Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 1 

Record of Decision  

Steamboat Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement  

USDA Forest Service

Black Hills National Forest

Northern Hills Ranger District

Lawrence, Meade and Pennington Counties, South Dakota

Introduction

This Record of Decision documents my decision regarding the Steamboat Project as well as the

rationale behind my decision. The decision described in this document is based on my review of

the alternatives and analyses presented in the Steamboat Project Draft and Final Environmental

Impact Statements, additional project‐related information in the Steamboat project record, and

public comments that I received regarding the project.  

In addition to my decision and rationale, this document summarizes public involvement

conducted for the project, the alternatives I considered, and findings required by law. It also

identifies what I have determined to be the environmental preferable alternative and explains

measures I am taking to avoid or minimize environmental harm.  

Background

The Steamboat project area is located in Lawrence, Meade and Pennington Counties, South

Dakota, in the northern Black Hills.  The project area covers a total of 24,596 acres including

approximately 21,833 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and approximately 2,713 acres

of interspersed private land immediately east of Nemo, South Dakota and west of Piedmont,

South Dakota and the Interstate 90 corridor.  The project area includes all or part of the

following land base:   

Table 1. Steamboat Project Area Legal Description

Township Range Section

4 North 5 East 33‐36

3 North 5 East 1‐4, 9‐16, 22‐27, 34‐46

2 North 5 East 1, 2, 12

3 North 6 East 5‐9, 16‐22, 27‐33

2 North 6 East 5‐8, 17, 18

Black Hills Meridian

The project area contains approximately 121 miles of road that are part of the National Forest

road system.  Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker Canyon Road) and Forest System Road (FSR) 144

(Nemo Road) are the primary travel routes that access the project area.  Approximately 9.5
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 2 

miles of the Centennial trail crosses the project area.  Recreation features located in the project

area include the Steamboat Rock picnic area and the Dalton Lake campground and adjacent

trailhead, which provide access to the Centennial trail.

As is typical of the Black Hills National Forest, ponderosa pine is the dominant cover type in the

project area, covering 21,060 acres.  Other cover types include aspen (320 acres), grassland (229

acres), white spruce (138 acres), and bur oak (136 acres).  

The Steamboat Project was originally planned for analysis in 2009‐2010 as a much larger project

area of the same name encompassing over 60,000 acres.  After reviewing the available data,

considering timelines, and assessing conditions on the ground, the Northern Hills Ranger District

(NHRD) determined that it would be more efficient to split the Steamboat project area in two

using Nemo Road and Vanocker Canyon Road as the dividing line.  This division created the

Nautilus project area to the west of the dividing line while the eastern half retained the

Steamboat name.  The Nautilus Project was analyzed in an environmental impact statement

(EIS) in 2009‐2010, and I signed the Nautilus Record of Decision (ROD) on November 9, 2010.   

The Steamboat project area is comprised entirely of Management Area (MA) 5.4 (Big Game

Winter Range). This is a Forest Plan land use designation. The project was designed to move the

area toward the desired conditions specified for this management area in the Forest Plan. The

purpose of and need for action in the Steamboat project area is to provide for structural

diversity in big game winter range, reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire, and reduce the risk

of mountain pine beetle infestation across the project area.

Decision

This Record of Decision documents my decision regarding actions I am authorizing under the

Steamboat Project and the rationale for my decision. The Steamboat Project purpose and need,

as specified in the Steamboat Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), provides the

focus of and scope for the proposed action and alternatives under the direction of the 1997

Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the

2005 Phase II Amendment (Forest Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 of the

Steamboat Project FEIS. Given the purpose and need, I have reviewed the alternatives and

analysis disclosed in the FEIS, the issues identified during public scoping, information contained

in the project record, Forest Plan direction, and public comments received on the draft EIS.

Based on this review, I have decided to implement Alternative B with modifications, including all

post‐sale projects as funding allows. The reasons for selecting Alternative B are explained under

Rationale for Selected Action, presented later in this ROD.  The modifications to Alternative B are

described under Modifications to Alternative B and Planned Actions below.

Modifications to Alternative B and Planned Actions

Alternative B was developed to address the purpose of and need for action identified for this

project area. The purpose of and need for action included providing structural diversity in an

area to be managed as big game winter range, reducing the risk of high intensity wildfire, and

reducing the risk of mountain pine beetle infestation. The strategy used to respond to these

three issues involved identifying a matrix of treatments across the landscape intended to reduce
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 3 

the acreage of mature, densely forested ponderosa pine stands while providing for structural

diversity across the landscape.  

After reviewing the analysis and the comments submitted regarding the Steamboat project, I

felt that several modifications to Alternative B were merited.  The rationale behind these

modifications is described in detail in the Rationale for Selected Action section below.  All

modifications to Alternative B were analyzed and effects disclosed under the Steamboat DEIS

and FEIS under the action alternatives included.  In addition, each interdisciplinary team

specialist reviewed the modifications to Alternative B and determined that the effects are within

the scope of those disclosed in the Steamboat FEIS. I believe the information contained within

the analysis is sufficient to understand the effects of implementing Alternative B with

modifications. The following table displays the activities proposed under the original Alternative

B and the modified Alternative B (the Selected Action). Maps displaying features of the Selected

Action are included in Appendix A—Selected Action Maps. Maps 1 and 2 display the planned

vegetative and fuels treatments, while Map 3 shows the associated road construction or

maintenance activities for the Selected Action.  

Table 2. Comparison of Alternative B and the Selected Action (Alternative B‐Modified)  

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments

Commercial Vegetation Treatments Alternative B

(Acres)

Selected Action

(Acres)

Aspen/Birch Enhancement 302 302

Meadow Enhancement 78 78

Overstory Removal 874 1,243

Commercial Thin 4,617 5,079

Shelterwood Cut 1,392 1,700

Patch Clearcut 190 190

Individual Tree Selection 1,186 1,186

Group Selection 293 293

Product‐other‐than‐log 1,116 1,116

Total Commercial Vegetation Treatments 10,048 11,187

Non‐commercial  Vegetation Treatments Alternative B

(Acres)

Selected Action

(Acres)

Aspen/Birch Enhancement 328 328

Meadow Enhancement 128 128

Non‐commercial Thin1 1,372 1,209

Understory Thin 460 460

Total Non‐commercial Treatments 2,288 2,159

Fuels Treatments Alternative B

(Acres)

Selected Action

(Acres)

Fuel Reduction 84 84

Prescribed Burning 10,608 10,608

Total Fuels Treatments 10,692 10,692

Timber Volume Removed

Million Board Feet (MMBF) 2 35.9 40.0

Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF) 3 29,876 33,254

Transportation System   Alternative B

(Miles)

Selected Action

(Miles)

New Road Construction 20 24

Non‐system to System Road Conversion 5 6
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 4 

Vegetation and Fuels Treatments

Existing Road Reconstruction/Pre‐use

Maintenance4 75 74

Total Transportation System Activities 100 103 1

The acres displayed for non‐commercial thinning represents those stands for which non‐commercial thinning was the

only thinning treatment authorized. All stands with a commercial treatment could have a follow‐up non‐commercial

thinning treatment. 2

The figures presented here for volume in MMBF differ from those in the FEIS because a more precise method of

calculating volume was run following publication of the FEIS. 3

The figures presented here for volume in CCF differ from those in the FEIS because a more precise method of calculating

volume was run following publication of the FEIS. 4

The Selected Action includes fewer miles of road reconstruction/pre‐use maintenance than Alternative B because some

errors in the database were corrected.

Vegetation Treatments

A description of the vegetation treatments that comprise the Selected Action follows.

Commercial thinning treatments would be carried out in several timber sales over the course of

the next five to ten years. Stewardship contracts may be utilized to accomplish vegetation

treatments as well. Non‐commercial thinning would be accomplished either by Forest Service

personnel or through contracting, depending on funding and availability of personnel.

Aspen/Birch (Hardwood) Enhancement

Hardwood enhancement is intended to maintain or encourage growth in aspen or birch stands.

This treatment may be applied to stands with a pine, aspen or birch cover type.  

 Stands with a pine cover type—When applied to stands with a pine cover type, the pine

portion of the stand would be treated with a commercial thin. Pine areas within stands

with a 4C structural stage would be thinned to 60 basal area (BA), and pine areas within

stands with a 4B structural stage would be thinned to 40 BA.  

 Stands with an aspen or birch cover type—When applied to stands with an aspen or

birch cover type, all commercial and non‐commercial pine may be removed across the

stand.  

Regardless of cover type, areas of older, decadent or declining aspen or birch may be thinned or

clearcut to regenerate the aspen or birch.

Hardwood enhancement can be either commercial or non‐commercial in nature, depending on

the size of ponderosa pine being removed from the stand.  If pine with a diameter at breast

height (DBH) greater than nine inches is present, then the treatment would be commercial; less

than nine inches DBH and the treatment would be non‐commercial.

Meadow Enhancement

This treatment involves removal of pine in historical meadow areas to increase vegetative

diversity and grass production in meadow communities.  As with aspen/birch enhancement, the

treatment can be either commercial or non‐commercial in nature depending on the size of the

encroaching pine.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 5 

Overstory Removal

The objective of removing overstory trees is to liberate the established understory regeneration.

Residual trees would be retained at seed cut spacing where regeneration is less than 400 trees

per acre at least two feet tall or where prescribed burning is proposed. Prescribed burning

following treatment is generally not proposed in order to protect regeneration, but is included

in selected stands to maintain road‐to‐road containment perimeters for prescribed burn units.

Non‐commercial thinning may occur following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and

achieve desired conditions (see the description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Commercial Thin

This treatment involves removing commercial‐sized pine (greater than nine inches DBH). Unlike

overstory removal, not the entire overstory would be removed; rather, overstory trees would be

thinned to a prescribed density allowing the remaining overstory greater availability of sunlight

and nutrients while reducing the density of the stand.   Retention densities would vary from 40

to 80 square feet of basal area. The best formed, most dominant, and vigorous trees would be

retained. This treatment is prescribed for stands with a ponderosa pine cover type. Species

selected for retention would discriminate against white spruce. Conifers may be removed from

within and up to 30 feet from the edge of aspen pockets in excess of 1⁄4 acre. Non‐commercial

thinning may occur following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and achieve desired

conditions (see the description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Shelterwood Cut

The shelterwood cut treatment involves thinning overstory trees to create optimal regeneration

conditions. The best formed overstory trees are retained at approximately 30 square feet of

basal area (approximately 35 foot spacing between trees).  The remaining overstory trees

provide a seed source for regenerating the stand in the future.  Site preparation for seedling

establishment may be accomplished with prescribed burning. Non‐commercial thinning may

occur following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and achieve desired conditions

(see the description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Patch Clearcut

Patch clearcut involves the removal of all conifers from patches not to exceed 10 acres in size.  

The size and number of patches harvested in any given stand would vary depending on site

characteristics.  Patches would be irregularly shaped to blend into the landscape, creating a

more natural appearance.  The intent of this treatment is to create open browsing areas with

adjacent thermal cover for big game.  The open areas created by patch clearcuts can also

provide fuel breaks that can slow down an advancing wildfire. Non‐commercial thinning may

occur following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and achieve desired conditions

(see the description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Individual Tree Selection

Individual tree selection (also called single‐tree selection) is a method of creating or maintaining

an uneven‐aged stand structure. Uneven‐aged stands, when completely regulated, have at least

three distinct age classes present.  In this method, individual trees in all diameter classes are

removed to create a broken or uneven canopy.  The largest number of stems is in the smallest

diameter class, with the number decreasing more or less regularly with increasing size.  The

fewest number of stems is in the largest diameter class. Non‐commercial thinning may occur
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 6 

following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and achieve desired conditions (see the

description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Group Selection

This uneven‐aged treatment creates or maintains multiple age classes in even‐aged groups and

maintains the age classes in perpetuity through stand regulation. Groups are up to two acres in

size and are scattered throughout a site. Groups occupy 20% of the site. Groups are openings

designed to create the youngest age class of trees. The rest of the site will be variable density

thinned. To achieve regulation, the site would have five age classes with each age class

occupying approximately 20% of the site. Non‐commercial thinning may occur following

commercial treatment to maintain the stand and achieve desired conditions (see the description

of non‐commercial thinning below).

