 211 levels. 

Activities other than patch clearcut would retain live trees that may provide future snags. Patch 

clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and scattered within a matrix of live 

forest.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no direct effects. Over time, some currently open pine 

stands may become too dense to provide suitable woodpecker nesting habitat. Both alternatives 

would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving Lewis’s 

woodpecker habitat.

Determination

Both alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Black-backed Woodpecker

Status of black-backed woodpeckers are discussed in the MIS section. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

Implementation of the Proposed Action could cause direct mortality and loss of potential habitat 

in the form of snags (hazard tree removal) and live, dense forest. In accordance with Forest Plan 

standards 2301 and 2305, snags would be retained unless they pose a hazard. The Proposed 

Action does not include post-fire salvage.

Proposed fuel break construction would decrease potential habitat in the form of dense, mature 

stands of live pine by up to 4,000 acres, but this impact would be reduced by coordination with 

wildlife biologists to retain the best habitat when possible. The Phase II Amendment FEIS 

determined that adequate habitat for maintaining viable populations would exist if standards and 

guidelines are followed and conditions move toward habitat objectives. Due to mountain pine 

beetle infestation and response actions, dense, mature pine forest is below the Forest Plan 

objective level in MA 5.1, and late succession pine forest is below objectives in all MAs that 

have objectives. No activities that may decrease late succession characteristics would occur in 

structural stage 5 stands (design features). Fuel breaks may occur in various management areas 

but would be focused on MA 5.4, which has a higher percentage of dense forest than other MAs. 

Close coordination with wildlife biologists would be required during layout and implementation 

to assess tradeoffs between potential habitat and fuel break location. The Proposed Action would 

conserve most of the suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat in live forest while increasing 

potential public and firefighter safety in key locations.
45

Proposed precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, and fuel treatments would reduce density of 

stands of small trees, facilitating growth of residual pine seedlings and saplings. Instead of 

stagnating, thinned stands would transition into mature forest within 20 to 40 years.

The Proposed Action would reduce the potential for large, stand-replacing wildfires, which 

create preferred black-backed woodpecker habitat. It may also decrease the potential scale of a 

future mountain pine beetle infestation. Under both alternatives, however, stand-replacing fires 

and beetle infestations will continue to occur. The objective of the Proposed Action is to reduce 

the scale of these events and the severity of their effects, where possible. It would conserve 

habitat for this species in accordance with Forest Plan objective 221 by minimizing the 

additional loss of dense, mature forest while trending toward the desired structural stage 

percentages in the long term.

Alternative B

Over time, the No Action alternative would allow development of additional closed-canopy 

forest. Increased difficulty of fire suppression and potential for high-severity fire could result in 

large, stand-replacing fires that would create black-backed woodpecker habitat.

Determination

Due to mountain pine beetle infestation, response actions, and wildfire, the BHNF has moved 

away from objectives for dense, mature pine forest (potential black-backed woodpecker habitat). 

The Proposed Action would add minimally to these losses in the interest of public safety by 

constructing shaded fuel breaks. It may result in harm to individual woodpeckers, though 

adherence to Forest Plan snag standards is expected to minimize this potential. At the same time, 

the Proposed Action would reduce density of regenerating pine, facilitating development of 

future mature stands. As a result, the Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing. With implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, black-backed woodpeckers 

would persist in the BHNF. The No Action alternative would have no impact.

Grasshopper Sparrow

Status of grasshopper sparrows are discussed in the MIS section. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality. Proposed removal of encroaching pine from 

grasslands and prescribed fire would maintain treated grassland habitats in the project area. The 

project would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 by maintaining or enhancing 

grasshopper sparrow habitat. The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. 

Preferred habitat may decrease over time due to pine encroachment.

Determination

Although there may be direct impacts, risk is low overall. The Proposed Action may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor 

cause a trend toward federal listing. Proposed activities are expected to have long-term benefits. 

The No Action alternative would have no impact.
46

Loggerhead Shrike

The loggerhead shrike is a common summer resident in Wyoming and South Dakota, with 

breeding records occurring over most of both states (Orabona et al. 2009). The bird is rare or 

casual (out of normal range) in the Black Hills. Breeding records occur near the periphery of the 

Black Hills but not in the interior or at higher elevations. Wiggins (2005b) lists agricultural 

conversion, degradation or loss of nesting trees and shrubs, and over-grazing as potential threats 

to the species. 

The loggerhead shrike is associated with open habitats that include scattered or clustered shrubs 

or trees. This includes some types of grasslands, shrublands, and savannas. Wiggins (2005b) 

describes nesting habitat as having trees, shrubs or low bushes and elevated perches for hunting 

and courtship activities. Foraging habitat includes areas of open, short vegetation with some bare 

areas and thorny trees or barbed-wire fence for impaling prey (Wiggins 2005b). These habitats 

are limited in the Black Hills but are provided mainly by mixed-grass prairies, mountain 

mahogany shrublands, and grassy or brushy areas with scattered juniper or ponderosa pine. The 

combination of habitat features described above is distributed primarily along the southern flank 

of the Black Hills, especially in the southwestern portion. Most of the interior Black Hills do not 

provide suitable habitat because tree density is too high.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action would not affect preferred shrike habitat. Potential for impacts is 

negligible. The No Action alternative would have no effect. The project would contribute toward 

achievement of objective 221 by conserving habitat for loggerhead shrike.

Determination

Either alternative is expected to have no impact to the northern shrike and its habitat.

Long-billed Curlew

Long-billed curlews are native prairie specialists, nesting primarily in shortgrass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with flat to rolling topography (Sedgwick 2006). They prefer short vegetation and 

generally avoid habitats with trees, abundant shrubs, and tall, dense grass (Sedgwick 2006). 

Curlews may use taller, denser grass during brood rearing when shade and camouflage from 

predators are presumably more important for chicks (Sedgwick 2006). Long-billed curlews have 

been observed nesting in suitable habitat on the Black Hills, mostly the southern Black Hills, 

during annual bird monitoring efforts (USDA-Forest Service 2010). A decline has been observed 

in South Dakota (Sedgwick 2006).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action would not affect long-billed curlews due to lack of activities in native 

short- grass or mixed-grass prairies. The No Action alternative would have no effect. The project 

would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 by conserving habitat for this species.

Determination

Either alternative is expected to have no impact to long-billed curlews or their habitat.
47

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

In western South Dakota and eastern Wyoming, the species is a rare to uncommon breeder 

(Wiggins 2005c). The yellow-billed cuckoo is considered a riparian obligate species (Nicholoff 

2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer to nest in open woodlands with a dense understory and near 

water. They typically inhabit wooded river valleys in the Great Plains (Wiggins 2005c). 

Breeding habitat in the Black Hills occurs mainly in low-elevation riparian areas. Habitat is very 

limited on the Forest and has most potential to occur where narrowleaf cottonwood or bur oak 

riparian corridors meet the Forest boundary at the edge of the Black Hills. Breeding has been 

documented in the Bear Lodge Mountains and likely occurs elsewhere at lower elevations 

(Panjabi 2003). The site was a mature, bur-oak woodland that had a well-defined understory and 

very large-diameter trees (Panjabi 2003). Yellow-billed cuckoos are extremely sensitive to 

habitat alterations (Nicholoff 2003, Wiggins 2005c). Major causes of degradation have included 

grazing, placer mining, cultivation, road development, dam construction, channel realignments, 

urbanization, and loss of riparian habitat (Wiggins 2005c). 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action may cause direct mortality. Risk is considered to be low because this bird 

nests along riparian areas, which would largely be avoided during management activities. 

Proposed commercial timber harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire may indirectly benefit this 

species by maintaining and enhancing hardwood habitat, particularly oak. The No Action 

alternative would have no direct or immediate indirect effects. Over time, lack of activity could 

result in gradual decline of potential habitats due to pine encroachment. The project would 

contribute toward achievement of objective 221 by conserving habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo.

