VE

VESTAL

PROJECT RECORD OF DECISION

United States 

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer County, South Dakota

June 22, 2012
2

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

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

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large-print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

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

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Aerial view of the city of Custer, SD taken 

September 16, 2011. Looking northwest.

Aerial view of Crazy Horse 

Monument taken September 13, 

2011. Looking southwest.

Aerial view of the Vestal 

project area (northwest) taken 

September 12, 2011.

Aerial view of the city of 

Custer, SD taken September 08, 

2010. Looking north.

“Custer” sign, Custer, SD taken 

September 08, 2010.

MPB pitch 

tube, with 

‘pitched’ 

beetle.
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 3

Introduction 

The Vestal project area surrounds the City of Custer, South Dakota, encompassing a large 

amount of private land. The private, or non-Forest Service, lands are concentrated within the 

city limits, but also occur as scattered parcels throughout the whole project area. There are 

extensive private dwellings, businesses, and government offices within the project area. These 

structures also occur throughout the project area. There are many high-use developed 

recreational sites that occur on private, state, and federal lands within or adjacent to the project 

area. All visitors to the City of Custer will travel through the Vestal project area. The Hell 

Canyon Ranger District office and shop, as well as the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, are also located within the project area.

The Vestal project has been completed under the provisions of the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA). The project qualified for HFRA under Title I, Section 102(a) 

of the Act, which includes areas that contain or are adjacent to an insect epidemic that poses a 

risk to forest resources. A forest health evaluation for the project area was completed in March, 

2011 and concluded that the Vestal project area is within an expanding mountain pine beetle 

epidemic (Allen, 2011). This report further describes the situation as “rapidly exploding....with 

a significant increase in tree mortality...”. This epidemic is occurring on both National Forest 

and private lands. Based on this report, Craig Bobzien, the Forest Supervisor for the Black Hills 

National Forest, determined that a mountain pine beetle epidemic is occurring and that the Vestal 

project meets the criteria in Section 102(a)(4) of HFRA.

Location and Management Areas

The Vestal project area is located surrounding the City of Custer, South Dakota within Custer 

County (see Map 1, Appendix A of the Vestal FEIS). The project area includes approximately 

43,516 acres; 25,823 (60%) of which are National Forest System lands and 17,693 (40%) which 

are private lands (including City or County properties). 

The project area includes all or portions of lands with the following legal descriptions, Black 

Hills Meridian. 

Table 1. Vestal Project Area Legal Description

Township Range Section

2S 3E 36

2S 4E 25-36

3S 3E 1,12,13,24,25,36

3S 4E All

3S 5E 7-10, 15-22, 27-34

4S 4E 1-3, 12, 13, 24

4S 5E 3-8, 17, 18
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 4

The Vestal project area is located within four distinct management areas (MA) which are 

identified in the Black Hills National Forest, Forest Plan: 

• MA 5.4 – Big Game Winter Range – 10,723 acres 

• MA 5.1 – Resource Production – 10,325 acres 

• MA 4.1 - Limited Motorized Use and Forest Products (Buckhorn Mountain) – 4,472 acres 

• MA 8.2 –Developed Recreation Complex (Bismarck Lake) – 303 acres 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project area is to reduce the threat to forest 

resources from the existing MPB (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. This action is needed 

because there is a rapidly increasing MPB outbreak occurring within the project area, on 

National Forest and private lands, which is resulting in substantial levels of pine mortality. The 

MPB are infesting trees across all ownerships. Many landowners have experienced MPB caused 

mortality on their land and are taking action to reduce the potential for further mortality 

Existing pine stand conditions across the project area are largely (61%) at high risk for MPB 

caused mortality. 

A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local communities and watersheds from largescale, high intensity wildfire. This action is needed because the project area is located within and 

surrounding the City of Custer, SD and approximately 84% of National Forest lands within the 

project area have a fire hazard rating of high to very high. This is due to dense stand conditions 

and dead, dry fuels resulting from MPB caused mortality. Approximately 40% of lands in the 

project area are privately owned, with an estimated 3,194 private structures. 

Decision

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision regarding actions I am authorizing 

under the Vestal project and rationale for my decision. The Vestal project purpose and need 

provides the basis and scope for the proposed action under direction of the 1997 Revised Black 

Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2006 Phase II 

amendment (Forest Plan). Forest Plan direction is summarized in Chapter 1 of the Vestal FEIS. 

