VESTAL 

PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

United States 

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

VOLUME II - Appendices

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest

Custer County, South Dakota 

April 2012
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 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II – Appendices

Table of Contents

Appendix A: Maps

Appendix B: Design Criteria

Appendix C: Monitoring Plan

Appendix D: Treatments by Site

Appendix E: Findings: Silviculture

Appendix F: Past, Present, and Future Activities

Appendix G: Summary: Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

Appendix H: Epidemic Determination

Appendix I: Response to Comments

Appendix A:

MAPS
Map 1 – Vicinity Map

Map 2 – Vestal Management Areas

Map 3 – Existing Pine Habitat Structural Stages and Other Cover Types

**There is no Map 4

Map 5 – Alt. 2 Pine Habitat Structural Stages and Other Cover Types

Map 6 – Alt. 2 Vegetation Treatments – Tile Key

Tile 1 

Tile 2

Tile 3

Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Map 7 – Alt. 2 Fuels Treatments – Tile Key

Tile 1

Tile 2

Tile 3

Tile 4

Tile 5

Tile 6

Map 8 – Roads

Map 9 – Streams

Map 10A – Permits

Map 10B – Permits 

Map 11 – MPB Progression

Map 12 – Existing MPB Risk

Map 13 – Alternative 2-MPB Risk at Year 2018

Map 14 – Fire Hazard Existing Condition

Map 15 – Fire Hazard Alternative 2 at Year 2018

Map 16 – Watersheds 

Map 17 – Scenic Integrity Objectives
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-1 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-2 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-3 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-4 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-5 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-6 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-7 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-8 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-9 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-10
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-11
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-12
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-13
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-14
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-15
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-16
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-17
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-18
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-19
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-20
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-21
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-22
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-23
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-24
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-25
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-26
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-27
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-28
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A

A-29

Appendix B:

DESIGN CRITERIA

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-1 

Introduction 

The following design criteria are listed by resource area and do not suggest any particular 

order of priority. All activities proposed in this project would require implementation of 

these design criteria.

Heritage 

 All eligible and unevaluated sites would be avoided during project activities. 

There are 22 known cultural resources either determined eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places or unevaluated.

 If during the course of any ground disturbance related to this project, any bones, 

artifacts, foundations, or other indications of past human occupation of the area 

are uncovered, all operations will cease within a 100-meter radius of the site 

location and a District Archaeologist notified immediately. The SHPO and 

regional THPOs will be notified of the discovery and provided an opportunity to 

comment. Any cultural resources located during project implementation will be 

protected based on the recommendations of the District Archaeologist and the 

SHPO.

 Vegetation Treatments: the following design criteria must be implemented to 

protect the known sites in the project area from adverse effects of mechanical 

treatments.

o All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted for avoidance. 

o No burn piles will be placed within the boundaries of eligible or 

unevaluated sites.

o All vehicles, timber harvesting equipment, or other machinery must not be 

stored or parked within the boundaries of the above eligible or 

unevaluated sites. Vehicles would be confined to existing and marked 

Forest Service roads if and when traversing through cultural resources, 

unless travel through site boundaries is specifically not allowed as stated 

in the site specific recommendations. 

o No road maintenance, blading or modification of roads through eligible 

and unevaluated sites will be conducted without the specified clearance 

and on-site presence of a district archaeologist.

 Prescribed Fire Treatments: the following design criteria, developed through 

scientific studies of fire effects on cultural resources must be implemented to 

protect the known sites in the project area from the adverse effects of prescribed 

fire (USDA, 2003).

o All cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by project 

activities will be flagged or otherwise posted. In some cases, burning 

through sites may be allowed, but specified features must be avoided by 

ground disturbing effects (e.g. road cuts, dozer lines, handlines, staging 

areas, and mop-up). 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-2 

o Wetline through cultural resources instead of using ground disturbing 

handlines. 

o Fire retardant possesses a risk of damaging archaeological sites and is not 

allowed within site boundaries. 

o Fire is allowed within the site boundaries of cultural resources provided 

that the following on-site fire behavior criteria are met: There are 7 

known sites that will burn under 400°C < 1 hour without any preparation 

and may be burned through. There are 17 cultural resource sites that 

contain material which is easily destroyed by fire or would burn greater 

than 400° > 1 hour, and where preparation is not feasible due to the 

amount of fuel loading. These 15 sites cannot be burned through and 

must be avoided during implementation of all prescribed burning. Consult 

with heritage resource specialist prior to any burning. 