Determination

The Proposed Action and No Action alternative may adversely impact individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing. Overall, proposed activities would have long-term benefits.

Region 2 Sensitive Bats

Three Sensitive bat species may occur in the project area. Each is described separately below, 

followed by a combined analysis of effects on all species.

Fringed Myotis

The fringed myotis is an insectivorous year-round resident bat of the Black Hills. It can be found 

during the summer but is very difficult to locate during the winter (USDA-Forest Service 

2000).The Black Hills population of the fringed myotis is a disjunct population and recognized 

as belonging to a distinct subspecies, Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis. In the Black Hills, this 

species is known in Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, and Pennington counties of South Dakota and 

Crook and Weston County in Wyoming at an elevation between 3,800 and 6,200 feet (Schmidt 

2003e). 

This bat occupies a variety of habitats including mid-elevation desert, grass, and woodland 

habitats and is found at higher elevations in spruce-fir and in mixed timber (Schmidt 2003e). In 

the Black Hills, it is one of the more commonly captured bats during summer mist-netting 

studies and tends to occur along ecotones between ponderosa pine and oak/juniper forests 
48

(Schmidt 2003e). In the Black Hills, maternity roosts recorded for this species include rock 

crevices and ponderosa pine snags (Cryan et al. 2001, Keinath 2004). 

Riparian areas and water sources are important features of habitat. Open water is important 

because bats obtain water while flying. Riparian habitats are also important for insect production 

and provide foraging opportunities (USDA-Forest Service 2000).

The fringed myotis is more closely associated with the forested environment than other bat 

species and may be fairly sensitive to forest management, particularly the availability of snags as 

roost sites (USDA-Forest Service 2000). The fringed myotis has been documented using 

ponderosa pine snags for roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and in other regions (Rabe 

et al. 1998). 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Townsend’s big-eared bat is an insectivorous year-round resident in all South Dakota Black Hills 

counties and reported to be the most numerous bat species in Crook County, Wyoming (Schmidt 

2003f). There are known maternity roosts of these bats in the Black Hills (USDA-Forest Service 

2015b).

Townsend’s big-eared bats occupy a variety of habitats but are closely associated with caves and 

mines (Schmidt 2003f, Gruver and Keinath 2006). They also use riparian areas for foraging, 

including wetlands and meadows. In the Black Hills, maternity roost sites are often in steep 

drainages with nearly vertical walls. These bats are extremely sensitive to disturbances in the 

vicinity of their roosts, including loud noises such as those produced by motorized off-road 

vehicles, discharging of firearms, and other such activities (Schmidt 2003f). Potential habitat 

exists throughout the BHNF in the form of caves and mines. Potential habitat also exists in snags 

and riparian areas. 

Hoary Bat

The hoary bat generally roosts in medium to large trees with dense foliage that hides them from 

above, with few branches below, and is generally open. They prefer open conifer and deciduous 

habitat mosaics, and uses habitat edges for feeding (Tigner and Stukel 2003). This species feeds 

chiefly on large moths and to a lesser extent on other insects over clearings, along forest edges 

and near water where prey may be more abundant. Risks to this species is loss of suitable habitat 

during critical periods, reduced foraging habitat, and chemical spraying that reduces prey, human 

disturbance and predation (SDGFP 2004). Rapidly changing habitat conditions are considered a 

substantive and imminent threat to the hoary bat (USDA-Forest Service 2011).

In South Dakota, the hoary bat ranges throughout the state and has been documented breeding in 

Lawrence, Pennington, Custer and Fall River counties in the Black Hills (Higgins et al. 2000, 

Tigner and Stukel 2003). It occurs in Crook and Weston Counties in Wyoming. Potential forest 

habitat exists throughout the project area. Snag habitat created by pine beetles appear abundant 

(USDA-Forest Service 2015b) but beetle snags do not last long (5-7 years). Forests, water 

sources and riparian habitat that provide abundant prey species are found throughout the project 

area.
49

Direct and Indirect Impacts (All Region 2 Sensitive Bats)

Alternative A

The Proposed Action could result in direct mortality due to tree and snag (hazard tree) felling. 

Activities conducted when maternity roosts consist of females with pups that cannot yet fly pose 

the greatest mortality risk to bats. Potential loss of occupied daytime roost trees may negatively 

impact individuals. The Proposed Action would reduce the number of large trees and snags, 

primarily hazard trees, while increasing open forests. It would not reduce snag occurrence below 

objective 211 levels. Activities other than patch clearcuts would retain live trees that may 

provide future snags. Patch clearcuts would be relatively small (less than 10 acres each) and 

scattered within a matrix of live forest.

Adherence to Forest Plan standards 1401, 3102, and 3207 would protect known and potential 

nurseries and hibernacula. The project would contribute toward achievement of objective 221 by 

conserving habitat for these bat species.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no direct or immediate indirect effects. Over time, 

formation of additional snags may increase roosting habitat.

Determination

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The No Action 

alternative would have no impact.

American Marten

Martens were reintroduced into the Black Hills beginning in 1981. They are found in a narrow 

range of habitat types associated with coniferous forests (Buskirk 2002) and require late

successional stands of mesic conifers, especially those with complex physical structure near the 

ground (Buskirk and Powell 1994, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Potential marten habitat in the 

Black Hills is based on the distribution of white spruce. Ponderosa pine is not considered optimal 

habitat, although there is evidence that martens use pine habitat in the Black Hills. Rocks, lowlying branches, fallen logs, and stumps (Davis 1983) and lush forb and shrub vegetation on or 

near the ground and subnivean sites (Buskirk 2002) provide thermal and protective cover as well 

as hunting habitat. They stay close to overhead cover, and are intolerant of habitat types with less 

than 30 percent canopy cover (Buskirk and Powell 1994).

According to Fecske (2003), the greatest marten concentrations in the Black Hills appear to be in 

the northern part of the BHNF and in and around the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. These two 

dominant subpopulations are likely to be very important in maintaining species persistence in the 

Black Hills (Burns 2012).

Due to the limited distribution of spruce in the Black Hills, most marten territories contain some 

drier pine sites (Buskirk 2002). Mature and late-successional pine stands also help maintain 

connectivity between spruce stands. In the Bear Lodge Mountains, where spruce is absent, 

martens use dense, mature pine habitat.
50

Marten population trend was relatively stable in the Black Hills through 2003 (USDA Forest 

Service 2004). The BHNF is conserving marten habitat (spruce) (USDA Forest Service 2015b), 

but population trends since 2003 are unknown. Mature, dense pine habitat has decreased since 

that time.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action could cause direct mortality. The greatest threat the BHRL project poses to 

martens is additional fragmentation and loss of habitat. Although not specifically targeted, spruce 

may be treated in shaded fuel breaks and mixed stands. Spruce-dominated habitat would remain 

above the Forest Plan objective of 20,000 acres. Potentially suitable habitat for marten and their 

prey species in mature, dense to moderately dense ponderosa pine stands may decline by up to 

4,000 acres due to creation of shaded fuel breaks. Generally, this would occur in the WUI, along 

roads, and near infrastructure, areas not typically considered the most desirable marten habitat. 

Snags (hazard trees) and coarse woody debris would decrease due to fuel reduction and other 

activities, though Forest Plan objectives would continue to be met.

Proposed road construction and conversion in or adjacent to marten habitat would reduce marten 

habitat by about five acres per mile of road (Rowland et al. 2004). Activities occurring in or near 

spruce or suitable dense, mature pine habitat may cause some disturbance to marten.

The Proposed Action would comply with relevant Forest Plan standards, including 2308, 3117, 

and 3215. The Proposed Action would not decrease spruce below 20,000 acres and thus would 

contribute to achievement of the spruce objective. Dense, mature pine forest may decrease by up 

to 4,000 acres. Any decrease in 4C acreage in MA 5.1 would move conditions further from 

Forest Plan objective 5.1-204 and may affect marten habitat or connectivity corridors. A 

sufficient quantity and distribution of habitat would remain in the spruce zone so that marten 

would persist in the BHNF.