Given the purpose and need for action, I reviewed Forest Plan direction, public comments 

received on the Vestal Draft EIS, issues identified from those comments, information contained 

within the project record, and the analysis disclosed in the Final EIS. I base my decision on this 

review. 

• I have decided to implement Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, with modifications

Modifications to Alternative 2

In completing my review of the FEIS and project file and in response to public comments, I 

determined that some vegetation treatments proposed in Alternative 2 should be deferred or 

changed and that additional design criteria should be added. Table 2 summarizes the 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 5

modifications to vegetation treatments in the selected action, the additional design criteria 

follows the table. 

Table 2: Selected Action Modifications to Alternative 2 – by Site

Location-Site Acres Cover Type Original Treatment Modified Treatment

30304-44 26 Meadow Pine encroachment No Treatment

30305-70 5 Meadow Pine encroachment No Treatment

30305-67 24 Pine Group Shelterwood Sanitation Only

30404-15 17 Pine Commercial Thin 50 Commercial Thin 60

30305-4 69 Pine Commercial Thin 50 Commercial Thin 60

Total 141 acres 

Note – refer to attached map showing location of modified treatments. All other treatments are 

as shown in maps in Appendix A of the FEIS. 

Additional Design Criteria included in the Selected Action: 

• Implement sanitation only within 150 feet of private property (site 30303-54, in T3S, 

R5E, Section 18) in the following sites: 30305-4, 30305-5, 30305-66, and 30305-69. 

Where rock outcrops occur within this 150 foot distance, extend sanitation only to the 

back side of the rock, away from private property. 

All other treatments and features of Alternative 2, as described in the FEIS, are approved in this 

decision. Table 3 displays the vegetation treatments in the original Alternative 2 and in the 

Selected Action (Alternative 2-Modified). 

Table 3: Comparison of Vegetation Treatment in the Original Alternative 2

and the Selected Action (Alternative 2 Modified)

Treatment Alt 2

Acres

Selected Action 

Acres

CT- Commercial Thinning – 60 BA 3,626 3,712

CT50-Commercial Thinning – 50 BA 1,831 1,745

FS – Free Selection 1,054 1,054

GSH – Group Shelterwood 10,044 10,020

HC – Hardwood Conversion 126 126

HR – Hardwood Release 431 431

OR – Overstory Removal 1,255 1,255

PCT – Precommercial Thinning 54 54

PE – Pine Encroachment 1,458 1,427

POL – Products Other Than Logs Thinning 617 617

Sani – Sanitation *3,655 *3,679

SWSC – Shelterwood Seedcut 226 226

VDT – Variable Density Thinning 1,072 1,072

Total Acres 25,449 25,418

*Acres of sanitation presented in this Table represent acres of sanitation treatments where

no other treatment is proposed. Sanitation is included as a treatment on the entire project

area, for up to 5 years.
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 6

Table 4: Comparison of Estimated Volume Output for the Original Alternative 2 

and the Selected Action (Alternative 2 Modified)

 Alternative 2 Selected Action – Alt 2 Modified

Sawlog volume 85,750 ccf (42.875 mmbf) 85,620 ccf (42.81 mmbf)

POL volume 33,054 cunits 33,018 cunits

As stated above, all other treatments and features of Alternative 2 as described in the FEIS are 

included in the selected action, as summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below: 

 Table 5. Fuel Reduction Treatments

Fuel Treatment Acres

DF – Deadfall* 23,693

FB - Fuelbreak 180

RX – Prescribed Burning 1,761

*Dead fall is included on all pine sites within the project area.

 Table 6. Transportation System Changes 

Miles

New road construction 0.1

Closure of system road 0.9

Convert unauthorized to system road 0.6

Two key issues were identified through the public scoping process. The impacts to management 

indicators identified for these issues are summarized in Table 7 and the figures that follow. 