Fire/Fuels 

 All prescribed burn treatments would meet with the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. District personnel would monitor burn conditions, and the SASEM (Smoke 

Model) or equivalent program would be used to assure provisions are met. The 

impacts of burning on metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at 

the time of burning. 

Smoke impacts would be minimized utilizing the following design criteria and are 

incorporated into the burn plan as appropriate: 

o Limit treatment area size.

o Specify wind directions and speed. 

o Specify minimum mixing heights to ensure dispersal of emissions.

o Stagger ignitions. 

 Re-vegetation of prescribed burned areas would be promoted by: 

o Following broadcast burning, seed to initiate re-vegetation if ground cover 

is 60 percent or less and slopes are 30 percent or more. 

o If piled and burned fuel creates ash piles deeper than three inches, scatter 

the ash, scarify and mix it with mineral soil, or bury it. Guideline 4106

 Prescribed burn plans would identify acceptable levels of tree mortality for 

seedlings/saplings, poles and sawtimber; burning prescriptions will be estimated 

to meet these levels. Guideline 4108

 Prescribed burning shall be delayed until the MPB epidemic has passed through 

the proposed burn areas. 

 Public notification procedures prior to initiating a prescribed fire project will be 

specified in the approved burn plan. 

 Activity fuels would be treated along forest collector roads and forest 

development trails to meet the adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO). Along 

arterial roads, remove 70-90 percent of activity fuels up to 300 feet from roads 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-3 

edge. Debris piles would be burned as soon as practical after remaining on-site 

for at least 2 years. Where mechanical treatment and prescribed burning is 

proposed within the same site, mechanical treatments would be completed prior to 

burning. 

 Prescribed burning would be conducted in the fall in sites 30503-4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 21 

and 23 which are those used by Rockin-R-Rides for their one hour ride. 

 Prescribed burning within site 030309-13, allow only 5% mortality in 

regeneration to provide for big game screening cover. 

 Where Variable Density Thinning (VDT) or Free Selection (FS) is proposed 

adjacent to private lands, the target basal area within 300 feet of the private land 

boundary will be 50ft2 / acre.

 Prescribed burning would be done following mechanical treatments in forested 

stands. 

 Reduce or otherwise treat all fuels adjacent to non-forest lands so the potential 

fireline intensity does not exceed 200 BTUs/second/foot on 90 percent of the days 

when fires occur, or break up continuous fuel concentrations exceeding the above 

intensity into units 30-40 acres maximum size, surrounded by fuel breaks. 

Slash Treatments

 Slash piles that are scheduled for burning should be located outside of meadows 

that contribute to Waters of the United States. Use a buffer distance designed to 

keep sediment, ash and debris out of channels. Guideline 4111

 Whole Tree yarding is required: 

o Where Rx burning is planned in timber stands (not meadows) 

o Adjacent to private lands 

 Whole Tree yarding is prohibited: 

o Meadows proposed for Rx burning. 

o Within Variable Density Thinning areas not adjacent to private land 

 Lop and scatter slash in sites or portions of sites identified in the Wildlife section 

of this Appendix, see Table B-1. 

Botany/Rangeland/Weeds 

 Follow all Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines relating to rangeland 

resources, flora species, weed control, and re-vegetation. 

 Monitoring and surveying for SOLC and state listed plant species would be 

ongoing. Management of any new occurrences of SOLC would be considered if 

either alternative is chosen.

 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. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-4 

 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 cleaned before leaving the area 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. 

 Review of the area for noxious weed infestations would 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. 

 Disturbed soil would be re-vegetated in a manner that optimizes plant 

establishment for that specific site. Re-vegetation may include topsoil 

replacement, planting, seeding, fertilization, liming, and placement of weed-free 

mulch as necessary. Re-vegetation would be initiated as soon as possible, 

generally not to exceed 6 months, after termination of ground-disturbing 

activities. All disturbed soils would be re-vegetated with native species when 

available, using seed mixtures free of noxious weeds. On areas needing the 

immediate establishment of vegetation, non-native, non-aggressive annual, nonaggressive 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. 

 Known noxious weed infestations would be treated with herbicides and/or 

biological controls after treatments to reduce infestations and allow native 

vegetation to compete with non-natives. Areas would be retreated as necessary.

 When possible, avoid disturbances to grassland and meadows with activities such 

as large slash piling, skidding, and temporary road construction. If unavoidable, 

utilize portions of the site that are dominated by non-native plant species. Consult 

with the district botanist or rangeland specialist for proper placement of slash 

piles and roads. 