The Proposed Action would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by 

conserving potential marten habitat, except where dense, mature pine forest is decreased in MA 

5.1. Because activities in dense, mature forest are to be focused away from this management 

area, any decrease is expected to be minor.

Alternative B

Alternative B would have no direct impacts or indirect impacts (loss of habitat) on marten 

because no treatments would occur. Spruce habitat is not expected to change noticeably in the 

next 10 years and may increase slightly. Closed canopy pine stands are expected to be 

maintained and expanded. Connectivity between spruce habitat and adjacent dense pine habitat 

would increase. However, if a wildfire occurs, suitable habitat could decline. Generally, 

preferred spruce and pine habitat would be maintained and increase with no treatments.
51

Determination:

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The No Action 

alternative would have no impact.

 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep inhabits alpine meadows, foothills, cliffs, and rock outcrops 

(Orabona et al. 2009, Beecham et al. 2007). Alpine habitat is not found in the Black Hills. The 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep race was introduced to the Black Hills in 1924, after the native 

Audubon’s race was exterminated. 

Merwin (2000) suggested bighorn sheep selected areas with good visibility (less than 40 percent 

canopy closure) within suitable distance of water and escape terrain. Limits to persistence 

include limited availability of habitat on the Forest, vulnerability of habitat to residential 

development on adjacent private lands, and disturbance from recreation (Benzon and Halseth 

1999). Within the relevant MAs there are 621,508 acres of ponderosa pine stands that provide 

good visibility (Structural Stages 1, 2, 3A, and 4A) within the project area. Although bighorn 

sheep distribution is restricted to a several areas of occupied habitat across the BHNF, open 

habitat areas are currently 55% over desired objective levels.

Bighorn sheep occur in small areas of the Black Hills within four herds, occupying Custer State 

Park, Elk Mountain, Rapid Creek drainage and the vicinity of Deadwood, SD. The SDGFP 

Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (2013) provides additional information regarding South 

Dakota’s management direction. Monitoring indicates that the bighorn sheep population estimate 

for the Black Hills proper has increased from 2004-2006 and has remained stable through 2009, 

with approximately 350 animals (Burns 2012). Recent SDGFP population estimates place the 

bighorn sheep number at around 300 (SDGFP 2017). The Forest is conserving habitat for the 

bighorn sheep consistent with Objective 221 based on the trend in bighorn sheep numbers 

(USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may disturb and displace bighorn sheep during treatment activities. Open 

forest conditions that provide good visibility and additional foraging habitat for bighorn sheep 

would increase. If open forest conditions occur in bighorn sheep use areas near water and escape 

terrain, habitat could improve. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan 

objective 221 by conserving and enhancing bighorn sheep habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would, over time, result in a decrease in preferred open habitat. This 

habitat is not currently a limiting factor.

Determination

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The No Action 
52

alternative would have no impact. Bighorn sheep and their habitat would persist under either 

alternative.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Black-tailed prairie dogs are associated with shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies but require sites 

with soils conducive to burrowing. Suitable prairie dog habitat on the BHNF is limited to nonrocky grassland soils on the Hell Canyon Ranger District (Burns 2012). The Forest manages for 

200 to 300 acres of prairie dog towns in at least three separate towns (Objective 237). There are 

currently 11 known prairie dog colonies on the Forest, covering approximately 225 acres of 

National Forest land (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

The potential for prairie dog expansion on the Forest is limited because prairie dog towns on the 

Forest quickly reach private land or encounter rocky soils that make burrowing difficult. Large 

areas (greater than 1,000 acres) of potentially suitable prairie dog habitat are not present on the 

Forest. The colonies are comparatively small and disjunct from adjacent known colonies (Burns 

2012). Prairie dog towns have remained stable or increased in size on the BHNF, however, the 

Forest is at the lower limit of Objective 237 (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The Proposed Action proposes no treatments within prairie dog towns and would not affect 

prairie dogs. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by 

conserving prairie dog habitat. The No Action alternative would have no effect.

Determination

Both alternatives would have no impact on prairie dogs.

Northern Leopard Frog

The northern leopard frog is found in freshwater sites with profuse vegetation to brackish 

marshes and moist fields and can be found from desert to mountain meadow. This frog is 

primarily nocturnal and is found throughout northern North America except on the West Coast 

(Behler and King 1979). The leopard frog is a pond-breeding amphibian that overwinters 

underwater beneath the ice of streams, lakes and ponds (Smith 2003). The frog occurs in a wide 

variety of habitats including creeks, lakes, ephemeral wetlands, and ponds (Fischer et al. 1999; 

Smith 2003). Breeding habitat is limited to permanent water sources at least 6 inches in depth 

that do not freeze solid. After maturing, sub-adult frogs migrate to suitable feeding sites that are 

usually adjacent uplands. These dispersal movements may be along riparian corridors or upslope 

areas (Burns 2012). Adult frogs are highly mobile, moving at night or when vegetation is wet 

(Smith 2003). They have been found up to two miles from water (Smith 2003). 

Limited data suggest that the Forest is conserving habitat for the leopard frog (Forest Plan 

Objective 221) (USDA-Forest Service 2015b). Additional index site monitoring is needed to 

determine if this is a long-term trend. Suitable habitat exists for the northern leopard frog in 

riparian areas throughout the project area. 
53

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may cause direct mortality of frog eggs, larvae, and adults. Road use can 

cause substantial direct mortality (Smith 2003, Smith and Keinath 2007). Ground-disturbing 

activities may contribute sediment into waterbodies that support frogs. Adherence to Forest Plan 

standards (1110, 1113, etc.), WCPs, and BMPs that minimize ground disturbing activities in 

riparian areas and sediment input into aquatic habitat would prevent substantial or widespread 

adverse effects on frog habitat. Repair of existing “connected disturbed areas” as part of 

proposed road work would reduce sedimentation compared to existing levels. Commercial 

timber harvest and other proposed activities are not expected to cause a detectable change in 

streamflow.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no new effects. Disturbed areas connected to streams 

would continue to exist. Both alternatives would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan 

objective 221 by conserving leopard frog habitat.

Determination

Both alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Black Hills Redbelly Snake 

The redbelly snake occurs in moist woodlands with adequate cover, such as rocks, logs, tree 

bark, sphagnum bogs, or leaf litter. It is often found in or adjacent to riparian habitat. It is 

inactive from November through March (Behler and King 1979). Many Black Hills redbelly 

snakes have been found in riparian areas, aspen stands, mesic meadows, or meadow fringes near 

rocky outcrops and under various cover objects (Smith and Stephens 2003). Stumps and downed 

woody material are important in maintaining moist conditions; as roots of stumps decay, they 

provide cover (USDA Forest Service 2000, Smith and Stephens 2003). Activities that enhance 

riparian and aspen habitat improve habitat for the redbelly snake (USDA Forest Service 2015b).

The greatest threat to redbelly snakes populations may be the loss of moist habitats (Smith and 

Stephens 2003). The northern Black Hills provides more suitable habitat than other areas of the 

BHNF (USDA Forest Service 2000).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may cause direct mortality. Aspen enhancement activities, especially in 

riparian areas, would improve potential redbelly snake habitat. If any proposed new roads would 

run between wetlands and potential hibernacula, the road would be moved, not constructed, or 

coordinated with a wildlife biologist (Forest Plan standard 3116). Adherence to this and other 

Forest Plan standards (1301, 1304, 1306 and 3106), WCPs, and BMPs focused on protection of 

streams and riparian areas would prevent substantial or widespread adverse effects on riparian 

habitat. Although the Proposed Action may negatively affect individual snakes, the dominant 

effect would be enhancement of potential snake habitat.
54

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would cause no new effects. Over time, continuing encroachment of 

pine into moist aspen habitats may reduce potential habitat. Both alternatives would contribute 

toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving redbelly snake habitat.