 Table 7. Vestal Effects to Key Issues Summary 

Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

Existing Alt 2 Selected Action

Alt 2-Modified

MPB Risk Rating – Low: Acres (%) 9,320 (39%) 20,498 (87%) 20,474 (87%)

MPB Risk Rating – High: Acres (%) 14,373 (61%) 3,069 (13%) 3,093 (13%) 

Wildfire and Fire Hazard

Existing Alternative 2 Selected Action

Alt 2-Modified

Fire Hazard Rating- Low: acres (%) 1,777 (7%) 5,887 (23%) 5,887 (23%)

Fire Hazard Rating- Moderate: acres (%) 2,307 (9%) 16,685 (65%) 16,661 (65%)

Fire Hazard Rating- High: acres (%) 11,125 (43%) 1,563 (6%) 1,563 (6%)

Fire Hazard Rating –Very High: acres (%) 10,437 (41%) 1,513 (6%) 1,537 (6%)

Fuelbreak Construction Acres - 180 180

Natural Fuelbreak Maintenance or 

Construction Acres

- 2,015 1,984

Prescribed Burning Acres - 1,761 1,761
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 7

MPB Risk 

Selected Action

Low

High

MPB Risk 

Existing Condition

Low

High

0

5000

10000

15000

Existing

Conditions

Acres

Existing Fire Hazard 

Rating 

Low

Moderate

High

Very High 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Alternative 2

Acres

Selected Action- Fire 

Hazard Rating 

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Figure 1 – Existing MPB Risk

Figure 2 – Selected Action MPB Risk

Figure 3 – Existing Fire Hazard Figure 4 – Selected Action Fire Hazard
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 8

Rationale for Selected Action

Two alternatives including No Action (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), 

were analyzed in detail in the Vestal project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A 

comparison of these alternatives and a summary of their effects to mountain pine beetle risk and 

fire hazard can be found on pages 27-32 in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Eleven additional 

alternatives were considered but, not in detail. These alternatives and the reasons why they were 

not considered in detail are briefly discussed on pages 25-27 of the FEIS. 

In deciding 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 FEIS, specialist reports and supporting documents, public input, 

Forest Plan direction and personal field visits, I believe there is an overwhelming need for action 

in this project area. The predicted impact of the No Action alternative on the Vestal project area 

landscape is not acceptable to me, nor do I believe it would be acceptable to the majority of the 

public who live, recreate or conduct business in this project area. I feel that the mountain pine 

beetle caused mortality occurring across this landscape is historically significant. The values at 

risk include: 

• further accumulation of hazardous fuels with increased potential for severe large-scale 

wildfires

• the threat to the many values at risk, exemplified by the nearly 3,200 structures in the 

project area

• major changes in scenery and alteration of wildlife habitat

These impacts will occur on both public and private lands and are highly significant. For these 

reasons, I have concluded that active management is the best course of action in this project area 

and therefore, I reject the No Action alternative. 

The next consideration I had in making my decision was whether the proposed action as 

originally designed, would best meet the purpose and need for this project, and also be 

responsive to public input. 

First, I would like to emphasize that I am very familiar with this particular project area. I see the 

Vestal landscape every day, since I live in the Custer area. The majority of the Interdisciplinary 

team which conducted the analysis on this project also lives within the Vestal project boundary. 

We all work, recreate and conduct business here. This landscape is important to me both 

personally and professionally, just as it is to the many private residents, business owners, 

recreationists, local government agencies and others. I am aware of the tremendous values at 

risk which occur within and adjacent to this project area. These values are not only on National 

Forest lands, but on private lands as well. The City of Custer, Custer County, SD State Forest 

Service and many private landowners have been quickly mobilizing in response to this epidemic. 

I know the decision I make on this project will impact this landscape for decades to come. This is 

not a decision I take lightly. 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 9

The majority of residents who have provided input on the project are very anxious for 

implementation to begin. I actually receive inquiries on nearly a daily basis asking, when is this 

project going to start! However, there are also some landowners, and others, who have 

expressed concerns that the proposed action is too aggressive and reduces stand density more 

than necessary to reduce mountain pine beetle mortality. Some residents are concerned that the 

changes in scenery resulting from vegetation treatments will negatively impact their enjoyment 

of this area of the Black Hills National Forest. Still others express concern that additional 

treatment should be included to further reduce mountain pine beetle risk in this area. 

Alternative 2, as originally proposed, is an aggressive approach to reducing mountain pine beetle 

mortality on a landscape level. The March, 2011 Forest Health report describes the mountain 

pine beetle epidemic here as “rapidly exploding” and therefore, I believe an aggressive approach 

is warranted. Alternative 2 also substantially reduces fire hazard on this landscape which 

contains such incredible values at risk. 

At this time in the western United States, there are tens of thousands of acres burning in several 

large wildfires. The loss of homes and structures from these fires already total in the hundreds 

with many more being threatened. These events remind me of what could happen here in Custer, 

and solidifies the need and urgency to implement the Vestal project. 