Product‐other‐than‐log

Products other than logs, generally posts and poles, are made from trees between five and nine

inches DBH. The primary objective of these treatments is to increase growth and vigor of

remaining trees. Suppressed, defective, and excess trees are removed. This treatment may be

commercial or non‐commercial, depending on the pulp and pole markets. Dominance is a

desirable characteristic and is taken into account during tree retention selection. Non‐

commercial thinning may occur following commercial treatment to maintain the stand and

achieve desired conditions (see the description of non‐commercial thinning below).

Non‐commercial Thin

Non‐commercial thinning would involve the reduction of standing stems less than nine inches

DBH, retaining 200‐400 stems per acre (approximately 12 foot spacing between trees). Cut

material is lopped and scattered within the stand to maintain nutrients on the site. Stands may

be burned to hasten fuel decomposition and reduce uncontrolled fire risk.  Piling and burning of

residual material may be conducted in place of lop and scatter in stands that are adjacent to

private property to reduce the amount of ground fuels in WUI areas. The purpose of non‐

commercial thinning is to a) remove excess regeneration from the understory, providing the

remaining trees greater access to nutrients, b) remove fuels from the understory, and/or c)

retain appropriate growing stock levels.

Understory Thin

Understory thinning is intended to maintain or enhance habitat conditions in certain stands,

such as goshawk nesting areas and late successional forest (structural stage 5).  Non‐commercial

sized (less than nine inches DBH) trees would be removed to reduce understory density and

competition for resources.  Doing so also creates a diversity of vegetative structure in the

understory.  Understory thinning also reduces the amount of surface fuels available to a wildfire.

Fuel Reduction

Fuel reduction involves the removal of vegetative material from the understory through the use

of hand tools (e.g. chainsaws) or machinery (e.g. chippers or masticators).  The intent of this

treatment is to reduce the amount of fuel available to wildfires, particularly in WUI areas.

Prescribed Fire

A total of 10,608 acres of the project area was considered for prescribed burning as a follow‐up

to harvest treatments under all the alternatives. I am authorizing prescribed burning on these
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 7 

acres; however, I do not expect that the entire area will be burned.  Rather, I anticipate that

approximately 1,000 acres per year, a total of 10,000 acres over the life of this project, would

actually be implemented.  The full 10,608 acres is being analyzed for burning to allow for

flexibility in the future. Specific burn units will be selected following completion of the initial

vegetation treatments and observation of resulting site conditions.  For each prescribed burn

that is conducted, a site specific burn plan will be developed prior to implementation.

Proposed Road Activities

New Road Construction

Road construction refers to creating new routes where no route has previously been developed.  

New roads would be constructed to Forest Service specifications and would adhere to Forest

Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and project‐specific design

criteria. All new roads constructed under the Steamboat Project would be closed following the

completion of management activities unless specified as open to motorized use in the

motorized vehicle use map (MVUM).  The method of closure would be determined based on site

conditions.   

Non‐system to System Road Conversion

Conversion refers to the addition of non‐system roads to the National Forest System (NFS).  The

routes proposed for conversion are typically unclassified routes.  The road template already

exists on the ground.  Under the Steamboat Project, the route would be added to the NFS and

improved as necessary to meet Forest Service specifications.  Like newly constructed roads,

converted routes would also adhere to Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs and project‐

specific design criteria.  These routes would also be closed following management activities

unless they are specifically identified as being open in the MVUM.   

Maintenance of Existing Roads

Reconstruction or pre‐use maintenance is proposed for existing NFS roads that would require

improvement prior to management activities occurring.  Of these two activities, reconstruction

is generally the more intense activity and could include widening the road or slight rerouting

based on site specific conditions.  Pre‐use maintenance involves more routine activities such as

grading or brushing of the roadway.  These two activities are lumped together for analysis

purposes to allow for flexibility in applying specific activities.  Road conditions may change

between the time of analysis and implementation of the project.  Analyzing for both activities

provides the leeway for applying the most appropriate action at the time of implementation.

Temporary Roads

Temporary roads may also be required to facilitate vegetation management activities. These are

generally short spurs off of other routes that are not intended to become part of the Forest’s

transportation system but are only intended to facilitate the management actions associated

with this decision. These roads are closed to motor vehicle access following harvest activities,

and closure includes any actions necessary (e.g. slashing in the route, seeding to promote

revegetation, etc.) to stabilize the route surface and reduce erosion.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 8 

Other Authorized Activities

Watershed Improvement Projects

Per Forest Plan direction, watershed improvement projects or other activities that will improve

the health of the watershed must be a part of project planning for projects planned in Class 3

watersheds. Class 3 watersheds were identified during the Forest Plan development process as

being of high concern and in which management activities must be done with great care (further

explanation of Class 3 watersheds is provided in the Hydrology and Soils section in Chapter 3 of

the Steamboat Project FEIS).  All of the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7th‐level watersheds that

comprise the Steamboat project area are identified as Class 3.  Therefore, a variety of watershed

improvement projects have been incorporated into the modified proposed action and

alternatives, including:

 meadow and hardwood enhancement along streams across the project area, and

 reduction in the number of connected disturbed areas (CDAs) through road

maintenance/improvement across the project area.

Sanitation Harvest Provision

The purpose and need for the Steamboat Project recognizes that there is a need to alter stand

structure within the project area to reduce the threat of mountain pine beetle infestation. In an

effort to be responsive to mountain pine beetle infestations, I am authorizing the development

and implementation of sanitation harvest proposals for areas of mountain pine beetle

infestation within the project area. These proposals will identify site specific treatments

intended to limit the spread of beetles.

Sanitation treatments are considered to be preventative and are most effective prior to the start

of an epidemic.  A treatment is used to remove resident beetle populations from the stand

before they are able to infest the stand as a whole.  In an attempt to prevent the mortality of

the entire stand, the use of sanitation is best incorporated at the first indication of beetle

infested trees.  Sanitation is the removal of infested trees; however, it is reasonable to

implement other treatments to increase stand resiliency once sanitation is deemed appropriate.  

Sanitation treatments when used in combination with other preventative treatments have the

highest level of effectiveness in protecting the stand as a whole.

The intent of this sanitation harvest provision is to increase the efficiency and speed at which

the Forest Service is able to respond to emerging mountain pine beetle infestations. Infested

areas would be treated to remove beetle‐hit trees. In addition to removal of infested trees,

thinning treatments to increase resiliency of the stand and to decrease the likelihood of a

sustained outbreak may be implemented. Proposed treatments would likely involve cutting

green, beetle‐infested trees and thinning stands to residual basal areas below 80. Consultation

with a Forest Service entomologist indicated that sanitation harvest methods should be pursued

when a population has reached incipient epidemic levels (Allen 2010). The first major sign of

incipient epidemic levels occurring are groups of beetle‐hit trees beginning to show up on a

landscape scale. Specifically, an incipient epidemic is evident when two or more groups of three

to four beetle attacked trees appear on 20 to 320 acres and occur in two to three consecutive

years (Allen 2010).  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 9 

The Northern Hills Ranger District will utilize the most recent information available (e.g. aerial

pest survey data, stand exam data, field verification, other interested parties) as it designs and

prioritizes sanitation harvest proposals to ensure that the most effective strategy is developed.

Proposals will be reviewed by resource specialists prior to implementation to determine

whether any special design criteria are required to protect forest resources and to ensure that

the proposals comply with Forest Plan direction.  Sanitation treatments could occur in any stand

that is not proposed for treatment by any of the Steamboat Project action alternatives.  

Sanitation treatments would focus on those untreated stands with a high insect risk, as those

stands are most susceptible to infestation.  No new system roads would be constructed to

access sanitation harvest units.  If the scale of management actions required to address the

epidemic goes beyond the scope of this sanitation harvest provision, additional NEPA analysis

would be required to treat larger areas of tree mortality from beetle infestations.

Harvest Systems

The specific harvest system to be employed for any given area to be treated would be

determined at the time of layout. The harvest system selected will be based on topographical

considerations, acceptable levels of residual fuels within stands, and soil nutrient requirements.

In general, whole tree yarding is preferred within the wildland‐urban interface (WUI) to reduce

fuel loading.

Activity Fuels

Both commercial and non‐commercial treatments generally result in wood by‐products that

function as a source of fuel in the forest. This section describes the Northern Hills Ranger

District’s approach to addressing activity fuels resulting from commercial and non‐commercial

treatment activities within the Steamboat project area.

Commercial Treatments

Commercial treatments entail cutting commercial‐sized trees (greater than nine inches

DBH) and removing the logs from the site. There has not historically been a market for

the residual material (i.e., limbs and tops of trees) resulting from commercial timber

harvest. The residual material, often referred to as slash or activity fuel, functions as a

fuel source that could potentially feed a forest fire. Because fuels reduction is a key

objective in the Forest Plan, harvest methods that allow for the removal of activity fuels

are generally preferred over those that do not. This is especially true in the wildland

urban interface and adjacent to private property. In such areas, slash is generally piled

and burned. Less frequently, material is chipped and distributed on site. As markets for

biomass develop, it is expected that logging slash will become commercially valuable. As

that happens, slash may be hauled off‐site rather than piled and burned.

Sometimes, it is neither feasible nor desirable to pile and burn activity slash. This is the

case in areas where the terrain makes the use of certain logging equipment a challenge

or in areas where soil productivity is a concern. In such areas, slash is often lopped and

scattered on site.

Non‐Commercial Treatments

Non‐commercial thinning treatments entail cutting trees that are not of a commercial

size. Where funding and terrain allow, this is usually accomplished with a

masticator/chipper. The machinery cuts the trees and grinds or chips them, dispersing
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 10 

the material across the forest floor. On steep sites or in rocky areas, such machinery

cannot be used. Instead, trees are cut by hand, and the material is lopped and scattered

on site. Mastication/chipping is a preferred method for accomplishing non‐commercial

thinning  because the activity fuels, while left on site, pose less of a fire hazard than the

larger material resulting from the lop and scatter method. If trees are hand‐felled

adjacent to private property and fuel loading is a concern in that area, the material is

often piled and burned to eliminate high levels of surface fuels.   

Post‐Treatment Transportation Management

The BHNF recently issued a decision on a new travel management plan, which went into effect

in December 2010. This plan changes the travel management paradigm from “open unless

marked closed” to “closed unless marked open.”  The plan specifies what routes are open for

public motorized travel and what types of vehicles are allowed on those routes.  Routes open to

motorized travel are displayed in the MVUM, which is updated on an annual basis.  Any newly

constructed or converted roads authorized under the Steamboat Project would be closed

following treatment activities unless specified as open to motorized travel in the MVUM.  

Allowable uses of existing NFS roads within the Steamboat project area are identified in the

MVUM.  

Post‐sale Activities

My decision includes the following post‐sale activities. The Knutson‐Vandenburg (KV) Act

authorizes the Forest Service to collect money from timber sales for resource enhancement,

protection, and improvement work in the timber sale area.  Actions proposed as KV activities for

the Steamboat project area are listed below. KV funds may be supplemented with funds from

other sources to accomplish this type of work.

 Non‐commercial thinning, release and weed cleaning, and product‐other‐than‐log

(POL) thinning:  This activity involves thinning stems that are less than nine inches DBH.

The intensity of the treatment will vary depending on stand density and overstory

conditions. Activity slash treatment resulting from this treatment could be lopped and

scattered, chipped, or removed to a landing where tops may are burned. This activity

could follow treatments on acres authorized for commercial treatment.

 Regeneration surveys 3rd and 5th year post‐harvest:  Regeneration surveys would be

conducted following overstory removal and patch clearcut treatments to assess

regeneration levels. In addition, surveys may be conducted following prescribed burning

to determine mortality levels. At least one survey will be conducted post‐burn.  