Determination

Both alternatives may adversely impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Regal Fritillary

The Black Hills are at the western margin of the regal fritillary’s range and requires open prairies 

(Royer and Marrone 1992) and wet meadows (Selby 2007). In South Dakota, the fritillary is 

most likely to be found in native tall-grass prairies composed of big bluestem (Andropogon 

gerardii), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) 

(Royer and Marrone 1992). Continuous prairie greater than 1,000 acres may be required for 

stable populations (Royer and Marrone 1992). In smaller habitat patches, individuals would 

move in and out depending on habitat condition and size (Royer and Marrone 1992, USDAForest Service 2000). The Black Hills is primarily forested, and as such, contains only relatively 

small patches. The best habitats within the Black Hills occur in lower elevation prairies along the 

outer Forest boundary and in interior prairies, although tall-grass species are not predominant in 

the interior prairies (Burns 2012). 

Female butterflies lay eggs on violets and the developing caterpillars feed exclusively on violet 

leaves. By late June or early July, juveniles transform to adults (Royer and Marrone 1992). 

Adults require a continuous source of nectar-producing flowers such as coneflowers, fleabanes, 

and thistles (Royer and Marrone 1992). Habitat needs of regal fritillaries are considered prior to 

prescribed burning in meadows and grasslands (Forest Plan Guideline 3105) (Burns 2012).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Neither alternative would affect native mixed-grass or tall-grass prairie. Because the project area 

contains limited habitat for this butterfly, the Proposed Action would have no more than 

negligible effects on this species. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest 

Plan objective 221 by conserving regal fritillary habitat.

Determination

Both alternatives would have no impact on regal fritillary.

Monarch Butterfly

This large, familiar, orange and black butterfly occurs from southern Canada in North America 

south to northern South America (Marrone 2002). The Monarch butterfly is dependent upon 

milkweed as a larval host plant. The female will lay her eggs on milkweed and the larvae will 

feed on this plant ingesting toxins that presumably repel bird and other vertebrate predators. The 

Monarch is known for its long annual winter migrations where it overwinters in large groups. 

One female butterfly tagged in Bowdle, South Dakota was later reported 1,776 miles away near 

Sierra Chincua, Mexico (Marrone 2002).
55

Habitat in the Black Hills region consists of open areas, including prairie, forest meadows, fields, 

marshes and roadsides (Marrone 2002). Monarch will nectar on a wide variety of flowers. 

Caterpillars may develop in any areas where species of milkweed occur and as such are found in

disturbed or early plant successional habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may result in direct mortality. These activities may also increase suitable 

habitat through thinning, burning, and road work, which would disturb soil and set back habitat 

into earlier successional stages in which milkweed may occur. Increased open habitat may 

provide nectar sources and travel corridors for these habitat generalists. The project would 

contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by conserving and enhancing 

monarch habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Eventually, lack of action could 

result in loss of some open habitats. 

Determination

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The No Action 

alternative would have no impact. 

Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail 

The Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail is found in moist environments especially spruce and 

spruce/pine mix, in lowland wooded areas, riparian toe slopes or talus slopes, generally with 

north to east exposure. This snail is loosely tied to calcareous soils, limestone outcrops and soil 

conditions. This species forages on decayed deciduous tree leaves and degraded herbaceous 

vegetation. In suitable habitat, this snail can be found crawling on decaying woody debris (Frest 

and Johannes 2002). Forest litter is an important habitat component.

Current identified distribution is in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Populations 

are limited in the Black Hills to suitable habitat mostly in Spearfish Creek, upper reaches of 

Rapid Creek, Higgins Gulch, Prospect Gulch and Grand Canyon near Deadwood, SD (Frest and 

Johannes 2002). This species could also be found in other drainages in the northwest region of 

the Black Hills. Many of the colonies, including most of the largest, are found in ponderosa pine

with a partially closed canopy, a secondary deciduous tree component, and diverse understories. 

At some sites, white spruce was common. Riparian woodland communities, often in areas with 

adjacent steep rocky slope bases, were also found to contain some substantial colonies.

Management activities that change moisture levels, ground temperature, and amounts of litter 

and vegetation cover are likely to negatively affect this species. The primary potential threats 

include road building, fire, timber harvest, mining, grazing, and motorized recreation. (Anderson 

2005). Although fire is a natural disturbance, high intensity fire can potentially eliminate snail 

habitat (Anderson 2005). Forest management, including fire suppression, in the last century has 

led to fuel buildup, which may promote high intensity fires. Road construction and maintenance 
56

can also affect snails by eliminating habitat or killing snails. Roadside brushing or weed spraying 

can also damage snails or their habitat (Anderson 2005). Snails often depend on undisturbed 

forest and riparian habitat, making it especially vulnerable to the effects of habitat degradation 

and environmental change (Frest and Johannes 2002).

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action may cause direct mortality and change microclimates, damaging or 

destroying unknown snail colonies. Management of known colonies consistent with Forest Plan 

standard 3103 would protect microsite conditions and minimize adverse effects on these 

colonies.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no direct effects. The potential for high-intensity surface 

fire resulting from existing fuel conditions would remain elevated; this type of wildfire could 

eliminate snail habitat. Both alternatives would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan 

objective 221 by conserving Cooper’s Rocky Mountain snail habitat.

Determination

The Proposed Action and the No Action alternative may adversely impact individuals, but are 

not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward 

federal listing.

Western bumble bee

The western bumble bees are primitively eusocial insects that live in colonies made up of one 

queen, female workers and, near the end of the season, reproductive members of the colony (new 

queens, or gynes, and males). New colonies are initiated by solitary queens, generally in the 

early spring (Hatfield et al. 2015). The western bumble bee, like most other species of bumble 

bees, typically nest underground in cavities such as abandoned rodent burrows (Koch et al. 2012) 

Western bumble bees are generalist foragers (Koch et al 2012) and have been reported visiting a 

wide variety of flowering plants. Bumble bees require plants that bloom and provide adequate 

nectar and pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late 

November for B. occidentalis (although the actual dates likely vary by elevation) (Hatfield et al. 

2015). 

Western bumble bee populations are experiencing dramatic declines (Koch et al. 2012). This bee 

is also faced with other stressors including habitat loss and alteration due to agricultural 

intensification, urban development, conifer encroachment (resulting from fire suppression), 

grazing, logging and climate change (Hatfield et al. 2015). Insecticides, designed to kill insects 

directly, and herbicides, which can remove floral resources, both pose serious threats to bumble 

bees. Of particular concern are neonicotinoids, whose toxins are persistent and accumulate in the 

nectar and pollen of plants (and thus collected by bees), and have both lethal and sublethal 

effects on bumble bees (Hatfield et al. 2015). 
57

In forested areas such as the BHNF, bumble bees are commonly found around flowers along 

streams, in meadows, recently burned or logged area, and along roadsides (Koch et al. 2012). 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action could result in direct mortality of bumble bee eggs, larvae, or adults. Soildisturbing activities could destroy burrow habitat. Proposed activities would result in conditions 

favorable for flowering plants, which could provide increased pollen and nectar opportunities. 

An increase in open habitats may provide additional suitable habitat and travel corridors for these 

habitat generalists. Neonicotinoid herbicides are not used for noxious weed control on the 

BHNF. The project would contribute toward achievement of Forest Plan objective 221 by 

conserving western bumble bee habitat.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would have no immediate effects. Eventually, lack of action could 

result in loss of some open habitats.

Determination

The Proposed Action may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of 

viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. The No Action 

alternative would generally have no impact.