Rationale for Modifying Alternative 2

I identified my preferred alternative when the FEIS was distributed at the start of the objection 

period, as Alternative 2 modified. These modifications were directly in response to input 

received from landowners within the project area and are within sites adjacent to their private 

lands. 

I made further modifications to Alternative 2 following the objection period, during which we 

received 3 objections to the Vestal project. One of those objections was ultimately withdrawn in 

response to the additional modifications (see Administrative Review section below). 

Specifically, modifications include changes to vegetation treatment as noted in Table 2 earlier in 

this ROD, and the new design criteria that follows Table 2. 

I feel these changes are responsive to localized specific landowner concerns and do not 

significantly affect the overall achievement of the purpose and need for this project. 

Public Involvement 

Public involvement on the Vestal project has included the following mailings, notifications, 

meetings, presentations and news releases: 

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

April 22, 2011. The NOI requested public comment on the proposal and included the 

date and place of the scheduled public meeting. 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 10

• A detailed scoping document was mailed to approximately 150 individuals, tribal 

representatives, groups, government agencies and other interested members of the public. 

This document also noted the time and place of the public meeting. 

• All scoping documents were posted to the Black Hills National Forest website and 

Schedule of Proposed Actions. 

• The proposal was discussed at the Custer Rotary Club meeting on April 25, 2011.

• The proposal had been discussed at several of the Custer County Commissioners 

meetings, as well as at the City of Custer meetings. 

• The proposal was presented as a topic at the Custer Volunteer Fire Department meeting 

on 5-3-11. 

• A News Release was sent to media outlets on April 28, 2011, announcing the Vestal 

project, requesting comments on the proposal and noting the time and place for the public 

meeting. Articles appeared in both the Custer Chronicle and the Rapid City Journal. 

• A public meeting was held at the Custer High School on May 11, 2011. Two South 

Dakota State employees participated in this meeting to provide information to private 

landowners on how to protect their property from MPB and wildfire. 

• The project was presented at the Tribal consultation meeting on June 22, 2011. 

• A Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on December 

30, 2011. 

• A legal notice announcing the availability of the DEIS was published in the Rapid City 

Journal on December 30, 2011, initiating the 45-day comment period. The Forest 

Service received 55 comment letters, emails, etc., during the comment period. All 

comments and Forest Service responses to those comments are contained in Appendix I 

of the FEIS. 

• In addition to the specific meetings listed above, the Forest Service has actively worked 

with the City, County, State and others in an informal manner to address MPB risk and 

fire hazard in this area. Other information sharing, communication and interaction with 

interested parties, agencies and individuals has occurred during project planning. 

The Final EIS and preferred alternative were made available to the public in April of 2012. 

Refer to the Administrative review section below for more information. 

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. 

For the Vestal project, I have determined that Alternative 2-modified is the environmentally 

preferred alternative. 

From a short-term (< 3 years), non-disturbance perspective, the No Action alternative 

(Alternative 1) meets many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short term, 

it would provide more acres of dense mature habitat for wildlife which use this habitat and would 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 11

have the least amount of risk of damaging cultural resources. However, it risks long-term 

negative effects from mountain pine beetle caused tree mortality, including severe wildfire. 

In the long-term (≥ 3 years), Alternative 2-modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. 

Although some activities would generate short-term disturbance related to vegetation 

management, these activities would also substantially reduce long-term environmental risks such 

as fire hazard and mountain pine beetle susceptibility. 

Legal Requirements, Regulation and Policy

Another aspect of the process of 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 sites will be protected. 

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

proposed activities in the Vestal project. In a letter dated March 19, 2012, the South Dakota 

SHPO concurred with the determination of No Adverse Effect for the proposed undertaking on 

the non-renewable cultural resources of South Dakota. This letter is in the project file. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969: 

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and 

documentation. The process of preparing the Vestal EIS and ROD was completed in accordance 

with NEPA. 

The Endangered Species Act, 1973: 

There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species within the Vestal project area. 

Therefore, no consultation with the USFWS was required. 

The effects of the Vestal project on Region 2 Sensitive Species were analyzed and documented 

in the Wildlife/Fisheries and Botany Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations (BA/BEs). 

Both of these reports are summarized in Appendix G of the FEIS. The 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 meet and conform to the Clean Water Act. This act establishes a nondegradation policy for all federally proposed projects. The Selected Action is not likely to 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 12

degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South Dakota. This will be 

accomplished through planning, application and monitoring of Best Management Practices and 

other design criteria included as part of this project. 