 Vegetation monitoring:  Post treatment data may be collected for use in monitoring

and evaluation of activities. Data collection would follow standard stand exam protocols

for complete condition evaluation. This could be implemented on any treatment type

not covered by 3rd and 5th year post‐harvest regeneration surveys.

 Site preparation:  This activity involves mechanical scarification or prescribed burning to

expose mineral soil for ponderosa pine establishment. The treatment would be

implemented in areas where overstory removal and shelterwood cut treatments take

place and where regeneration surveys indicate there is inadequate stocking following

these treatments.

 Removal of encroaching pine from hardwood stands:  This activity involves removal of

pine from selected hardwood stands. All activity‐created material would be hand‐piled
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 11 

and burned.  These treatments may occur in addition to those areas proposed for

hardwood enhancement under the action alternatives.   

 Removal of encroaching pine from meadow areas:  This activity involves removal of

pine from selected meadows. All activity‐created material would be lopped and

scattered.  These treatments may occur in addition to those areas proposed for

meadow enhancement under the action alternatives.

 Noxious weed treatment and monitoring:  This activity involves spraying and

monitoring noxious weeds following all ground disturbing activities.

 Road closure:  All new roads constructed or converted under the Steamboat Project

would be closed upon the completion of management activities.  Closure methods

would be determined at the time of closure depending on site conditions.  Possible

methods include:  locked gates, boulders, dirt berms, downed trees, fences, partial

obliteration and re‐contouring.   

Design Criteria and Additional Mitigation

My decision incorporates the design criteria outlined in Appendix C of the Steamboat FEIS.

These design measures provide guidance on how authorized activities are to be carried out.

They were developed by the interdisciplinary team that worked on the Steamboat project to

ensure compliance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as well as law, regulation, and

policy. The analysis presented in the Steamboat FEIS presumed that these design criteria would

be implemented. The design criteria are replicated in this document in Appendix B—Design

Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring.

In addition, through the analysis process it became clear that several additional mitigation

measures would be required to ensure consistency with Forest Plan and other direction. The

following mitigation measures are incorporated as part of my decision.

 Temporary Roads and Stream/Wetland Crossings:  As mentioned above in the

description of temporary roads, such routes are generally short spurs off of other routes

that are not intended to become part of the Forest’s transportation system.  To ensure

compliance with Forest Plan Standards 1201, 1301, and 1302 as well as Regional

Handbook Direction in FSH 2509.25 and E.O. 11990, any temporary road that requires

crossing a stream or wetland must be reviewed on‐site by a District Hydrologist to

determine whether the crossing is feasible and whether additional design features are

recommended. Such crossings will be authorized at the District Ranger’s discretion.

 Logging Activities Near Ephemeral Streams: To ensure compliance with Forest Plan

Standard 1306, log landings, decking areas, and mechanical slash piling will not generally

be allowed within 25 feet of an ephemeral stream. If during implementation there is a

need to locate such features in these buffer zones, the District Hydrologist will be

consulted to determine whether placement of features in these buffer zones is feasible

and whether additional design features are recommended.

 Organic Matter and Nutrient Retention: To ensure compliance with Forest Plan

Standard 1102, which concerns treatments in stands with low organic matter and

nutrients, winter logging or lop and scatter is required for implementing treatments in

the following stands: 081506‐80, 081506‐81, 081903‐51, 081903‐53, 081903‐104, and

081904‐42. Whole tree yarding is prohibited in stand 081709‐44.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 12 

 Scenic Integrity and Overstory Removal Treatments: In an effort to preserve the scenic

integrity within highly visible stands for which an overstory treatment is authorized, I am

requiring that 10 trees per acre be retained on site within such stands. This measure is

intended to help ensure compliance with Forest Plan Guidelines regarding scenery.

Where feasible, leave trees will be left in clumps rather than dispersed across the

landscape. This mitigation applies to the following stands: 081507‐41; 081508‐6, 7, 22,

70; 081509‐3, 21, 34, 43, 55, 61, 63, 64; 081706‐1, 33, 52; 081707‐17; 081708‐1, 78;

089901‐6, 32, 33; 089902‐27, 67, 70; 089903‐51, 117; and 089904‐15, 42.

Additional Information Regarding Authorized Activities

New Road Construction and Associated Timber Harvest Activities

During project development, the Interdisciplinary Team’s Engineering Specialist identified routes

where new road construction would be needed to facilitate timber harvest activities. For a few

of these routes, there are questions regarding the feasibility of road construction given

topographical features or questions regarding slope stability. On the ground review of the route

locations will be required to determine whether these routes can be constructed. If these routes

are not feasible, then my ability to accomplish the associated treatments will be limited to land

that is accessible from existing routes or by temporary route construction. In the spirit of full

disclosure, I feel it is important to identify these routes and the associated vegetation treatment

units that would be dropped or partially treated if the routes cannot be constructed. The table

below displays this information.

Table 3. Potentially Infeasible New Road Construction and Treatment Units Affected

Route

Identifier Route Action Miles Units and Acres Potentially Affected

New 26 New Construction 1.4 If route New 26 is not feasible, then the associated route New

9 (1 mile) would not be constructed. The units affected are as

follows:

 081706‐06, Commercial Thin, up to 30 acres

 081706‐08, Commercial Thin, up to 43 acres

 081706‐49, Shelterwood Cut, up to 46 acres

 081706‐51, Shelterwood Cut, up to 61 acres

 081706‐54, Commercial Thin, up to 54 acres

 081706‐60, Shelterwood Cut, up to 16 acres

 089901‐17, Commercial Thin, up to 54 acres

 089901‐35, Commercial Thin, up to 44 acres

 089901‐49, Shelterwood Cut, up to 24 acres

New 27 New Construction 0.5  081708‐26, Shelterwood Cut, up to 35 acres

 081708‐40, Commercial Thin, up to 21 acres

 081708‐45, Commercial Thin, up to 84 acres

 081708‐49, Commercial Thin, up to 11 acres

New 28 New Construction 1.3  089903‐33, Individual Tree Selection, up to 61 acres

 089903‐34, Commercial Thin, up to 40 acres

 089904‐1, Commercial Thin, up to 71 acres

 089904‐3, Commercial Thin, up to 31 acres

New 53 New Construction 0.2  081706‐08, Commercial Thin, up to 43 acres
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 13 

Timber Harvest Activities, Stand Variability, Topography, and Design Criteria

The acreage displayed in Table 2 above for the vegetation treatments authorized by this

decision is based on the total acreage within a stand. The actual amount of land that will be

treated is likely to be less than that displayed in the table. Often times, topographical features

limit access to portions of stands. In addition, conditions within stands are not homogeneous.

Variation in stand conditions means that the authorized treatment may be applicable in part of

the stand but not necessarily the entire stand. Forest service personnel may adjust timber sale

unit boundaries based on variation in stand conditions to exclude areas where the treatment is

not applicable. Finally, this decision incorporates design measures to minimize impacts to

resources. As a result, timber sale unit boundaries are often adjusted to avoid sensitive resource

areas including, but not limited to, riparian habitat along streams, cultural resource sites, and

botanical habitat.

Rationale for Selected Action

Need for Action

A total of four alternatives, including the no action (Alternative A), were analyzed in detail in the

FEIS. Alternative B in the DEIS and FEIS was the proposed action (with minor modifications) that

was released for scoping prior to the release of the DEIS.  Alternative C was developed in an

effort to further address concerns about insect risk reduction in the project area. In response to

that issue, Alternative C included additional treatments across a greater portion of the project

area to reduce the susceptibility of pine stands to pine beetle infestation.  Alternative D was

developed to address the issue of new road construction.  In response to that issue, Alternative

D only included commercial treatments in stands that are accessible from the existing road

network.  No new system roads would be constructed under Alternative D.

After reviewing the issues, the analysis, and public comments, I have selected Alternative B with

modifications as described above.  I feel that the Selected Action best meets the purpose and

need for action and the objectives for management within the project area. It also responds well

to the issues that were identified through the public review process and responds well to

comments received.  

In determining which alternative to select for this project, I first considered whether active

management is appropriate in this project area at this time. After reviewing all materials related

to this project, including the analysis documented in the Steamboat Project FEIS, specialist

reports, supporting documents, public input, and Forest Plan direction, I believe active

treatment is appropriate and needed in the project area at this time for the following reasons:  

Structural Diversity of Forested Stands the Project Area

The current composition of age classes for forested stands within the project area is not in line

with management objectives specified in the Forest Plan. There is currently an overabundance

of mature forest stands, while there is a deficit of younger stands. Furthermore, while mature

forest is prevalent in the project area, relatively little of it is representative of late successional

forest (structural stage 5). In MA 5.4, approximately 24.8% of the ponderosa pine acres are in

structural stage 4C while only 3% are in SS 3A and 7% are in SS 3B.   For MA 5.4, the Forest‐wide

objective for structural stage 4C is 5%, for 3A is 10% and for 3B is 15%. Reduction of acreage in

SS 4C would help move MA 5.4 toward the Forest‐wide objectives and would redistribute
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 14 

acreage to help achieve the Forest‐wide objectives for other structural stages.  In addition,

ponderosa pine is encroaching upon hardwood and meadow areas. If these areas are not

actively managed, there is a risk that they will be converted to ponderosa pine stands over time.

Retention of existing meadows and hardwood stands is important for providing a range of

habitat types for wildlife, particularly for big game in MA 5.4.

Fire Hazard

Conditions of forested stands in the project area are such that the risk of a wildfire leading to a

crown fire and spreading is unacceptably high, especially given the amount of private land

located within the project area boundary. The Steamboat project area contains 13,117 acres of

WUI, which represents approximately 53% of the project area.  Currently, approximately 78% of

the WUI acres in the Steamboat project area have a fire hazard rating of high or very high and

22% have a rating of low or moderate.  Forest Plan Objective 10‐01 directs land managers to

“manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate‐to‐low fire hazard in the wildland urban interface...”

(USDA‐Forest Service 2005, p. I‐35 to I‐36).

Risk of Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation

The Steamboat project area contains several small pockets of mountain pine beetle activity.

While high levels of pine beetle activity do not currently exist within the project area, threats of

infestation occur outside the project area as pine beetle are very active to the west, in the

vicinity of Custer Peak.  High stand density within the Steamboat project area increases the risk

of infestation if pine beetles expand eastward. Currently, approximately 88% of the ponderosa

pine acres within the Steamboat project area are at medium or high risk of mountain pine

beetle infestation.  Forest Plan Objective 10‐07 directs land managers to reduce acreage of

ponderosa pine stands that are at medium or high risk of infestation where outbreaks of

mountain pine beetle could present risks to management objectives for ponderosa pine (USDA‐

Forest Service 2005, p. I‐37).  Reducing the risk of stands to beetle infestation from existing and

expanding outbreaks is desirable for maintaining a healthy forest as directed by the Forest Plan.

Commercial Timber Harvest Opportunities

Commercial timber production is a historic use of the Black Hills National Forest and has been

ongoing sustainably for over 100 years.  Funds generated from timber sales are used to carry

out other management activities that would otherwise not be fiscally feasible.  The removal of

commercial‐sized timber supports local industry and contributes to the local economy.  In

addition, commercial timber harvest is the primary tool used to carry out the silvicultural

prescriptions that would help achieve the fire hazard and mountain pine beetle objectives

described above.

Given this information, I believe that active management should be utilized in the project area

to increase structural diversity in big game winter range, to reduce fire hazard, and to reduce

the risk of epidemic mountain pine beetle infestations. The road construction, conversion and

maintenance activities identified above are necessary at this time to access units selected for

treatment and to affect an appreciable change within the project area.  I have concluded that

active management is the best course of action for this project and I therefore reject Alternative

A (No Action).  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 15 

Rationale for Using Alternative B as a Starting Point for Developing the Selected Action

The next consideration I had in making my decision was to determine the appropriate level of

treatment for this project area.  All of the action alternatives would have resulted in changes

that align to some degree with the purpose and need for action for the Steamboat project area.  