Finescale dace

Finescale dace occur in the Redwater Creek drainage in the Wyoming portion of the project area 

(Isaak et al. 2003). They seem to do best in standing water habitats, such as beaver ponds. This 

species has been transplanted to various sites in the BHNF but the only population that persists is 

upstream of Hemler Reservoir, in ponded habitat near the headwaters of Redwater Creek. The 

drainage area of this watershed is slightly less than 1,600 acres.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action would not result in direct mortality because no in-water activities would 

occur in the headwaters of Redwater Creek. Indirect impacts are usually associated with grounddisturbing activities and occur later in time and/or away from the actual area of disturbance. A 

more thorough discussion of these effects is included in the watershed section. Proposed grounddisturbing activities have the potential to contribute sediment into waterbodies if surface water 

flows transport sediment into waterbodies. No new roads are proposed in the finescale dace 

watershed, so no new road-stream crossings or reconstruction of existing crossings are 

anticipated. Design features in the form of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, WCPs, and 

other measures would reduce non- point source water pollution from ground disturbance to 

levels that maintain water quality standards and fisheries beneficial uses. It is unlikely that 

proposed vegetation management activities would affect flow regimes to a degree that would 

have a detectable effect on stream flows or beaver pond levels.
58

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would not result in direct effects. Indirect effects may include 

increases in tree biomass; this may increase tree evapotranspiration but the effect would probably 

be overshadowed by precipitation patterns. Therefore, no discernable effect on flow regimes or 

finescale dace habitat would occur. Fire hazard and risk of mountain pine beetle infestation may 

increase over time. Some sediment input may occur from natural erosion processes and other 

activities but effects on aquatic habitats would be minimal.

Determination

The Proposed Action would have no impact. The No Action alternative would generally have no 

impact.

Lake chub

Lake chub occur across Canada and the northern United States. In the Black Hills, lake chub 

occur in Deerfield Reservoir, which is a 414-acre impoundment on Castle Creek completed in 

the late 1940s. Historically, lake chub were more widely distributed in the Black Hills. Deerfield 

Dam and reservoir water levels are regulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) manages fisheries in the reservoir. The 

lake chub population in Deerfield Reservoir is in decline (USDA Forest Service 2015b). 

Spawning occurs in the spring in shallow waters over cobble substrates (Isaak et al. 2003). No 

spawning migrations upstream into Castle Creek or other tributaries to Deerfield Reservoir have 

been documented.

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

The Proposed Action would not cause direct mortality because no in-water activities are 

proposed in Deerfield Reservoir. Indirect impacts relate to management activities 

upstream/upslope from Deerfield Reservoir that might affect habitat in the lake. Vegetation 

treatments upstream of the reservoir would not affect the amount of lake chub habitat because 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the reservoir to maintain a fairly constant pool 

elevation. Ground-disturbing activities associated with tree removal, prescribed fire, road 

building, and other activities have the potential to contribute to or mobilize stream sediment. MA 

8.2, in which Deerfield Reservoir is located, is excluded from the project area, providing an 

approximate 3,200-acre buffer area around the lake.

Over five miles of perennial stream feeding into Deerfield Reservoir are also within the excluded 

area. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines, WCPs, and project-specific design 

features would be anticipated to prevent or minimize non-point source water pollution, primarily 

sediment from ground-disturbing activities, from entering into streams that flow into the 

reservoir. Therefore, any sediment entering the reservoir from further upstream is unlikely to 

affect lake chub spawning habitat, prey availability, or water quality.

Alternative B

The No Action alternative would not result in direct mortality. No discernable effect on flow 

regimes or water yield into Deerfield Reservoir would occur. The US Bureau of Reclamation 

generally operates Deerfield Reservoir at a fairly constant water level, thereby maintaining the 
59

quantity of lake chub habitat. Fire hazard and risk of mountain pine beetle infestation may 

increase over time. Aquatic habitats in Deerfield Reservoir would be largely maintained.

Determination

The Proposed Action is predicted to have no impact. The No Action alternative would generally 

have no impact.

Mountain sucker

Status of mountain sucker are discussed in the MIS section. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Alternative A

Direct impacts (physical injury/mortalities) relate to inwater activities, such as culvert 

installation or repair, at road-stream crossings that may kill or injure mountain suckers. Adult 

mountain sucker are expected to generally swim away to avoid harm, but eggs or very young fish 

are more vulnerable. These impacts are largely avoided through a design criteria to minimize 

inwater construction activities during the mountain sucker spawning season. No new road-stream 

crossings were identified in relation to streams where mountain sucker are known to occur, but 

some existing crossings may need to be improved in occupied habitat. Indirect impacts include 

those effects that occur later in time or distance from the point of impact. The reconstruction of 

existing road-stream crossings may have the indirect benefit of improving fish passage and 

stream connectivity if the existing culvert being replaced is a barrier to fish passage. Other 

indirect affects generally relate to ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to add 

sediment to the stream network or impact streambank stability or degrade riparian habitat. 

Increased sediment delivery to streams, whatever the source, tends to result in less diverse 

physical habitats, decreases water quality, denudes spawning substrates, and decreases the 

availability of deep pools (Isaak et al. 2003). 

Roads that either cross streams or are in close proximity to streams have the greatest potential to 

add sediment to streams. Assuming that all of the 18 miles of new/temporary road construction 

proposed would include routes near water, which is likely an overestimate of the potential 

effects, about half of that mileage would be within the AMZ (100 feet buffer) of intermittent or 

perennial streams. The mileage of new roads within the AMZ is comprised of nearly 100 

separate segments that on average are individually less than 0.1 mile long. Only eight new road 

segments are longer than 0.25 mile. The longest individual new road segment is 0.7 mile long 

near an intermittent stream near the Teepee Work Center where no fisheries would be directly or 

indirectly affected. Approximately 35 percent of the miles of new and temporary roads are 

within the AMZ of perennial streams, the remainder are along intermittent streams, which 

reduces the potential for negative effects to fisheries.

These road-related impacts are further mitigated through the implementation of Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices and design criteria that ensure nonpoint source water pollution is controlled at levels that maintain water quality standards and 

fisheries beneficial uses. 

Some indirect effects are expected to be beneficial. A more resilient landscape is likely to reduce 

the adverse effects due to high severity wildfire impacting aquatic habitat at a watershed scale, 
60

though mountain sucker have persisted in the disturbance ecology of the Black Hills. The 

Watershed Report in the Project Record has additional analysis of potential effects to aquatic

resources.

Alternative B

Direct impacts (physical injury/mortalities) could occur similar to Alternative A, due to similar 

inwater construction activities related to road-stream crossing construction or replacement that 

may occur under this alternative. Indirect impacts are similar under this alternative because 

many of the same activities are either ongoing or likely to occur though the acres treated is likely 

to be less. The same mitigation would be applied under this alternative as the proposed action to 

maintain aquatic habitat and avoid impacts to the mountain sucker.

Determination

The Proposed Action and No Action alternative may adversely impact individuals, but are not 

likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal 

listing. Species-specific determinations are summarized below.

Determination Summary by Alternative for Analyzed Species

Species Alternative A (proposed action) Alternative B (no action)

American peregrine falcon NI1 NI

Bald eagle MAII3 NI

Northern goshawk MAII MAII

Northern harrier BI2 NI

Burrowing owl NI NI

Flammulated owl MAII NI

Lewis’ woodpecker MAII MAII

Black-backed woodpecker MAII NI

Grasshopper sparrow MAII NI

Loggerhead shrike NI NI

Long-billed curlew NI NI

Yellow-billed cuckoo MAII MAII

Fringed myotis MAII NI

Townsend’s big-eared bat MAII NI

Hoary bat MAII NI

American marten MAII NI

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep MAII NI

Black-tailed prairie dog NI NI

Northern leopard frog MAII MAII

Black Hills redbelly snake MAII MAII

Regal fritillary NI NI

Monarch butterfly MAII NI

Cooper’s Rocky Mountainsnail MAII MAII

Western bumble bee MAII NI

Finescale dace NI NI

Lake chub NI NI

Mountain sucker MAII MAII

1 - No Impact
61

2 - Beneficial Impact

3 - May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

 nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are additive incremental impacts from the action alternative in relation to 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past actions are reflected in the existing 

condition. The cumulative effects analysis area for wildlife includes the breeding territory or 

home range of each species. These vary widely in size and may include non-NFS lands, 

including those outside the BHNF boundary. This analysis is bounded (except for deer, elk and 

raptors) by the Forest Boundary. Relevant actions on federal and non-federal land assessed in the 

project area (or 5 mile buffer adjacent to project area for deer and elk) are discussed below.