The 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: 

The Selected Action is in full compliance and consistent with NFMA as summarized below. 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 2003: 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) was signed by President Bush in 2003. The Act 

contains a variety of provisions to expedite the approval of hazardous fuel reduction and forest 

health restoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk to wildland fire or 

insect and disease epidemics. The Vestal project area meets the insect and disease criteria set 

forth by HFRA in that a mountain pine beetle epidemic is occurring and threatens forest 

resources on both private and National Forest lands. This determination was made by the Black 

Hills National Forest, Forest Supervisor – refer to Appendix H in the FEIS for a copy of this 

determination letter. Therefore, the Vestal project was analyzed under the provisions of Title I, 

Sec 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA. 

The following demonstrates the Vestal project’s consistency with applicable portions of HFRA: 

• The selected action is consistent with the Forest Plan

• The selected action does not include treatments in designated wilderness, wilderness 

study areas or other Federal land where timber harvest is prohibited.

• Collaboration with local governments was conducted through the scoping process and 

informal meetings.

• The selected action is on Federal land that includes or is adjacent to an epidemic of 

disease or insects that pose an imminent risk to a forest resource.

• The primary purpose of the project is to reduce mountain pine beetle risk. 

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

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 (Forest Plan, Chapter II) and 

monitoring direction (Forest Plan, Chapter IV). The Forest Plan contains no obligation to 

conduct project-specific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase 2, ROD, pages 8 and 20; Forest 

Plan as amended, page 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 2 ROD, page 20; Forest Plan as amended, page I-11, 

objective 238). The Vestal project analyzed the following MIS because habitat for these species 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 13

is found in the project area: beaver, white-tailed deer, golden-crowned kinglet, black-backed 

woodpecker, brown creeper, ruffed grouse, song sparrow, and mountain sucker. 

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan)

NFMA 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). 

• 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 are consistent with Forest Plan standards (FEIS, Chapter 3). 

Consistency with Plan Direction – Forest Plan Objectives

This section contains a brief discussion of how the selected action, Alternative 2 – Modified, is 

responsive to a number of Forest Plan objectives. It is not an exhaustive list, rather it addresses 

key objectives related to this project. The Selected Action is consistent with direction in the 

Forest Plan because: 

• It meets objective 103 to maintain or improve long-term stream health. Existing stream 

condition is discussed on pages 157-160 of the FEIS. Direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects of Alternative 2 are discussed on pages 160-167. The effectiveness of BMPs is 

discussed on pages 167-168. Design criteria to maintain or improve stream health is 

listed in Appendix B of the FEIS on pages B-15 through B-25. 

• It is consistent with objective 238a to maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, 

beaver, song sparrow, white-tailed deer, and brown creeper. See species specific 

discussions on pages 80-84, Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

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

woodpecker. Refer to design criteria in Appendix B and to species discussions in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 81-82). 

• It is consistent with objective 238c to maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets. 

Refer to species discussions in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (page 81). 

• It is consistent with objective 238d to maintain or enhance habitat for mountain sucker. 

Refer to species discussion in Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pages 84-85). 

• It is consistent with objective 221 to conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species 

and species of local concern. Refer to species discussions in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and to 

the Wildlife/Fish and also the Botany Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations in 

the project file, summarized in Appendix G of the FEIS. 

• It is consistent with objective 10-01 to reduce fire hazard within the WUI (page 119, 

FEIS). 

• It is consistent with objective 10-07 to reduce acreage of ponderosa pine at high risk for 

infestation of mountain pine beetle (page 30, FEIS). 

• It is consistent with management area objectives for structural stages; 4.1-203, 5.1-204, 

and 504-206 (pages 45-47, FEIS). 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 14

Consistency with Plan Direction – Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

With implementation of all design criteria noted in Appendix B of the FEIS, I have determined 

that the Selected Action is consistent with all Forest Plan standards and meets all guidelines. 

Best Available Science

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

record and find that 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 report show that relevant literature has been reviewed and considered by resource 

specialists in preparation of the 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 Vestal Project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Each resource specialist has acknowledged 

their use of the best science available to them in preparation of the EIS. 

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 selected action will not cause 

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

Chapter 3). 

• Adequate restocking is assured (refer to Silviculture report in the project file).

• No clearcutting is proposed (Chapter 2, FEIS). 