However, I have selected Alternative B with modifications because I feel that it best meets

Forest Plan direction for MA 5.4 (Big Game Winter Range Emphasis), while still addressing the

purpose and need for action related to reducing fire hazard ratings and insect risk ratings across

the majority of the Steamboat project area.  My decision was based on the balance of resource

conditions that best meets the purpose and need while responding to the issues and public

comments.   

In the paragraphs below I explain why I used Alternative B as a starting point for developing the

Selected Action, and in the next section I describe in detail factors contributing to my decision to

modify Alternative B.

During initial project planning and development of the proposed action (Alternative B), my staff

engaged in an interdisciplinary process led by a silviculturist, a wildlife biologist, and a fuels

specialist to determine appropriate treatments for forested stands in this area intended to

address the purpose of and need for action identified for the project area. During this process,

each and every stand on NFS land within the project area boundary was considered. These

specialists had a wealth of forest inventory data as well as other biological, physical, and social

data at their disposal as they developed the initial proposal for this area. In addition, they had

visited the majority of the stands and had a good working knowledge of ground conditions.

Finally, they worked closely with other resource specialists, including botanists, hydrologist,

archeologists, recreation specialists, landscape architects, and others to design a project that is

consistent with our Forest Plan direction as well as other laws, policies, and regulations.

Rationale for Modifying Alternative B to Refine the Selected Action

As described in the preceding section, I felt that among all the alternatives considered

Alternative B provided the best balance between the concerns of those who commented on this

project, achievement of the purpose and need for action, and implementation of Forest Plan

direction regarding desired conditions for the project area. However, because the Black Hills

National Forest is experiencing a mountain pine beetle epidemic, I felt that it was important to

take a hard look at the additional treatments included in Alternative C to determine whether to

include any of them in my decision.  

In the preceding section, I described the interdisciplinary process through which Alternative B

was developed. As a result of that interdisciplinary effort, some forested stands considered to

be at high risk of insect infestation were not identified for treatment in the initial proposal. The

reasons for these omissions were variable and included considerations related to the presence

of steep slopes or unstable soils, key wildlife habitat areas, and important botanical resources.

Some stands were not identified for treatment because they had been recently harvested and

no further treatment was deemed necessary or desirable at this time. Others were not

considered for treatment because executing the treatment would be challenging based on the

topography in the area. Finally, some stands were not included for treatment due to economic

considerations (e.g., because they contained low merchantable volume).   
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 16 

Based on my review of the analysis, I decided that some stands identified as having a high insect

risk and for which treatments were identified in Alternative C could be included in my decision

without undue resource impacts and without extensive additional road construction. In

particular, the majority of the stands in Alternative C that I have decided to include in my

decision were not originally proposed for treatment because of concerns about the

merchantability of wood within the stand or because of topographical considerations that would

make logging or road access challenging. I recognize that the likelihood of accomplishing a

number of these treatments may be in question because of these considerations; however,

because conducting the treatment would address a component of the purpose of and need for

action as well as a significant issue identified through the public scoping process, I feel that I

should not preclude treatment in these stands based solely on these considerations.  

In total, the Selected Action incorporates an additional 1,139 acres of commercial treatment in

32 stands that were identified in Alternative C of the FEIS. These units are displayed in the table

below. In addition, the table below identifies a number of stands for which access may be

limited. While I am authorizing treatment to occur in these stands, I fully recognize that issues

surrounding access may limit my ability to accomplish these treatments. Treatment access to

these units is limited to authorized transportation actions identified under this decision or to the

use of existing routes on the ground or temporary roads where they are feasible.

Table 4. Treatment Units from FEIS Alternative C Included in the Selected Action

Stand

Identifier

Commercial

Vegetation

Treatment

Acres Relevant Notes Regarding Treatment

081509‐14 Commercial Thin 4 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081509‐21 Overstory Removal 129 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081509‐55 Overstory Removal 13 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081510‐25 Commercial Thin 21 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081706‐21 Overstory Removal 42 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐25 Overstory Removal 14 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐26 Commercial Thin 104 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐29 Commercial Thin 50 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐31 Commercial Thin 8 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐32 Commercial Thin 13 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐33 Overstory Removal 20 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081706‐53 Overstory Removal 34 Added to address land owner concerns about insect

risk.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 17 

Stand

Identifier

Commercial

Vegetation

Treatment

Acres Relevant Notes Regarding Treatment

081706‐67 Commercial Thin 19

Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

further address concerns about insect risk in the

project area.

081707‐6 Commercial Thin 16 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081707‐21 Commercial Thin 36 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081707‐37 Overstory Removal 75 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081707‐38 Commercial Thin 17 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081707‐39 Commercial Thin 38 Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

address land owner concerns about insect risk.

081707‐41 Commercial Thin 12

Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

further address concerns about insect risk in the

project area.

081708‐46 Commercial Thin 4 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

081708‐93 Commercial Thin 5 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089902‐16 Commercial Thin 34 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089903‐51 Overstory Removal 15

Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

further address concerns about insect risk in the

project area.

089903‐53 Overstory Removal 16

Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

further address concerns about insect risk in the

project area.

089903‐76 Commercial Thin 34 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐15 Overstory Removal 49 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐27 Overstory Removal 19

Some or all of unit may be inaccessible. Added to

further address concerns about insect risk in the

project area.

089904‐42 Overstory Removal 140 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐52 Overstory Removal 3 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐56 Overstory Removal 105 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐60 Commercial Thin 47 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  

089904‐122 Overstory Removal 3 Added to further address concerns about insect risk

in the project area.  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 18 

In addition to adding treatment units from Alternative C to craft my decision, I also reviewed the

alternatives and am adding the following transportation actions from Alternative C to the

Selected Action.  The rationale for including these routes in my decision along with the specific

transportation action authorized and route identifiers are displayed in the table below.  

While a number of commenters expressed concerns about additional new road construction in

the project area, I feel that these roads are merited due to the increased ability they afford me

in my effort to reduce insect risk within the project area.  Environmental impacts sometimes

associated with road construction and use would be limited through implementation of Region

2 Watershed Conservation Practices during road design and construction and by placing roads in

a closure status upon completion of timber harvest and post‐harvest activities.

Available resource data indicate that these routes would not affect key habitat areas for

sensitive plant, fish, or wildlife species. These routes would not require new stream crossings

and are located outside of the water influence zone. Development of routes New 48, New56,

and New 58 will require consultation with a Forest Service Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, or

Geologist to ensure slope stability is not compromised.

Table 5. Transportation Elements from FEIS Alternative C Included in the Selected Action

Route

Identifier Route Action Miles Relevant Notes Regarding Implementation

FSR 226.1B Reconstruction 0.4

Additional reconstruction or pre‐use maintenance

may be needed along route segment to access unit

081509‐21.

U140060 Conversion 0.5 Existing route will be added to the road system to

facilitate access to unit 081706‐23.  

New 45 New Construction 0.6 New construction required to access units 081510‐

25, 081510‐50, 081506‐116, and 081510‐26.

New 48 New Construction 0.7 New construction required to access units 081706‐

53, 081706‐21, and 081706‐26.

New 51 New Construction 1.3 New construction required to access units 08904‐56

and 08904‐61.

New 56 New Construction 0.6 New construction required to access portions of

units 089904‐42 and 089904‐60.

New 58 New Construction 0.9 New construction required to access portions of

units 089904‐42 and 089904‐60.

Reasons for Not Selecting Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected action, I considered three other alternatives in detail. A brief

summary of these alternatives along with my rationale for not selecting them is presented

below. Further information on the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Table 5

displays a comparison of all four alternatives.  

Alternative A (No Action)  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires study and use of the no action

alternative as a basis for comparing the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives.

This alternative assumes no implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other

action alternatives. Under the no action alternative, no effort to modify existing vegetation or
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 19 

related fuels and habitat conditions in the project area would occur. Actions such as ongoing

Forest protection efforts and recurring road maintenance on system roads would continue as

directed by the Forest Plan. Actions analyzed under past projects or proposed by future projects

may still occur.  

Given the existing condition of ponderosa pine stands within the project area and the resulting

fire hazard ratings and insect risk ratings, as well as the amount of wildland urban interface and

the presence of big game winter range, I feel that taking no action at this time has the potential

to result in real and substantial losses in forest resource values. For this reason, I did not select

Alternative A.

Alternative C

Alternative C was developed in response to the issue of mountain pine beetle infestation.

Specifically, some commenters questioned the efficacy of the proposed action (Alternative B) as

it relates to reducing insect risk within the project area. They indicated that insect risk reduction

treatments should be identified for a greater number of stands exhibiting characteristics that

render them conducive to mountain pine beetle infestation.  

While Alternative C included a greater number of treatments and further reduction in insect risk

ratings than Alternative B, this Alternative would have required more than twice the level of

new road construction associated with Alternative B. This alternative would require a greater

number of stream crossings. More roads were proposed through areas identified as having

important botanical value. More roads were proposed on unstable slopes, steep slopes, and

soils susceptible to compaction.  

Furthermore, a number of the stands proposed a treatment of overstory removal with planting

(43 stands totaling 1,139 acres). In essence, this treatment would involve removing the majority

of overstory trees in stands that lacked adequate regeneration. Since the remaining “seed trees”

would be removed, there would be a need to plant trees to ensure adequate restocking. More

current insect risk rating models developed and adopted by the Black Hills National Forest

suggest that the existing condition of such stands (stands with a 4A structural stage) are already

at low risk.  

Finally, this alternative would result in wide expanses of an open forest structure. Such

conditions are not compatible with the desired condition for this particular area, which is to be

managed primarily for big game winter range. This alternative would have eliminated numerous

islands of more heavily stocked stands that could serve as thermal cover for big game during the

winter.  

Given these considerations, I felt that selecting Alternative B with some modifications was

preferable to selecting Alternative C. While I acknowledge and share concerns regarding

mountain pine beetle infestation, I believe that the Selected Action will strike a better balance

between insect risk reduction and working to achieve the desired conditions for this particular

project area than Alternative C. The Selected Action contains a sanitation harvest provision that

will allow for the removal of newly infested trees should they be found in areas not already

authorized for commercial treatment.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 20 

Alternative D

This Alternative was developed in response to the issue of new road construction. Concerns

were raised during the scoping process about the impacts of new road construction on soil and

water resources and big game winter range.  

I feel that concerns raised about the impacts of road construction on big game winter range

habitat are not valid. The newly constructed roads would be used for administrative purposes

only and would be put in a closure status following harvest activities. New roads would not

contribute to additional public motorized use in big game winter range. While road construction

has the capacity to impact soil and water resources, I believe that through implementation of

Watershed Conservation Practices these impacts can be minimized.  

Finally, this alternative would not achieve the level of change in insect risk reduction desirable

for this area. By prohibiting new road construction our ability to affect change is limited. While I

acknowledge and share concerns regarding impacts on soil and water resources, I believe that

the Selected Action will ensure appropriate management of these resources and will strike a

better balance between insect risk reduction and working to achieve the desired conditions for

this particular project area than Alternative B.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis  

The Steamboat Project interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered two additional alternatives that

were not carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS.  One proposal involved development of

an alternative that opts for uneven‐aged management treatments rather than even‐aged

treatments. Another alternative considered was an alternative that focused on wildlife viability

and recreation. Descriptions of these alternatives and an explanation for why each was

eliminated from detailed analysis are located in the FEIS, Section 2.3.