No large-scale land use changes are currently foreseen. Therefore, this analysis primarily 

considers cumulative effects related to activities on NFS lands. The timespan for cumulative 

effects analysis is the present through 2038, or 10 years after the probable completion of 

proposed activities. By this time, it is likely that the project’s effects on wildlife species and 

habitat would become difficult to distinguish from those of other activities and events.

Fire suppression will continue to allow fuel accumulation, increases in pine stand density, and 

encroachment of pine into other vegetation communities. Timber sales have reduced pine stand 

density and the number of large trees and snags. Post-sale activities and prescribed fire are also 

generally expected to reduce pine stand density. Proposed prescribed fire and removal of conifers 

from aspen are likely to promote fire resistance and non-conifer vegetation communities. 

Proposed construction of new roads would increase the amount of wildlife habitat lost or 

modified due to roads. Disturbance to wildlife from motor vehicle use generally ends after the 

roads are rehabilitated or closed to public use, though increased habitat fragmentation may 

persist. Residential development of private lands has displaced some species and altered habitats.

Post-wildfire salvage in the BHNF has been limited because the timber must be removed almost 

immediately or value is lost due to wood-boring insects. Other constraints, such as steep slopes 

and watershed protection measures, have also limited salvage. Any post-fire salvage that occurs 

in the reasonably foreseeable future would follow the Post-Wildfire Forest Plan Implementation 

Guidance (USDA Forest Service 2017) associated with meeting Forest Plan objective 11-03. 

Through this objective, the BHNF strives to provide recently burned habitat for species, in 

particular the black- backed woodpecker, that are associated with post-fire conditions while 

allowing some removal of damaged trees for commercial or safety reasons. The top priority for 

retention is moderate/ high- severity burned pine stands that were dense, mature forest prior to 

burning.

The Proposed Action would add to the above effects of timber sales, prescribed fire, removal of 

conifers from aspen, and road construction. It would reduce acreage of dense, mature forest as 

compared to the No Action alternative through construction of shaded fuel breaks. It would also 

reduce the number of large trees and snags (through hazard tree removal), though efforts to retain 

some of the denser canopy open, mature pine stands so that they may increase in density, and the 

designation of some open, mature stands as late succession, would have a positive effect. 

Because the additive effects would remain within or trend toward Forest Plan desired conditions, 

these changes would not threaten the persistence of any species in the BHNF. The Proposed 
62

Action would not authorize post-wildfire salvage, though some treatment of burned habitat could 

occur if live trees in a harvest unit/treatment area that was already under contract are 

subsequently burned before treatment activities are completed.

Streams and lakes on the BHNF provide opportunities for water dependent activities, such as 

fishing, swimming and boating, as well as habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. The 

implementation of BHRL activities is not expected to have a cumulative effect on recreational 

fishing opportunities nor compromise native fish conservation. No additive stream fragmentation 

is predicted because all new instream structures, primarily culverts at road-stream crossings, will 

allow for the passage of aquatic organisms. The activities proposed under Alternative A are not 

likely to introduce or spread aquatic invasive species. Ground disturbing activities may result in 

an incremental increase in sediment input that is additive to natural erosion processes and other 

ongoing activities. The implementation of Forest Plan standards/guidelines, watershed 

conservation practices and design criteria to address non-point source water pollution, primarily 

sediment, is expected to maintain assigned fisheries beneficial uses and meet water quality 

standards. These and other proposed activities may result in minor, temporary increases in 

streamflow or water yield, but they are likely to be overshadowed by precipitation patterns (wet 

vs drought cycles). Reconstruction at existing road-stream crossings that are barriers to aquatic 

organism passage would have a positive cumulative effect in improving stream connectivity 

within those affected watersheds.

Climate Change

The agency’s “Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change” (USDA-Forest Service 

2008) provides direction to guide future management and research to address climate change in 

all aspects of agency work. The BHNF therefore, has direction to actively manage fish and 

wildlife habitat considering climate change. 

Climate change could lead to the loss of native species from extensive areas and result in 

increasingly scarce and fragmented populations in many others. Further changes within 

ecosystems could be triggered as invasive plant and animal species become established as native 

species are lost (Burns 2012). Due to generally accepted climate warming scenarios, disturbances 

such as fire, insects, and disease are predicted to increase and may accelerate establishment of 

invasive species. Some wildlife species would benefit from increased wildfires. Other wildlife

species could experience decreased habitat or extirpations as vegetation composition changes

and further destabilize ecosystems. Until potential changes are better understood, it would be 

difficult to predict the environmental outcomes of forest management activities related to climate 

change (Ruggiero et al. 2008, Reid and Lisle 2008). In any climate change scenario, there will 

likely be wildlife species that will benefit and others that will be harmed from changes.

The potential impacts to species on the Forest are becoming better understood and effects of any 

one project are not meaningfully measurable, especially at the scale of the project area (Burns 

2012). However certain generalizations can be made. Implementation of management activities 

will require large quantities of fossil fuels when compared to the no action alternative. Secondly, 

in active management, large amounts of live tree biomass will be removed from the BHNF. 
63

If there is a relatively equal exchange of Carbon from either alternative through time, added 

fossil fuel consumption from implementing the BHRL project activities for the next 10 years 

would add greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and an additional cost toward increased 

climate change compared to the no action alternative. 

Literature Cited

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182072.pdf

Anderson, T. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the American Dipper in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012057.pdf

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation Assessment of Woodpeckers in the Black Hills National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 272pp. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012579.pdf

Anderson, T. 2004a. Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri ): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206813.pdf

Anderson, T. 2004b. Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206814.pdf

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): A technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206812.pdf

Bartelt, P.E. 1977. Management of the American goshawk in the Black Hills National Forest. 

Brookings, SD: University of South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. 245pp.

Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis 

canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181936.pdf

Behler, J.L. and F.W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles 

and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, ed. Chanticleer Press Inc., New York. 719pp. 
64

Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206796.pdf

Benzon, T.A. and R. Halseth. 1999. Reintroduction of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the 

Black Hills, South Dakota, 1986–1994. Completion Report No. 99-12. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD. July.

Burns, K. 2012. Wildlife resource report and biological evaluation. Mountain pine beetle 

response project. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD.

Buskirk, S.W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012366.pdf

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and Conservation. (S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, 

M.G. Raphael, compilers and editors.) Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. pp. 283–

296.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. In: The scientific basis for conserving 

forest carnivores in the western United States. (L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W. 

Buskirk, editors.) General Technical Report RM-254, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Range and Experiment Station.

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr254.pdf

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting Habits of Four Bat Species in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3:43-52.

Davis, M.H. 1983. Post-release movements of introduced marten. J. of Wildl. Manage. 47(1): 

59-66.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and 

Rangeland Birds of the United States: Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA Forest 

Service Agriculture Handbook 688. 625pp.

DePerno, C. S., J. A. Jenks, S. L. Griffin, L. A. Rice, and K. F. Higgins. 2002. White-tailed Deer 

Habitats in the Central Black Hills. J. Range Manage. 55:242-252. May 2002.

Dykstra, Brian L., Mark A. Rumble, and Lester D. Flake. 1999. Effects of timber harvesting on

birds in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. In: Cook, J.E. and B.P. Oswald, 

compilers. First Biennial North American Forest Ecology Workshop; 1997 June 24-26; 

Raleigh, NC; 16-26.