• No created openings will be larger than 40 acres.

• No timber harvesting will occur on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production 

(refer to Silviculture report in project file). 

• Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements are met (refer to Appendix 

E in the FEIS and also the Silviculture report in the project file). 

Other State Laws

South Dakota State Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into project design. 

Administrative Review

The analysis for this project was completed under authority of the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act (HFRA) of 2003. Section 105 of the Act specifies that a “Special Administrative Review 

Process” be established for authorized projects and that a predecisional review process be 

utilized. This predecisional review process is contained in 36 CFR 218. 

A legal notice announcing the availability of the FEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal

on April 27, 2012, initiating the 30-day objection period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 15

FEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2012. Three objections were received

during the objection period. 

One objection (2012-02-03-0023) was completely withdrawn. I spoke to objector, Diedre

Bainbridge, by phone, on June 11, 2012. During this call we discussed potential opportunity to 

resolve the objection. I agreed to modify the preferred alternative by changing vegetation 

treatment in site 30305-4, as noted in Table 2 above, and by adding a new design criteria, which 

follows Table 2, above. Ms. Bainbridge formally withdrew her objection by letter on June 15, 

2012. The Objection Reviewing Officer, Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National 

Forest, acknowledged this withdrawal in a letter to the objector dated June 20, 2012. 

The Objection Reviewing Officer (RO), conducted a review in accordance with 36 CFR 218. A 

team of resource specialists was assembled to assist with review of the two other objections and 

analysis in the FEIS and project record. The Reviewing Officer’s decision on these objections 

was documented in letters to objectors, dated June 20, 2012. Based on that review, the

Reviewing Officer determined that for Objection 2012-02-03-0025 (Hilding-Prairie Hills 

Audubon Society), the analysis was sufficient to allow me to move forward in authorizing a 

decision on this project and no further work was required. 

However, in his letter responding to Objection 2012-02-03-0024 (Hanson- John Muir Project), 

the RO directed that I strengthen the analysis and/or provide more explanation in my Record of 

Decision, pertaining to four of the points raised in this objection. Specific direction pertaining 

to these four points, and how they are addressed is summarized below: 

1. The District Ranger should acknowledge the information in the scientific literature 

provided by objector. Briefly explain whether understory thinning is included in 

the approved action and how that may play a part in accomplishing the purpose and 

need.

The referenced literature was reviewed. Understory thinning is included in the selected 

action. Table 3 on page 5 of this ROD, shows acres of precommercial thinning (PCT) 

and Products Other than Logs thinning (POL). In addition, all areas of Overstory 

Removal (OR) including portions of the Group Shelterwood (GSH) treatments, also 

include understory thinning. As stated in the literature, specifically Omi and 

Martinson, 2002; Martinson and Omi, 2003; and Strom and Fule, 2007; understory 

thinning does impact potential fire behavior. This thinning could contribute toward the 

secondary purpose of this project, reducing potential for large-scale high intensity 

wildfire. However, it does not contribute toward meeting the primary purpose of this 

project, to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. 

2. The District Ranger should provide clearer citations to tie the selected action to 

relevant science, as shown by Allen, Schmid and Negron, for the purpose of showing 

consistency with the direction at 40 CFR 1502.24. 

In the Black Hills, reducing stand density is a proven method for reducing susceptibility 

of stands to MPB caused mortality. Recent research continues to emphasize that overall, 

the lower the residual stand density, the greater the reduction in beetle caused mortality, 
Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 16

in even and uneven aged stands (Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Kessler, R.R.; Popp, J.B. 

2007. The influence of partial cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in 

Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-68 Fort Collins, CO: USDA, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 p. and Negron et al. 2008, 

Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. ex Laws.), to mountain pine 

beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in uneven-aged stands in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 254: 327-

334.)

Forest Health reports for the Vestal project have documented conditions within this area 

over several years. The beetle populations are very high and rapidly increasing (Allen, 

2008; Allen, 2011; Allen, 2011b; Allen, 2011c). Recommendations contained within 

these reports include implementation of both prevention and suppression treatments. 

The Selected Action would reduce stand density across the Vestal project landscape as a 

prevention treatment and also includes suppression actions as sanitation. These actions 

will meet the primary purpose and need for action, to reduce the threat to forest resources 

from the existing mountain pine beetle epidemic. 

3. An explanation of the logic used to determine the amount of stands with an average 

tree size of very large, should be provided. 