Table 6. Comparison of Activities by Alternative

Vegetation Treatment (Acres) Alternative

A

No Action

B

Modified

Proposed Action

C D Selected

Action

Commercial Hardwood Enhancement 0 302 302 302 302

Commercial Meadow Enhancement 0 78 78 78 78

Non‐commercial Hardwood

Enhancement 0 328 328 328 328

Non‐commercial Meadow

Enhancement 0 128 128 128 128

Overstory Removal   0 874 3,740 775 1,243

Commercial Thin   0 4,617 6,556 2,661 5,079

Shelterwood Cut   0 1,392 2,644 970 1,700

Patch Clearcut 0 190 190 190 190

Individual Tree Selection 0 1,186 1,186 905 1,186

Group Selection 0 293 293 181 293

Product‐other‐than‐log 0 1,116 1,599 1,044 1,116

Non‐commercial Thin 0 1,372 638 1,372 1,209

Understory Thin 0 460 288 460 460

Planting 0 0 79 0 0

Total Acres 0 12,336 18,049 9,394 13,312

Volume: Million Board Feet (MMBF)1 0 35.9 59.2 25.5 40.0

Volume: Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF) 2 0 29,876 49,309 21,241 33,254
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 21 

Fuels Treatment (Acres) Alternative

A B C D Selected

Fuels Reduction 0 84 84 84 84

Prescribed Burning Following

Vegetation Treatments 0 10,608 10,608 10,608 10,608

Total Acres 0 10,692 10,692 10,692 10,692

Road Construction (Miles) Alternative

A B C D Selected

New Road Construction   0 20 41 0 24

Non‐system to System Road

Conversion 0 5 10 4 6

Reconstruction/Pre‐Use

Maintenance 0 75 81 70 74

Table 7.  Comparison of Effects to Key Issues by Alternative

Alternative

A B C D Selected

Issue: Reduce Pine Beetle Risk Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Pine Beetle Risk Rating

High 12,265 4,250 1,691 6,273 3,382

Moderate 6,287 6,314 3,201 6,271 6,455

Low 2,508 10,496 16,168 8,516 12,046

High Risk Stands Left Untreated

Area of Untreated Pine with High

Insect Risk Rating3

12,265 3,661 1,676 5,673 2,621

Issue: New Road Construction Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles

Miles of New Construction 0 20 41 0 23

Road Density (Miles/Square

Mile)

3.4 4.3 4.9 3.7 4.5

1

The figures presented here for volume in MMBF differ from those in the FEIS because a more precise method of calculating volume

was run following publication of the FEIS. 2

The figures presented here for volume in CCF differ from those in the FEIS because a more precise method of calculating volume

was run following publication of the FEIS. 3

These acres include high risk stands for which no commercial treatment was identified.

Table 8.  Comparison of Alternatives by Purpose and Need Elements

Purpose and Need Element1 Alternative

A B C D Selected

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Fire Hazard In WUI

Very High 7,444 3,280 606 4,372 2,682

High 2,664 1,528 1,121 1,227 1,320

Moderate 1,770 3,730 4,486 3,997 3,947

Low 1,239 4,579 6,904 3,521 5,168

Fire Hazard Outside WUI

Very High 4,429 1,536 598 2,133 1,495

High 1,848 622 659 890 618

Moderate 1,485 2,743 3,109 2,685 2,777

Low 1,004 3,865 4,400 3,058 3,910
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 22 

Purpose and Need Element1 Alternative

A B C D Selected

Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Structural Diversity in Winter Range

Uneven‐aged Harvest Proposed 0 1,479 1,479 1,086 1,479

Commercial & Non‐commercial Meadow

Enhancement Proposed 0 206 206 206 206

Commercial & Non‐commercial Aspen/Birch

Enhancement Proposed 0 630 630 630 630

Understory Thin Proposed 0 460 288 460 460

Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession) Retained 82 567 235 567 567 1

A comparison of the effects of each alternative on mountain pine beetle risk rating, which is a purpose and need element, appears

in Table 7 above.

Public Involvement

Comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the

Steamboat project area were solicited from members of the public, other public agencies, tribal

governments, adjacent property owners, interest groups, and Forest Service specialists.  Various

methods were used to request comments, including:

 The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on

December 15, 2010.  The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal through

January 14, 2011.

 A news release was submitted to the local news media on January 7, 2011.  This release

invited the public to the open house and included a brief description of the proposed

action.

 A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 423 interested parties, including property

owners, tribal members, state and federal agencies, and other organizations on

December 10, 2010.  This letter included a description of the project area, an overview

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

to comment.

 A public open house meeting was held at the Fire Hall in Piedmont, South Dakota, on

January 12, 2011.  The meeting was attended by six interested parties who met with

Forest Service officials to view maps of the project area and discuss the proposed

actions.  Attendees were encouraged to submit comments on the proposed actions or

to document their concerns associated with the project area.

 Other information sharing, communication and interaction with interested parties,

agencies, and individuals has occurred on a continuing basis during project planning.  

Information shared by such parties was considered by the IDT in the development of the

DEIS.

 On August 8, 2011, copies of the DEIS were mailed to all parties who responded to the

scoping letter or otherwise expressed interest in the Steamboat Project.  The DEIS and

associated documents were posted to the Black Hills National Forest website at this

time.

 A news release was issued on August 10, 2011 announcing the availability of the DEIS.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 23 

 A Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2011

announcing the availability of the DEIS.   

 A legal notice initiating the 45‐day comment period on the DEIS was published in the

Rapid City Journal on August 12, 2011.

The Forest Service received 11 comment letters during the DEIS comment period.  Content

analysis identified specific, separate statements within each letter and categorized them.  The

content analysis process identified 110 individual comments within the 11 letters.  The full

comments and the Forest Service response to each of them are presented in Appendix E of the

FEIS.  Comments led to relatively minor clarifications in the FEIS.

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s)

Disclosure of one or more environmentally preferable alternatives is required [Section 101

NEPA; 40 CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the

alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the

project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical

environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources.  

In the case of the Steamboat Project, I have determined that Alternatives B, C and D could all be

considered environmentally preferred, with the Selected Action providing the best balance

between short‐term impacts of management activities and long‐term benefits to natural

resources.

From a short‐term (less than 5 years), non‐disturbance perspective, the no action alternative

(Alternative A) meets many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short

term, Alternative A provides the most acres for species preferring more mature, dense pine

habitat, maintains the highest number of snags for wildlife, and has the least risk of damaging

cultural resources. However, it risks long‐term negative effects from epidemic mountain pine

beetle infestations and high intensity wildfires within this area more than any other alternative.  

In addition, Alternative A would not allow for changes to structural stage distribution in the

project area, which would continue the ongoing trend toward large areas of forest with similar

structural stage and, as a result, similar habitat conditions.   

Taking a longer term perspective over the next twenty years, Alternatives B, C and D are

considered the environmentally preferred alternatives. Although some activities would generate

short‐term disturbance related to vegetation management, they reduce significant long‐term

environmental risks such as fire hazard and epidemic mountain pine beetle infestation.  The

overall impacts of these alternatives, as disclosed in the FEIS, would be similar, primarily

differing in scale.  Alternative C treats the most acres and therefore would have a wider impact,

both positive and negative, than Alternatives B and D.  Alternative D treats the fewest acres,

reducing the short‐term negative impacts from implementation, but also reducing the long‐term

positive impacts of taking action.  Alternative B falls in between Alternatives C and D in terms of

acres treated and subsequent impacts.

The Selected Action is based on Alternative B, but it includes some additional vegetation

treatments that were only considered in Alternative C and that will further reduce the insect risk

and fire hazard within the project area. Given the design criteria and additional mitigation
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 24 

identified in this Record of Decision, I feel that the Selected Action will ensure the best

protection of historic and cultural resources. Furthermore, through the reductions in insect risk

and fire hazard throughout the project area, the Selected Action will best protect and preserve

natural resources within the project area and promote the desired conditions for the area

specified in the Forest Plan.

Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy

Another aspect of the process for selecting an alternative is ensuring that the decision actions

comply with all legal requirements and policy. The Selected Action meets the following legal

requirements:  

Federal Laws

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

All surveyed and inventoried cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places will be buffered and avoided during resource management

activities. New sites discovered during operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional

Cultural Properties and sacred areas will be protected. Reference is made to the consultation

with the South Dakota State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) under State Laws section

below.  

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and

documentation. The process of preparing the Steamboat Project DEIS, FEIS and ROD was

completed in accordance with NEPA.  

The Endangered Species Act, 1973

A Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared to document possible effects of any activities on

endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive species in the Steamboat project area. A

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

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

Therefore, the Steamboat Project would have “no effect” on threatened or endangered species

and no impact on critical habitat.

Effects of the Steamboat Project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented

in the Wildife and Fisheries BE and in the Botany BE, which are summarized in Chapter 3 of the

FEIS. A determination was made that the proposed activities may adversely impact individuals

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

federal listing.

The Clean Water Act, 1982

The Selected Action will conform to the Clean Water Act as amended in 1982. This act

establishes a non‐degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The Selected Action is

not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be

accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of Forest Service Region 2

Watershed Conservation Practices and other design criteria of project activities.  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 25 

Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977

The Selected Action will be implemented to meet the National Ambient Air Quality standards

through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality below health and visibility standards.  

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

Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974

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

summarized below.  

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan

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

agreements, and other activities carried out on the Black Hills National Forest are consistent

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

 Planned activities will contribute to Forest Plan goals and objectives (FEIS, Chapter 1).   

 I have reviewed the Black Hills National Forest FY 2010 Monitoring and Evaluation

Report and Region 2 Management Indicator Species (MIS) guidance for projects.  The

effects of planned activities on MIS are consistent with the Forest Plan (FEIS, Chapter 3).  

 Planned activities are consistent with management area direction (FEIS, Chapter 3).

 Planned activities comply with Forest Plan standards (FEIS, Chapter 3).

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act  

The 1982 planning rule has been superseded and is no longer in effect.  The scope of analysis for

a Forest Plan’s Management Indicator Species (MIS) is determined by the Forest Plan’s

management direction, specifically, its standards and guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring

direction (Chapter IV).  The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct project‐specific monitoring or surveying for MIS

(Phase II ROD, pp. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, p. I‐11, Objective 238).  The Forest Plan

establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring

for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II ROD, pp. 20; Forest Plan as

Amended, p. I‐11, Objective 238).  The Steamboat Project analyzed the following MIS because

habitat for these species is available in the project area:  black‐backed woodpecker, brown

creeper, golden‐crowned kinglet, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, beaver, white‐tailed deer, and

mountain sucker.   

Consistency with Plan Direction—Forest Plan Objectives  

The Selected Action (Alternative B as modified) is consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan

because:

 It meets Objective 103, for maintaining and improving long‐term stream health.  Existing

stream condition is discussed on pages 140‐144 of the FEIS.  Direct, indirect and cumulative

effects of Alternative C are discussed on pages 306‐325.  BMP effectiveness is discussed in

the Hydrology/Soils specialist report on page 87. Design criteria, which will be implemented

to maintain and improve long‐term stream health, are listed in Appendix C of the FEIS under

‘Soil and Water’.  Additional mitigation to maintain hydrology resources have been

incorporated into my decision.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 26 

 It moves toward meeting Objective 201, managing for a maximum of 92,000 acres of aspen.  

The Selected Action includes 630 acres of commercial and non‐commercial hardwood

enhancement, which would maintain and possibly expand existing aspen stands by

removing encroaching conifers.  Post‐harvest projects are included which would remove all

non‐commercial sized conifers from existing and converted aspen stands.      

 It is consistent with Objective 238a to maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse,

beaver, song sparrow, white‐tailed deer and brown creeper.   Refer to discussion of

Objective 201 above.  The Selected Action maintains meadow acres (objective 205) through

206 acres of meadow enhancement treatments.  See pages 96‐104 in the FEIS for a

discussion on meadows and other wildlife habitat.  Snags (objective 211) are discussed in

the analysis of effects on the black‐backed woodpecker on pages 26‐31 of the Wildlife and

Fisheries Biological Evaluation.  Snags are protected through design criteria in Appendix C

listed under “Snags and Down Woody Material”.  Spruce (Objective 239‐LVD) is discussed on

pages 96‐104 of the FEIS.  Movement toward Management Area objective 5.4‐206 is

discussed on pages 67‐69 of the FEIS.   

 It is consistent with Objective 238b to maintain habitat for black‐backed woodpecker

(Wildlife BE, pages 26‐31).  The FEIS discusses snag objective 211 and standard 2301 in the

black‐backed woodpecker analysis on pages 26‐31 of the Wildlife BE and snags are

protected through design criteria in Appendix C listed under “Snags and Down Woody

Material”.  Movement toward Management Area objective 5.4‐206 is discussed on pages

67‐69 of the FEIS.    