Erickson, M.G. 1987. Nest site habitat selection of the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Brookings, SD: University of South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. 49pp.
65

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003. 2003 Survey Results for Small Forest Owls, the 

Northern Goshawk and Other Raptors of Interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. 

Report Prepared for South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre.

Fecske, D.M., 2003. Distribution and abundance of American martens and cougars in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. PhD dissertation. South Dakota State University, 

Brookings, SD. 

Fischer, T.D., D.C. Backlund, K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. A field guide to South 

Dakota Amphibians. South Dakota State University. Brookings, SD. SDAES Bull.

Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell, III. 1985. Black footed-ferret 

habitat: Some management and reintroduction considerations. Technical Bulletin No. 2, 

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management, Wildlife.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 2002. Land Snail Survey of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming, Summary Report, 1991-2001. Final Report Contract # 43-67TO8-1085. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest. 127 p. plus appendices.

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Pygmy Nuthatch in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012475.pdf

Giroir, G., C. White, and R. Sparks. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: 2007 Field 

Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO 8+1 pp. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114242.pdf

Graham, R.T, S. Bayard de Volo, and R.T. Reynolds. 2015. Northern Goshawk and Its Prey in 

the Black Hills: Habitat Assessment. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-339. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr339.pdf

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181908.pdf

Haldeman, J.R. 1980. Non-game Bird Habitat Relationships in the Black Hills National Forest. 

Final Report to the Black Hills National Forest, RQ R2-79-269. 233pp.

Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S. & Foltz Jordan, S. 2015. Bombus

 occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937492A46440201. 

 http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937492A46440201.en. 
66

Hayward, G.D., and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana 

and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, technical editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls 

in the United States: A technical conservations assessment. General Technical Report. 

RM-253, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, CO.

Hejl, S.J., K.R. Newlon, M.E. McFadzen, J.S. Young, and C.K. Ghalambor. 2002. Brown

Creeper. In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 669. The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Higgins, K.E., E. Dowd Stukel, J.M. Goulet, and D.C. Backlund. 2000. Wild Mammals of South 

Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre, SD.

Hill, R. R. 1946. Palatability ratings of Black Hills plants for white-tailed deer. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 10: 47–54.

Hirtzel, S. 2012. Fisheries specialist report & biological evaluation. Mountain pine beetle 

response project. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer SD.

Hough, M. J. 2008. Research techniques, habitat use, and ecology of northern flying squirrels, 

and research techniques and distribution of red squirrels in the Black Hills National 

Forest and northeastern South Dakota. Master’s Thesis. South Dakota State University, 

Brookings, SD.

Hough, M.J. and C.D. Dieter. 2009. Home Range and Habitat Use of Northern Flying Squirrels 

in the Black Hills, South Dakota Am. Midl. Nat. 162:112–124. 

http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1674/0003-0031-162.1.112

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in 

northern Rocky Mountain (USA) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L., and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, 

USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-32. Ogden UT: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72pp.

Hutton, K., J. Beason, G. Giroir, R. Sparks, and D. Hanni. 2007. Monitoring the Birds of the 

Black Hills: 2006 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH06-01. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 71 pp. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114241.pdf

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, mountain 

sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and 

Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012156.pdf
67

Johnson, A.S. and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Western burrowing 

owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and 

Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012149.pdf

Johnson, A. S., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Saw-whet 

Owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. May 2003. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012447.pdf. 27pp.

Kennedy, J.F. 1992. Habitat Selection by Female White-tailed Deer in the Northern Black Hills, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. Master’s thesis. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD.

Kennedy. P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): A technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182005.pdf

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181913.pdf

Kistler, D., and L. Fager. 1981. Cavity nesting birds of the Black Hills National Forest. USDA Forest 

Service. Custer, SD 144pp.

Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W. H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and 

T.S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western 

burrowing owl in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical 

Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, DC.

Knowles C.J. and P.R. Knowles. 2010. Nesting ecology of the northern goshawk in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Report for the 2010 nesting season. Prepared for: SDGFP, Pierre 

SD.

Koch, J.B., J.P. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble bees of the western United States. 

USDA Forest Service and Pollinator Partnership. FS-972(W) Washington DC.

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of 

wildfire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests 

of the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology: 218-225.

Lynch, P. 2017. Personal correspondence re: goshawk nest visits on BHNF. March 9, 2017.

Marrone, G.M. 2002. Field Guide to the Butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish and Parks. Pierre, South Dakota.
68

Matseur, E.A. 2017. Abundance of Black-backed Woodpeckers and other Birds in Relation to 

Disturbance and Forest Structure in the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of South 

Dakota and Wyoming. Master’s Thesis. University of Missouri-Columbia. 100 pages.

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. The Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182041.pdf

Mehls, C.L., K.C. Jensen, M.A. Rumble and M.C. Wimberly. 2014. Multi-scale Habitat Use of 

Male Ruffed Grouse in the Black Hills National Forest The Prairie Naturalist 46:21–33; 

2014. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_mehls_c001.pdf

Merwin, D.S. 2000. Comparing levels and factors of lambing mortality between two herds of 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Master’s Thesis, 

University of Washington, Seattle. 125 pp.

Millspaugh, J. J. 1999. Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Elk to Human Disturbances 

in the Southern Black Hills, South Dakota. PhD Thesis. University of Washington. 

284pp.

Millspaugh, J. J., G. C. Brundige, R. A. Gitzen, and K. J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and Hunter Space 

Use Sharing in South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 64(4):994-1003.

Mohren, S. R., M. A. Rumble, and S. H. Anderson. 2014. Density and abundance of BlackBacked Woodpeckers in a ponderosa pine ecosystem. The Prairie Naturalist 46 (2): 62–69.

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/2014/rmrs_2014_mohren_s001.pdf

Mohren, S. R., M. A. Rumble, C. P. Lehman, S. H. Anderson. 2016. Resource selection by 

Black-backed Woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) and American Three-toed Woodpeckers 

(P. dorsalis) in South Dakota and Wyoming. The Prairie Naturalist 47: 21–29.

https://greatplainsnaturalsciencesociety.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/pdf-mohren-48-1.pdf

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 4.4. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Nicholoff, S. H., Compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners in Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

WyomingPartnersInFlightPlan

Orabona, A., S. Patla, L. Van Fleet, M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf and Z. Walker. 2009. Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. 227pp.

Panjabi, A. 2001. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 1 Final Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml
69

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 2 Final Report. Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml

Panjabi, A. 2005. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills: Year 4 Annual Report. Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory. Brighton, Colorado. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/wildlife/index.shtml

Parrish, J.B., D.J. Herman, D.J. Reyher, and Black Hills National Forest. 1996. A Century of 

Change in the Black Hills Forest and Riparian Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service 

Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA, South Dakota State University. 13p.

Rabe, M., T. Morrell, H. Green, J. Devos Jr., and C. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosapine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62(2): 612–621.

Reid, L., and T. Lisle. 2008. Cumulative Effects and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/cumulative-effects

Reynolds R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217, 

USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern Region 

Forest Service. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr217.pdf

Reynolds, Richard T.; Lambert, Jeffrey S.; Flather, Curtis H.; White, Gary C.; Bird, Benjamin J.; 

Baggett, L. Scott; Lambert, Carrie; Bayard De Bolo, Shelley. 2017. Long-term 

demography of the Northern Goshawk in a variable environment. Wildlife Monographs. 

197: 1-40. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_journals/2017/rmrs_2017_reynolds_r001.pdf

Robling, K. 2017. Email correspondence re: SDGFP white-tailed deer population estimates for 

the Black Hills. Sent March 20, 2017.