An addendum to the Vestal Silviculture Report has been prepared and is available in the 

project file. This addendum documents the assumptions, science and logic used to 

project acres and percentages of pine stands with an average tree size of very large, for 

both alternatives considered in detail. 

4. The District Ranger should clearly explain in the Record of Decision how alternative 

effects, with respect to mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard, relate to and 

accomplish the purpose and need for the Vestal project. 

The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project is to reduce the threat to forest 

resources from the existing MPB epidemic. The threat is directly related to the potential 

for tree mortality resulting from this epidemic. Reducing MPB risk and removing 

infested trees through sanitation actions will reduce the potential for MPB caused tree 

mortality on this landscape and meet the primary purpose for action. 

A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local communities and watersheds from 

large-scale, high intensity wildfire. Fire hazard is a measure of potential fire behavior 

and severity, based on the existing fuel complex. Actions to reduce MPB risk, also 

reduce fire hazard. Additional treatments are included in the selected action to further 

reduce potential for high severity wildfire; prescribed burning, fuelbreak construction and 

deadfall (refer to Table 5). These actions respond to the secondary purpose and need for 

action because it responds to protecting communities and watersheds by reducing the 

potential for severe fire in this area. 
Implementation

Implementation of activities under the selected action will occur based on this Record of

Decision. Acreages and locations are approximate and may vary during implementation

depending on site specific conditions. Once this decision is signed, implementation of the Vestal

Project Selected Action can begin immediately pursuant to regulations at 36 CFR 218.12.

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision, contact Kelly Honors, khonors@fs.fed.us,

Project Leader at (605) 673-4853, or Ed Fischer, efischer@fs.fed.us , Forest Environmental

Coordinator at (605) 673-9200.

b. rU k-rc.-

" 222()(L I

Date

District Ranger

Hell Canyon Ranger District

Black Hills National Forest

Vestal Project Record of Decision Page 17
54

43

47

35

59

11

54

47

5

3

4

6

9

8

7

3

4

46

6

9

42

74

3

1

55

7

1

57

23

8

42

45

6

39

9

58

49

2

4

8

37

6

9

10

53

33

5

4

36

41

53

43

11

15

16

9 19

11

14

4

40

8

4

35

7

11

12

2

6

12

22

35

9

52

5 11

12

14

40

17

44

9

67

75

13

2

14

21 2 10

49

22

41

38

13

19

30

10

76

8

13

47

11

15

10

63

33

26

64

12

14

66

18

28

5

56

64

61

23

32

31

12

6

24

43

19 20

10

48

62

12

29 21

10

18

19

38

28

51

9

33

17

14

21

39

1

65

44

18

25

24

27

27

12

20

59

17

21

36

10

19

2

69

27

23

30 37

33

27

40

7

5

27

25

41

29

50

7

77

57

20 15

37

24

58

42

20

73

52

28

70 71

26

30

34

16

56

28

20

32

26

29

36

30

46

19

28

32

45

29

34

60

33

32

54

31 14

8

15

29

1

19

30

15

22

72

11

31

47

31

25 26

28

35

23

21

18

27

28

33

39

44

32

45

18

22

23

32

25

2

34

35

50

17

68

31

34

29

30

31

50

SD 89

US-16

US-385

586

US-16A

407

341 CTY-344

396

362

344.1A

412

344.1G

780

406

CTY-793

362.1B

407.1F

412.1C

586.1B

412.1A

586.1A

407.1A

396.1A

344.1S

U310077

362.1C

362.1A

780.1A

396.1D

407.1B

PD300160

P30022

CTY6

297

396.1B

396.1M

344.1N

U310075

406.1E

344.1F

412.1B

U300248

406.1D

407.1C

P300152

396.1N

586

14

15

22

13

23 24

18

19

7

25 30 26 27

10 11 12

21

9

16

28

8

030304

030914

030405

030404

031301

030305

030904

031201

030403

030406

031207

030907

030303

030303

T. 3S.

T, 4E,

R. 5E

ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFICATION

DEFER-FS

DEFER-PVT

LAKE

Commercial Thin

Commercial Thin 50 BA

Free Selection

Group Shelterwood

Shelterwood Seedcut

Overstory Removal

Sanitation

Variable Density Thinning

Hardwood Conversion

Hardwood Release

Pine Encroachment

PreCommercial Thin

Products Other than Logs (POL)

Roads

Location

Structures

Modification

Area

μ

T, 5S. 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Miles