 It is consistent with Objective 238c to maintain habitat for golden‐crowned kinglet (Wildlife

and Fisheries Report, pages 50‐53).  Spruce (Objective 239‐LVD) is discussed on pages 96‐

104 of the FEIS.   

 It is consistent with Objective 238d to maintain or enhance habitat for mountain suckers

(Wildlife and Fisheries Report, pages 68‐72).   

 It is consistent with Objective 10‐07 to reduce acreage of ponderosa pine at medium or high

risk for infestation of mountain pine beetle.  Refer to Table 2‐6 on page 47 and Figure 3‐5 on

page 66 of the FEIS for a comparison of how each alternative affects pine beetle risk.  The

discussion of the effect of the project on mountain pine beetle risk is found on pages 65, 66,

70, 73 and 74 of the FEIS.

Consistency with Plan Direction—Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines  

With the implementation of design criteria and the mitigation measures outlined in this decision

(Appendix B), I have determined that the Selected Action is consistent with Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines.  

Best Available Science  

My decision is also based upon consideration of the best available science.  I have reviewed the

record and found it contains a thorough review of relevant scientific information and

responsible opposing views, and, where appropriate, acknowledges incomplete or unavailable

information, scientific uncertainty and risk.  Specifically, the extensive literature citations in

specialist reports show that relevant literature has been reviewed and considered by resource

specialists in preparation of this EIS. In addition, the record shows that all literature cited by the

public during the comment period has been reviewed and considered by resource specialists on

the Steamboat Project IDT.  Finally, resource specialists have acknowledged their use of the best

science available to them in preparation of this EIS.   
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 27 

Resource Management Requirements  

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

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

decision comply with the NFMA law, as follows:  

 Irreversible resource damage will not occur.  The project will not cause irreversible

resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition (FEIS, Chapter 3).   

 Adequate restocking is assured (see Silviculture report in project file).    

 Proposed clearcutting is consistent with NFMA and Forest Plan direction (FEIS, Chapter 3

and Appendix B).

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

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

harvest (see Silviculture report in project file).   

 No created openings will be larger than 40 acres (FEIS, Chapter 3 and Appendix B).  

 Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) requirements are met (FEIS, Chapter 3

and Appendix B).

Other Laws

South Dakota State Best Management Practices (BMP) have been incorporated into project

design.  

Consultation with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)  

The SHPO offices have been consulted concerning the proposed activities in the Steamboat

project area. The SHPO concurred with our determination of “No Historic Properties Affected”.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be consulted about measures to

protect significant archeological sites from adverse effects, should any be identified during

project implementation.  

Administrative Review

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. A written appeal must be submitted

within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Rapid City

Journal (Rapid City, South Dakota). It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure their appeal

is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal notice of the decision in the

newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants

should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other source.  Only those

organizations or individuals who submitted a comment during the 45‐day comment period on

the DEIS are eligible to appeal this decision pursuant to 36 CFR 215.13.  

Paper appeals must be submitted to:  

Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s Office  

Appeal Deciding Officer  

Attn: Ed Fischer  

1019 North Fifth Street  

Custer, SD 57730  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 28 

Phone: (605) 673‐9200  

Fax: (605) 673‐9350  

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

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

4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.  

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

in the subject line. Electronically filed appeals must be readable in Word, Rich Text or pdf

formats. When an appeal is electronically mailed, the appellant should normally receive an

automated electronic acknowledgement confirming agency receipt. If the appellant does not

receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the appellant’s

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means (§ 215.15(c)(3)).

  

It is an appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient activity‐specific evidence and rationale,

focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an appeal

must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 and include the following information:  

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

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

electronic mail may be filed with the appeal);  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

changes;  

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

the disagreement;  

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

substantive comments; and  

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

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

RHONDA O'BYRNE 

District Ranger 

Northern Hills Ranger District 

Black Hills National Forest 

Implementation Date 

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

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

appeal filing period. If an appeal is received, implementation may occur on, but not before, 15 

business days following the date of the appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.9(b)). 

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact 

Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 North Main Street, 

Spearfish, SD 57783, or Ed Fischer, Environmental Coordinator, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 

North 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730. 

Date: 01 V)-- 

Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 29 
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 30 

References Cited

USDA‐Forest Service.  2005.  1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black

Hills National Forest, as amended by the phase II amendment.  USDA‐Forest Service, Black

Hills National Forest.  Custer, South Dakota.   

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family

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

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

(202) 720‐2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326‐W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250‐9410 or call (202) 720‐

5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.  
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 31 

Appendix A—Selected Action Maps
Steamboat Project Selected Action

Map 1 - Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Steamboat Project Area Boundary

Private Land

Selected Action

Commercial Hardwood Enhancement

Commercial Meadow Enhancement

Commercial Thin

Group Selection

Individual Tree Selection

Overstory Removal

Patch Clearcut

Product-other-than-log

Shelterwood Cut

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

-
Steamboat Project Selected Action

Map 2 - Fuels Treatments and 

Non-Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Steamboat Project Area Boundary

Private Land

Selected Action

Fuel Reduction

Prescribed Burn

Prescribed Burn/Mastication

Non-Commercial Thin

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

-
Steamboat Project Selected Action

Map 3 - Road Network 

Steamboat Project Area Boundary

Private Land

Roads

Highway

Existing System Road

Private Road

Non-system to System Conversion

New Construction

Reconstruction/Pre-use Maintenance

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

-
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 35 

Appendix B—Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 36 

Steamboat Project Area Design Criteria

Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, Regional Watershed Conservation Practices

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

Best Management Practices and other management requirements apply to the proposed

activities. Management requirements such as applicable Forest Plan standards are repeated

here only if clarification is required. An ArcGIS shapefile containing design criteria information is

located in the Steamboat project record.  A complete list of stands where these design criteria

apply is also located in the project record.

Applies To: Measure

All Activities Brush Disposal:

 Disposal of slash piles created through timber harvest or fuel treatments

would be funded appropriately. Rehabilitation of pile sites would include

site preparation and seeding to return the sites to productivity and

control the spread of noxious weeds.

All Activities Heritage Resources:

 All culturally sensitive areas, Traditional Cultural Properties, graves,

potential graves and sites eligible or considered unevaluated to the

National Register of Historic Places should be avoided under proposed

activities with a 100‐foot buffer. Further mitigations if defined would be

identified in the project file for each property and would be required for

project implementation; any properties with mitigations not identified in

this EIS would need Heritage review and SHPO concurrence before

project implementation. Heritage site locations and specific mitigations

are outlined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

compliance reports, on file at the Northern Hills Ranger District. Heritage

site locations are not identified in this EIS to protect sensitive site

information according to Section 304 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (1966, as amended) and Section 9 of the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act (1979).

 In the event that culturally sensitive areas, Traditional Cultural

Properties, graves, potential graves and sites eligible or considered

unevaluated to the National Register of Historic Places cannot be

avoided, or new heritage resources are found during implementation of

the project, all activity must stop and a member of the District Heritage

Staff must be notified to determine an appropriate course of action.

Appropriate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office,

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other applicable parties would

take place as directed by 36CFR800.

 Leaders of project activities described in this EIS will review the heritage

report and geospatial data for areas to protect and consult with District

Heritage Staff on specific mitigations. Project leaders should contact

District Heritage Staff for additional assistance in marking the sites for

protection on the ground.

All Activities Improvements:

 All Forest Service‐authorized improvements, such as fences and water

developments, would be shown as protected improvements on timber

sale area maps and protected during management activities.  

 Protect all documented NFS land boundary corners, posts, and bearing

trees.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 37 

Applies To: Measure

 Avoid or protect utility infrastructure in the project area during project

implementation.

 Avoid or protect improvements under special use permit.

 Protect all mining corner posts and active mining claim developments.

All Activities Meadows:

 Surface disturbing activities (e.g., creation of skid trails, location of

landings, construction of temporary roads, etc.) will be avoided as much

as possible in meadows. If during implementation activities such as these

cannot be located outside of meadows, the district hydrologist, botanist,

and wildlife biologist will be contacted prior to implementation to

determine if special requirements are warranted to protect site integrity.

All Activities Noxious Weeds:

 Contracts and permits issued as part of this project would include

measures to limit spread of noxious weeds. Where proposed activities

would occur in areas infested with noxious weeds and considered to be

at high risk for spread, off‐road equipment associated with the activity

will be washed before leaving the site to prevent spread of weeds to

adjacent NFS and private lands. Known areas meeting these criteria will

be identified by District staff before commencement of any timber sale

contract associated with this project. Known weed infestations will be

displayed on the timber sale map.

 Where ground‐disturbing activities occur in areas infested with weeds,

weeds would be treated prior to project implementation, where feasible,

to reduce future spread and establishment of noxious weeds.

 Review of the area for noxious weed infestations will continue during

management activities. If new noxious weed infestations that could be

spread by management activities are found during implementation,

actions to minimize spread would be taken.

All Activities Public Safety:

 Appropriate signing or other cautionary measures would be implemented

in conjunction with all management activities to ensure public safety.

Implementation of these measures would be the responsibility of the

person initiating the action (e.g., logging contractor, prescribed fire

manager).

All Activities Range:

 Managers of vegetation treatment projects would consult with District

range managers to ensure alteration of natural barriers does not allow

livestock to circumvent fences.

All Activities Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 Refer to the botany design criteria shapefile for identified plant habitat

and to the Biological Evaluation/Specialist Report for a verbal description

of plant habitat.

 Any suitable habitat for sensitive plant species outside of treatment units

would be avoided unless approved by a qualified botanist for entry.

 Any R2 Sensitive plant or animal species or plant or animal Species of

Local Concern located after contract or permit issuance will be

appropriately managed by active coordination between permittee,

contractor or purchaser, Forest Service line officer, project administrator,

and biologist and/or botanist. – Standard 3115   

All Activities Recreation:

 Non‐motorized trails would be shown as protected improvements on
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 38 

Applies To: Measure

timber sale maps. Project administrators would ensure protection of

trails during project implementation.

All Activities Revegetation:

 Disturbed soil would be revegetated in a manner that optimizes plant

establishment for that specific site. Revegetation may include topsoil

replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and placement of

weed‐free mulch as necessary. Revegetation would be initiated as soon

as possible, generally not to exceed 6 months, after termination of

ground‐disturbing activities. All disturbed soils would be revegetated

with native species when available, using seed mixtures free of noxious

weeds. On areas needing the immediate establishment of vegetation,

non‐native, non‐aggressive annuals, non‐aggressive perennials, or sterile

perennials may be used until native perennials become established.

These species can be used to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and

prevent erosion. Only weed‐free mulch would be used. – Standard 1110

All Activities Scenery:

 Activity slash will be reduced to natural levels within 300 feet of Nemo

Road (NFSR 414), the Centennial Trail, Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker

Canyon Road), NFSR 224 (White Gates), NFSR 137 (Wonderland Cave)

and around the community of Nemo unless not visible due to changes in

topography. Slash will be treated within 1 year of harvest completion.

All Activities Snags and Down Logs:

 Conifer snags over 20 inches dbh and those with cavities would be cut

only for safety reasons. – Standard 2301a

 Conifer snags under 20 inches dbh would be cut only for safety reasons

or when necessary for construction of roads, skid trails, firelines, and log

landings.  

 Retain all hardwood snags except for those that are considered a safety

hazard.—Standard 2301b

 Retain at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a

minimum diameter of 10 inches in ponderosa pine stands and 100 linear

feet per acre in white spruce stands to help retain moisture, trap soil

movement, provide microsites for establishment of forbs, grasses,

shrubs, and trees, and to provide habitat for wildlife.—Standard 2308a  

 In vegetation treatment units, 1 pile of woody material per 2 acres would

be left to create near‐ground structure for small mammal species, except

within 300 feet of buildings.—Standard 3117

 Any snag cut for safety reasons will be retained on site as coarse woody

debris.