Rota, C. T., J. J. Millspaugh, M. A. Rumble, C. P. Lehman, and D. C. Kesler. 2014a. The role of 

wildfire, prescribed fire, and mountain pine beetle infestations on the population 

dynamics of a disturbance-dependent species. PLoS ONE 9(4):e94700. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0094700.PDF

Rota, C. T., M. A. Rumble, J. J. Millspaugh, C. P. Lehman and D. C. Kesler. 2014b. Space-use 

 and habitat associations of black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) occupying 

recently disturbed forests in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Forest Ecology and 

Management 313:161–168.http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_rota_c001.pdf
70

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson and M. A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of Roads on 

Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Transactions of the sixtyninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: resource stewardship 

in the 21st century: a voyage of rediscovery: March 16-20, 2004, Spokane, Washington.

Washington D.C. Wildlife Management Institute, p. 491-508.

Royer, R.A., and G.M. Marrone. 1992. Conservation status of the regal fritillary (Speyeria 

idalia) in North and South Dakota. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado.

Ruggiero, L., K. McKelvey, J. Squires, and W. Block. 2008. Wildlife and Climate Change. 

(May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change 

Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildlife.shtml

Rumble, M. A., L. Benkobi and R. S. Gamo. 2005. Elk Responses to Humans in a Densely 

Roaded Area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. Vol. 11, No. 102:10-24. June 2005.

SAIC. 2003. Memorandum. A Framework for Revising Deer and Elk Strategic Management 

Direction on the Black Hills National Forest. Science Application International 

Corporation. SAIC project number 01-0209-04-4456-106.

Sandrini, J. 2016. 2015 Job Completion report, Black Hills white-tailed deer. Casper region; 

Herd WD706-Black Hills. Hunt Areas 1-6. Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 

3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Schenck, T. E., III; Linder, R. L.; Richardson, A. H. 1972. Food habits of deer in the Black Hills, 

Part II. Southern Black Hills. Agric. Bull. 606. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State 

University, Agricultural Experiment Station: 19–35.

Schmid, J.M., S. A. Mata, and W. C. Schaupp, Jr. 2009. Mountain Pine Beetle-Killed Trees as 

Snags in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands. Research Note RMRS-RN-40. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn040.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation Assessment for the Long-eared Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012270.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation Assessment for the Long-legged Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012271.pdf
71

Schmidt, C.A. 2003c. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012446.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003d. Conservation Assessment for the Small-footed Myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012519.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003e. Conservation assessment for the fringed bat in the Black Hills National 

Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012246.pdf 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003f. Conservation assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012119.pdf

Schneeweis, J.C., K.E. Severson, and L.E. Peterson. 1972. Food habits of deer in the Black Hills. 

Ag. Exp. Stn. SDSU Bull. 606. 35pp.

Schultz, Luke D. 2011. Environmental factors associated with long-term trends of mountain 

sucker populations in the Black Hills, and an assessment of their thermal tolerance. 

Master of Science Thesis, Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State 

University. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/398/

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks). 2004. South Dakota Bat Management Plan. South 

Dakota Bat Working Group. Wildlife Division Report 2004-08. July 13, 2004. 97pp. 

Available: https://gfp.sd.gov/UserDocs/nav/bat-managment-plan.pdf

SDGFP. 2013. Action Plan for Management of Bighorn Sheep in South Dakota. 

https://gfp.sd.gov/UserDocs/nav/2013-bighornsheep-draftplan.pdf

SDGFP. 2016. 2016 South Dakota Elk Aerial Survey. http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/docs/elk-aerialsurvey.pdf

SDGFP. 2017. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks comments on the Black Hills 

Resilient Landscapes Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Sedgwick, J.A. 2006. Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus): A technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182037.pdf
72

Selby, G. 2007. Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5206808.pdf

Sharps, J.C. and D. O’Brien. 1985. Peregrine falcon reintroduction in the Black Hills, South 

Dakota, 1977–1980. Game Report, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 

Wildlife Division, Pierre, SD. Completion Report No. 85-10.

Sibley, D. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America. 2006. Alfred A. 

Knopf. 432 p.

Sieg, C.H., and K.E. Severson. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer: Black Hills and 

Bear Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. GTR RM-GTR-274. Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Station Ft. Collins CO.

Slater, G.L. 2004. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): A Technical 

Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182057.pdf

Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. 2005. Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus): A technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf

Smith, B.E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012268.pdf

Smith, B.E. and N.T. Stephens. 2003. Conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the 

Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, SD. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012483.pdf

Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens): A technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182078.pdf

Squires, J.R. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in Southcentral 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1): 170–177.

Stefanich, M.R. 1995. Movements and Habitat use of White-tailed Deer in the Northwestern 

Black Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, 

Laramie. 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Conservation Assessment for the Tawny Crescent in the Black Hills 

National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Custer, SD. 45pp.
73

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the Cooper’s Hawk and 

Sharp-Shinned Hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming. 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012178.pdf

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Broad-Winged 

Hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012127.pdf

Tallman, D.A., D.L. Swanson, and J.S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. 3rd Edition.

Northern State Univ. Press. Aberdeen, SD. 441 pp.

Tigner, J. and E. Dowd Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills: A Description of Status and 

Conservation Needs. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks. Wildlife Division 

Report. 94pp.

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In the birds of North America, 

No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gills, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 

PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Uresk, D.W. and K.E. Severson. 1998. Response of Understory Species to Changes in Ponderosa 

Pine Stocking Levels in the Black Hills. Great Basin Naturalist 58 (4):312-327.

USDA-Forest Service. 1996. Final environmental impact statement for the revised land and 

resource management plan for the Black Hills National Forest. Black Hills National 

Forest, Custer, SD. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml

USDA-Forest Service. 2000. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National Forest land 

and resource management plan amendment.

USDA-Forest Service. 2004. Black Hills National Forest 2003 monitoring and evaluation report. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5337944.pdf

USDA-Forest Service. 2005. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment, 1997 Land and 

Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, South Dakota. October 2005.

USDA-Forest Service. 2006. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest, As Amended by the Phase II Amendment. US Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South Dakota. March, 

2006.
74

USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Black Hills National Forest FY 2006 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. May 2007. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012248.pdf

USDA-Forest Service. 2008. Forest Service Strategic Framework for responding to climate 

change. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington, D.C.21pp. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climate-change-1-

0.pdf

USDA-Forest Service. 2010. Black Hills National Forest FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Custer, South Dakota. September 2010. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5436662.pdf

USDA-Forest Service. 2011. Sensitive Species Evaluation and Rational for listing the Hoary Bat. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. March 21, 2011. [Online]. 

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5193327 

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Forest Service Manual 2670. Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Plants and Animals. Supplement no. R2_2600-2015-1, effective August 14, 

2015. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3843364.pdf

USDA-Forest Service. 2015b. Black Hills National Forest FY 2013-14 Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report. US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National 

Forest. Custer, South Dakota. August 2015. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd475802.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Biological Assessment for the Land and Resource Management 

Plan and Associated Programs and Activities on the Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, South 

Dakota. 213 pages.

USDA-Forest Service. 2017. Post-Wildfire Forest Plan Guidance. April 17, 2017 letter signed by 

Mark Van Every, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest. 3 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at 

https://www.fws.gov/birdsofconservationconcern

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Project-specific Endangered Species List for South Dakota 

and Wyoming. Accessed on January 9, 2018. Available online at: Information for 

Planning and Consultation (iPAC).
75

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2017. Department comments on the Black Hills 

Resilient Landscapes Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/Letter/1463629?project=49052

White, C. and G. Giroir. 2009. Monitoring the Birds of the Black Hills, 2008 Field Season 

Report. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH-USFS08, SDDGF08. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO, 57 pp. 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114243.pdf

White, C. M., J. A. Blakesley, D. C. Pavlacky, Jr., and D. J. Hanni. 2010. Monitoring the Birds 

of Black Hills National Forest: 2009 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. SC-RMRUSFS09-

01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 54 pp. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5177208.pdf

Wiggins, D.A. 2005a. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5347308.pdf

Wiggins, D. 2005b. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): A technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182049.pdf

Wiggins, D. 2005c. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): A technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182002.pdf

Wiggins, D.A. 2006. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182048.pdf