All Activities Soil and Water:

 Some proposed activities would take place on soils identified as having a

potential for severe erosion. The following provisions, intended to

minimize the amount of exposed bare soil, off‐site transport, and soil

displacement, are to be implemented: (1) on slopes over 30 percent,

harvesting and skidding methods that minimize the amount of soil

displaced into piles or windrows would be used in order to leave soil

intact and in place; (2) prescribed burns on slopes over 30 percent would

be conducted when soil, duff, and large fuels are sufficiently moist to

retain duff as ground cover for prevention of erosion.

 Some proposed activities would take place on soils that are more

susceptible to compaction. The following provisions, intended to reduce
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 39 

Applies To: Measure

the risk of detrimental compaction would be implemented.  1) Heavy

equipment would avoid streams and swales (low‐lying or depressed and

often wet stretches of land) except to cross at designated points, build

crossings, or conduct restoration, unless protected by at least one foot of

packed snow or two inches of frozen soil.

 No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 50 feet of

perennial or intermittent streams or springs.

 No wheeled or tracked equipment will be allowed within 100 feet of

wetlands.

All Activities Wildlife:

 Any newly discovered raptor nests, snail colonies, red‐bellied snake

hibernacula or bat roosts (i.e., snags/rock formations observed being

used by bats, or newly discovered mines and caves) would be evaluated

by a district wildlife biologist prior to implementation to determine if

special requirements are warranted to protect site integrity.  These

resources would be protected in accordance with Forest Plan Standards.

 To minimize disturbance to nesting goshawks a timing restriction will

apply from April 1 through August 15 within 1⁄2 mile of active nests by

minimizing human‐caused noise and disruption beyond that occurring at

the time of nest initiation. The following activities would not occur during

the timing restriction: fuel reduction activities, cutting, skidding, yarding,

decking, hauling, road construction and other activities that may disturb

nesting birds. Exceptions might be: hauling within 1⁄2 mile of active nest

sites during the nesting season if it is reasonable to assume that

goshawks in the area are habituated to this type of disturbance or

surveys indicate that goshawks are not nesting in the area (consult with a

district wildlife biologist to determine an appropriate course of action).

Specific site locations and GIS shapefile are documented in the project

file. – Standard 3111

 Tree marking will not occur from April 1 through August 15 within 1/8

mile of active goshawk nests to assure that goshawks do not abandon

nests.  From April 1 through August 15, if crews are being aggressively

watched or attacked by goshawks during marking activities they will

immediately abandon all marking efforts within 1⁄2 mile of the active

goshawk nest.  

 Avoid creating barriers (e.g., new open roads) between red‐bellied snake

hibernacula and riparian areas or wetlands. There are currently no known

hibernacula in the planning area.  This design criterion will apply to any

newly discovered hibernacula.—Standard 3116

All Activities Wildland Urban Interface:

 Activity slash will be reduced to natural levels within 1⁄2 mile of private

property (within the WUI buffer). Slash will be treated within one year of

harvest completion.

All Activities Travel Management:

 While any projects resulting from this analysis are taking place, all gates

that would normally be closed will remain closed except for

administrative purposes.  

Timber Harvest Aspen and Birch:

 Where hardwood enhancement sites are adjacent to commercial

treatment units, clear cut all conifers within one tree length

(approximately 75 feet) of aspen/birch stand to maintain vegetative
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 40 

Applies To: Measure

diversity within the stand.  

 Conserve all live aspen and birch (Standard 2301b) with wildlife cavities

and all snags (Standard 3124), except for those that are considered a

safety hazard.

 Cut and “hinge” conifers, when it can be done safely, within hardwood

enhancement units to remove encroaching ponderosa pine and spruce.  

“Hinging” conifers is intended to provide protection to aspen suckers and

minimize impacts of browsing. Cutting shall be in the form of “hinging”

the pine approximately 4 feet up from the ground.  A solid hinge will

keep the tree elevated, creating an aerial barrier to ungulates.  A series of

pine should be toppled over top of each other to form a “hedgerow” on

the outside of the clone to prevent native ungulates and livestock from

crossing into the clone. Conifer cut outside the clone could have the big

tops and limbs dragged into or thrown into the protected aspen/birch

clone to increase on‐site material barriers.  Lop and scatter, or pile and

burn, all conifers too small to “hinge”.

 Whenever possible, skid trails (or other surface disturbing activities) will

be placed directly adjacent to aspen stands to promote expansion of

aspen clones which are likely to benefit from openings and ground

disturbance.

Timber Harvest Harvest:

 Existing pine regeneration would generally be protected in stands

proposed for overstory removal harvest. Provisions related to felling,

bucking, and whole tree yarding would be included in the timber sale

contract. Log length yarding is the preferred method of timber removal.

Skid trails within these stands would be approved by the sale

administrator before commencement of logging. Landing locations

would, where feasible, take advantage of existing openings or areas with

no regeneration.

 To increase the likelihood of successful conifer regeneration, stands

proposed for seed cuts would be logged in the summer or early fall

where feasible to maximize the site scarification provided by the skidding

operation, provided there are no concerns related to riparian areas,

noxious weeds, or sensitive plants. Cutting would be done in such a way

that areas would be restocked with trees within five years after harvest.

 Where stand variation dictates an alternative treatment to the majority

treatment, this variation shall be accommodated. For example, a quarter

acre pocket of aspen within a commercial thin stand of ponderosa pine

shall be cleared of conifers within and up to one tree length

(approximately 75 feet) from the edge of the pocket in an effort to

maintain vegetative diversity within stands.

Timber Harvest Road Restrictions:

 Timber sale units would be laid out to facilitate existing road restrictions

(for example, trees around gates and other barriers would be left uncut

to maintain obstructions and discourage driving around the gate or

barrier).

Timber Harvest Scenery:

 Layout and marking of timber sale units would comply with Forest‐wide

marking guides in effect at the time of implementation.

 Where possible, treatments would be designed to reduce the chance of

wind damage to residual trees. This may include retaining higher density
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 41 

Applies To: Measure

of mature trees on exposed ridges, lee slopes, and other areas prone to

high winds and heavy snow accumulation.

 To reduce effects of continuously even tree spacing on wildlife and

scenery, commercial thin treatments would emphasize tree health and

crown size over spacing. Residual trees in overstory removal and seed cut

units would be variably spaced.

 Skyline logging corridors would be as narrow as possible to minimize

visual effects of any soil displacement.

 Where existing conditions allow, treatments in forested areas adjacent to

other ownership would blend into adjacent tree density conditions rather

than creating strong vegetation edges. A horizontal transition zone of 1.5

times the height of the overstory trees is suggested to achieve this

transition in tree density.

 A transition zone of 2.5 times the height of overstory trees is

recommended along unit boundaries with an overstory removal

prescription to blend the overstory removal unit into surrounding units of

different prescriptions.

 Within 300 feet of Nemo Road (NFSR 414), the Centennial Trail, Forest

Highway 26 (Vanocker Canyon Road), NFSR 224 (White Gates), NFSR 137

(Wonderland Cave) and around the community of Nemo the following

design criteria will be in place:

1. Skid trails will be utilized during dry or frozen conditions to

minimize soil disturbance, and will be re‐seeded with native

grasses.  These techniques have been effectively used to reduce

soil displacement and speed up the re‐vegetation process along

these skid trails, reducing highly visual evidence of skid trails.

2. Where possible along these routes, remaining vegetation should

be in a variety of sizes and spacing to maintain a more natural

appearance.  This technique has been very effective in

maintaining a natural appearance.  Locations where it was not

used resulted in a ‘tree‐farm’ appearance (all trees same height

and evenly spaced across the landscape).  

3. Rehabilitate log decks within 300 feet of travel corridors by

returning to original contours, scarifying to eliminate compaction

(as necessary), and planting with native grass seed.  

4. Slash will be cleaned up to natural levels within 300 feet of these

travel corridors.  This can be accomplished by slash clean up (e.g.

scattering and underburning, piling and burning, or chipping) after

logging.

5. Slash, once placed on the ground, needs to be treated in

accordance with Forest Plan guidelines 4112 and 5606.

Timber Harvest Range:

 All pasture gates would be identified on Timber Sale Area maps and kept

closed during the grazing season (June through October). Maintained

fences would be protected during logging operations.

 If log hauling or movement of heavy equipment related to the proposed

timber harvest causes damage to cattleguards, the timber purchaser

would be responsible for repair.

Timber Harvest Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species and SOLC:  

 Occurrences of Region 2 Sensitive Plants and Plant Species of Local
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 42 

Applies To: Measure

Concern would be avoided during all proposed timber harvest activities.

Known areas are identified in the design criteria shapefile.

 Suitable plant habitat would be excluded from mechanical treatment

areas.  Known plant habitat is identified in the design criteria shapefile.  

 Any skid trails, temporary roads, landings, or other disturbances

associated with logging activities in plant habitat would be designated in

consultation with a qualified botanist. These areas are included in the

design criteria shapefile.

 Any plant habitat outside of treatment units would be avoided unless

approved by a qualified botanist for entry.  These areas are included in

the design criteria shapefile.

Timber Harvest Soil and Water:

 Water bars or slash will be placed across skid trails, depending on which

method is most appropriate to an individual site, following harvest

activities to reduce erosion potential.

 When logging in previously disturbed stands, use existing skid trails and

landings whenever possible.

 Avoid locating any temporary roads, skid trails, or log landings within 100

feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands.

 Avoid conducting vegetation treatments that remove overstory trees

within 50 feet of perennial or intermittent streams, springs, or wetlands.

Timber Harvest Wildlife:

 No treatments will be conducted within 500 feet of adit portal or shaft

openings of mines or caves to maintain microclimate of bat hibernacula

or nurseries, unless it is determined through bat surveys that the site is

not bat roost habitat.  Bat surveyors and bat survey protocols must be

pre‐approved by the district wildlife biologist and surveys must be

conducted prior to implementation. The 500 foot no treatment zone may

be reduced dependent upon survey results and topography and will be

determined by a district Wildlife Biologist. Known mine and cave

locations are documented in the project file.—Standard 3207

 Known snail sites with R2 Sensitive Species or Species of Local Concern

will be avoided (i.e., no vegetation treatments, no heavy equipment use,

and no skid trails, landings, temporary roads or any other activity that

may compact soils or alter ground cover, moisture regimes or litter

composition). Known site locations are documented in the project file.‐‐

Standard 3103

 Disturbance of newly discovered colonies of land snails would be avoided

until it is evaluated by a district wildlife biologist in order to determine if

R2 Sensitive Species or Species of Local Concern are present.  The district

wildlife biologist would determine appropriate buffer areas (no

treatment zones) around newly discovered colonies based on site‐specific

conditions. Avoidance zones or mitigation measures would be

determined on a case‐by‐case basis.

 In the event that a bald eagle is documented in a stand, the wildlife

biologist will be notified and harvest operations will be suspended until

the eagle has vacated the stand.‐‐Standard 3101d.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 43 

Applies To: Measure

Timber Harvest Spruce Habitat:

 Commercial and non‐commercial treatments of ponderosa pine in spruce

dominated stands will not occur except within 200 feet of buildings or

where spruce is encroaching into hardwoods so long as other identified

design criteria does not apply in these areas.

Prescribed Fire Burn Plan:

 Prescribed burning would be implemented only under conditions defined

in a prescribed burn plan.

 The District Silviculturist will assist with the preparation of or review the

final prescribed burn plan to determine what level of mortality of

overstory trees is desirable based on stand conditions.

Prescribed Fire Improvements:

 Measures will be taken to protect utility lines and any other

improvements within the burn unit during prescribed burns.

Prescribed Fire Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 Control lines that disturb soil, i.e. hand lines or dozer lines, would not be

located in plant habitat, unless needed to ensure safety.  These areas are

included in the design criteria shapefile.

Prescribed Fire Soil and Water:

 Prescribed burns in some sites would take place all or partly on soils with

severe erosion hazard. These burns would take place only when burn

severity could be kept low.

 Prescribed burn plans will include monitoring measures to evaluate the

breakdown of hydrophobic soils, where applicable, following burn

implementation.

Prescribed Fire Scenery:

 Where possible, prescribed burns adjacent to US Highway 385, Nemo

Road, and Forest Highway 26 (Vanocker Canyon Road) would be burned

so that overstory trees visible from the road show as little scorch as

possible.

Prescribed Fire Wildlife:  

 In any given year, conduct prescribed burns on no more than 60% of a

contiguous meadow (that is >20 acres in size) to minimize impacts of

prescribed fire on butterflies and ground nesting birds.  Timing restriction

would apply to meadows from May 15 to August 15, to minimize impacts

to ground nesting birds. Fall burns are preferred.—Standard 3125   

 Prescribed burns within 1⁄2 mile of historic goshawk nests would be

coordinated with district wildlife biologist. Timing restriction would apply

from April 1 through August 15 if the nests are active.

 All documented land snail colonies with R2 Sensitive Species or Species of

Local Concern that are in prescribed burn units would be protected by

burning when snails are hibernating (i.e., when average daytime

temperatures are <50 degree Fahrenheit) or else these colonies will be

avoided. Specific site locations are documented in the project file.—

Standard 3103

 No fire lines or direct ignition of fire will occur on known snail colonies

any time of the year. Specific site locations are documented in the

project file.

 During prescribed burning, protect existing guzzlers. Use whatever

technique the burn boss deems appropriate (e.g., foam, black lining,
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 44 

Applies To: Measure

wrapping, etc.), based on site conditions.

 If Atlantis fritillary or regal fritillary butterflies occur in meadows that are

within burn units, redesign the project to conserve important habitat

components of known sightings (survey for butterflies as appropriate).  

No known occurrences of either species exist in proposed burn blocks.

Check with the district biologist prior to burning to determine if new

information indicates their presence.—Standard 3105   

 Prescribed burning in areas with caves or mines would be coordinated

with a district wildlife biologist. Impacts to bat hibernacula would be

avoided with the use of timing restrictions and/or establishing buffer

zones. Specific mitigations will be determined by a district Wildlife

Biologist and Fuels Specialist during burn plan development. Specific site

locations are documented in the project file. This design criterion will also

apply to any newly discovered hibernacula.—Standard 3102

Prescribed Fire Range:

 To avoid conflicts with grazing and to ensure that prescribed fire

mitigation is implemented, prescribed fire projects will be coordinated in

advance with the range management specialist.

Prescribed Fire Heritage:

 In the event that sites are within a prescribed burn boundary, both

prehistoric and historic sites would be avoided by both hand line and

dozer lines.  Sites with consumables such as wood would either be

wrapped with structure protection material, or have either a wet line or

hand line placed around the resource.

Transportation

System

Dust Control:

 Dust control, if necessary, may be done with water, magnesium chloride,

calcium chloride, or equivalent.

Transportation

System

Noxious Weeds:

 District staff responsible for the noxious weed program would, in

coordination with the project engineer, inspect gravel pits for noxious

weed infestation before transport and use of gravel and other material.

Infestations would be treated to prevent spread.

 District staff responsible for the noxious weed program would inspect

stockpiled gravel annually for weed infestation in coordination with the

project engineer.

Transportation

System

Revegetation:

 New roads that are not to be retained for Travel Management would be

seeded after construction but before timber harvest if any part of the gap

between construction and harvest would occur between April and

October. This may be accomplished under the road contract. If necessary,

seeding would again occur after use of the road is complete. Seeding may

be delayed until after completion of harvest if the gap between

construction and harvest would be of short duration and hydrology, soils,

engineering, and noxious weed specialists determine after field review

that a delay would be acceptable.

 Temp roads would also be reseeded after completion of harvest

activities.

Transportation

System

Soil and Water:

 New road construction is to be designed to limit cut and fill slopes where

possible, particularly when located above steep slopes.
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 45 

Applies To: Measure

 Construction of landings, roads, and tractor and skid trails would be

avoided within 100 feet (or a distance equal to the mean height of

mature dominant late seral vegetation, whichever is more) of perennial

seeps, springs, and wetlands. If this is not possible, crossings would be

constructed and restored to prevent headcutting, gullying, erosion, and

sediment transport to ephemeral or perennial channels.

 Creation of large water collection points, such as road ditches or

excessively large water bars, would be avoided, particularly up‐gradient

of existing rotational site features, such as slumps and landslides. A

greater frequency of water bars than that identified as the maximum

spacing recommended in FSH 2509.25 for the Rocky Mountain Region is

to be used. FSH 2509.25 direction disclosed that the listed spacings were

maximum spacings and should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors,

such as amount of road use, downslope stability, erosion, etc. Foresty

Best Management Practices for South Dakota (2003) identifies suggested

drainage feature spacings (page 12) that have narrower spacings

between drainage features as compared to FSH 2509.25. The 2009 Field

Audit Report ‐ Implementation Monitoring of SD Forestry Best

Management Practices further support the greater need for more

frequent spacing of water bars. The audit identified some areas with

insufficient numbers of water bars on native surface roads. Temporary

road cuts exceeding two feet would be avoided. If this is infeasible

because of steep slopes, temporary roads would be re‐contoured.

 Where feasible, existing haul roads would be reconstructed with rolling

grades instead of ditches and culverts.

 Water bars and sediment barriers would be placed at a minimum of 10 to

20 feet below water bar outlets and culvert outlets on skid trails steeper

than 15 percent.

 Engineering staff would consult with a forest hydrologist and fisheries

biologist on design of stream crossings. Fill slopes would be protected

with riprap, gabions, prompt seeding, or other measures approved by the

hydrologist, fisheries biologist, or soil scientist.  

 Placement of structures would comply with federal and state laws

regarding construction in and near waterways, including placement of fill

and measures to control sedimentation.

 Generally, do not locate any new system roads within 100 feet of streams

(perennial, intermittent or ephemeral), springs, or wetlands. If a stream

crossing is required, ensure that it is constructed to prevent headcutting,

gullying, erosion, and sediment transport to stream channels by

implementing Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices.

Transportation

System

Travel Management:

 Where new roads or access routes are constructed through allotment

fences, temporary cattle guards or gates will be installed at the crossing

point.  If the road is identified for closure, immediately following

completion of related timber sale activities the fence will be returned to

its original condition by the timber purchaser. Use of temporary gates or

cattleguards will require adequate bracing (wood posts) that are placed

sufficiently to support the gate and/or associated fence line.  Wood posts

will not be removed after timber sale activities are completed.  In the

event the new route is to remain open, a permanent cattleguard with

bypass gate or a permanent gate, depending on site conditions, will
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 46 

Applies To: Measure

remain in place.

 All newly constructed roads that are to be closed following use will be

closed with appropriate methods, which may include: locked gates, dirt

berms, boulders, downed trees, fences, or re‐contouring.  

 Where new roads are constructed through existing range allotment

fences to access timber sale units, temporary cattle guards will be

installed at the crossing point. Immediately following completion of the

timber sale and all related activities, the cattle guard would be removed

and the fence returned to its original condition. Cattle guards would not

be replaced with any form of gate.

 Retain access routes as needed for utility line construction,

reconstruction, and maintenance of existing right‐of‐way corridors.

 Avoid or protect utility infrastructure during construction and

decommissioning of roads.

Transportation

System

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species:

 A botanist will work with the road engineer to determine the best

placement of the proposed new road construction that will potentially

cross plant habitat. These areas are included in the design criteria

shapefile.

Transportation

System

Wildlife:

 Maintenance of existing roads in areas that pass through known snail

colonies will be limited to the clearing limits (i.e., roads may be

maintained to standard).  If needed improvements or realignment of

those areas go beyond the existing clearing limits, review and input by

the district wildlife biologist would be required to ensure that snail

colonies would not be impacted.—Standard 3103  

 Avoid constructing new roads through snail colonies.  Where data

suggests an overlap between new roads and known snail colonies, a

wildlife biologist and the engineer will together determine if there are

any feasible alternate road locations.—Standard 3103

 The presence of snails in any area not previously identified will be

brought to the attention of the district wildlife biologist before

maintenance or construction continues.

Transportation

System

Heritage:

 Sites that currently have a native surface road running through them will

have site specific mitigations detailed in the Heritage Specialist Report

following a review by District Heritage Staff to determine if further

consultation by the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office, and

appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other applicable

parties is necessary as directed by Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act 1966 (as amended).

Steamboat Project Area Additional Mitigation Identified through the Analysis Process

Through the analysis process several additional mitigation measures were identified to ensure

consistency with Forest Plan and other direction. The following mitigation measures are

incorporated as part of this decision.

 Temporary Roads and Stream/Wetland Crossings:  As mentioned above in the

description of temporary roads, such routes are generally short spurs off of other routes
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 47 

that are not intended to become part of the Forest’s transportation system.  To ensure

compliance with Forest Plan Standards 1201, 1301, and 1302 as well as Regional

Handbook Direction in FSH 2509.25 and E.O. 11990, any temporary road that requires

crossing a stream or wetland must be reviewed on‐site by a District Hydrologist to

determine whether the crossing is feasible and whether additional design features are

recommended. Such crossings will be authorized at the District Ranger’s discretion.

 Logging Activities Near Ephemeral Streams: To ensure compliance with Forest Plan

Standard 1306, log landings, decking areas, and mechanical slash piling will not generally

be allowed within 25 feet of an ephemeral stream. If during implementation there is a

need to locate such features in these buffer zones, the District Hydrologist will be

consulted to determine whether placement of features in these buffer zones is feasible

and whether additional design features are recommended.

 Organic Matter and Nutrient Retention: To ensure compliance with Forest Plan

Standard 1102, which concerns treatments in stands with low organic matter and

nutrients, winter logging or lop and scatter is required for implementing treatments in

the following stands: 081506‐80, 081506‐81, 081903‐51, 081903‐53, 081903‐104, and

081904‐42. Whole tree yarding is prohibited in stand 081709‐44.

 Scenic Integrity and Overstory Removal Treatments: In an effort to preserve the scenic

integrity within highly visible stands for which an overstory treatment is authorized, I am

requiring that 10 trees per acre be retained on site within such stands. This measure is

intended to help ensure compliance with Forest Plan Guidelines regarding scenery.

Where feasible, leave trees will be left in clumps rather than dispersed across the

landscape. This mitigation applies to the following stands: 081507‐41; 081508‐6, 7, 22,

70; 081509‐3, 21, 34, 43, 55, 61, 63, 64; 081706‐1, 33, 52; 081707‐17; 081708‐1, 78;

089901‐6, 32, 33; 089902‐27, 67, 70; 089903‐51, 117; and 089904‐15, 42.

Steamboat Project Area Monitoring

The Northern Hills Ranger District would monitor implementation of the selected alternative.  

The timber sale administrator or other contract administrators would complete some of the

project implementation monitoring. Other resource specialists would be involved in monitoring

of specific mitigation measures relating to their particular resource area. Specific monitoring

requirements are listed below.

 Prescribed fire managers would establish photo points in prescribed burn units to

compare pre‐ and post‐treatment conditions and document fire behavior during

implementation.

 Fuels staff would evaluate effectiveness of fuel treatments in reducing fuel loading.

 Fire managers would evaluate burned areas to establish a timeline for maintenance

burning.  

 Project managers would monitor revegetation of disturbed and burned areas to

determine need for additional measures and noxious weed control.

 Engineering and hydrology/soils specialists would monitor effectiveness of erosion

control measures (seeding, water bars, etc.) one and three years following installation.  

 Hydrology/soils staff would monitor soil compaction at a sample of timber sale landings

and harvest units.

 Timber sale administrators and hydrology/soils specialists would monitor application
Steamboat Project 

Record of Decision 

Page 48 

and effectiveness of Best Management Practices.

 The district planning team would monitor timber sale layout to evaluate project

implementation and assumptions used in the planning process.  The district planning

team would monitor timber sale implementation following sale closure.

 Hydrology staff will evaluate road‐stream crossings after three years to assess

revegetation.  If revegetation has not been established, mitigation measures will be

identified and the effectiveness of those measures monitored for the next two years to

ensure revegetation occurs.