 Restore or rebuild all fences damaged during project activities.

 When temporary roads and skid trails are to be constructed, locate beside existing 

fences, if possible. Such clearing will help with the maintenance of those 

improvements. 

 All livestock gates would remain shut from June 1st – October 10th. 

 Consult with the district botanist during prescribed burn planning in any sensitive 

species habitat.

 Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure re-growth of forage species. Guideline 4107

 Deck piles and landings should be no closer than 200’ from any spring with 

exclosure fences. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-5 

 There is a potential for conflict during timber harvest and treatment activities 

when livestock are present. Please ensure all fences are up and gates remain 

closed while livestock are in the area.

 Current noxious weed infestations within the project area should be monitored for 

impacts from proposed activities as well as effectiveness of control measures. 

Inventory of the project area for additional infestations should be done during and 

following implementation of proposed activities.

Recreation

 Logging slash would be mechanically chipped/shredded or removed from Camp 

Bob Marshall and Bismarck Lake recreation site, prior to May 15th annually to 

provide a recreation site ready for opening to the public. Chips may remain on 

site provided they are not in the campsite improvements, such as parking areas, 

campfire rings, picnic tables, tent pads, buildings, etc. Chips would be raked – 

spread no more than a few inches deep (no large piles). 

 Timber harvest, post sale, and prescribed fire operations should not occur within 

Camp Bob Marshall and Bismarck Lake Recreation Area during the primary use 

season from May 15th to September 15th annually. Enough time would be allowed 

to close out all work and accept logging units in developed recreation sites so they 

may be safely opened to the public by May 15th annually. 

 Logging activity would occur in recreation sites during periods of dry or frozen 

ground to limit rutting. 

 Timber harvest, post sale, and prescribed fire operations would be avoided, where 

possible, in the following sites which are under recreation special use permits, for 

the stated dates of use. These special use permits have annual operation plans, 

which include specific dates which are known by March 15th annually. 

Coordination between the special use permit holders and district recreation 

specialist and the sale administrator would be required before the beginning of 

harvest activities to avoid conflicts (See permit maps in Appendix A). 

o National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) – operates from AprilSeptember, 3-4 sessions, approximately 10 days each session. Involves 

protecting one campsite/parking areas and one rock climbing rock site. 

o Rockin-R-Rides – trail rides operate annually from May 15-October 7. 

Involves protecting approximately seven miles of horseback riding trails. 

o Lutherans Outdoors/Atlantic Mountain Ranch – primary operating season 

is May-September, with sporadic operation from October-December. 

Involves protecting approximately three miles of horseback riding/hiking 

trails.

 Designated and permitted horseback riding trails, as part of the Broken Arrow 

Horse Trail Special Use Permit, will be protected (See permit maps in Appendix 

A). There would be no restrictions to harvesting, skidding and hauling 

operations, but roads would be kept open and any lop and scattered slash would 

need to be removed from designated trails. If trees designated for removal have 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-6 

trail markers on them, the permit administrator and permittee should be notified to 

replace these. If trail closures are necessary within the permitted area to facilitate 

harvesting activities, the permit administrator and permittees must be notified.

 Do not place slash piles or logging decks on trails used under recreation special 

use permits for Rockin-R-Rides, NOLS, Lutherans Outdoors/Atlantic Mountain 

Ranch and Broken Arrow permitted trails. Trails would be protected as 

improvements and repaired as needed prior to the start of annual permitted use 

period. Examples of repairs include replacing log and gravel trail water bars and 

rock steps that were designed and constructed specifically for protecting 

resources. Protection measures include: 

o Logging, post sale and prescribed fire operations would not use narrow 

horse trails that have constructed improvements, such as log/gravel/rock 

water bars as temporary roads, improved fire control lines, skid trails or 

landing zones. 

o Skidders would cross specialized horse trails at 90 degrees at areas with 

minimal cross slope. Forwarder skidders are preferred for crossing these 

trails to limit damage and the need for repairs to the trail tread.

o Slash would be removed from horse trail tread prior to use of these trails 

by permitted outfitters. 

o Broken tops, hung up trees, over outfitter trails will be removed prior to 

use by the public. 

 Signs should be used along roads where harvesting activity is occurring to warn 

the public of possible hazards. 

 Coordinate with the State of SD on use of the Mickelson Trail and the paved 

Mickelson Trail Connector from Custer to Custer State Park for harvest activities. 

o Safety requirements would include signage to warn trail users of project 

activity and a flagger would be at both ends of the working area on the 

trail if there is potential of trees falling on the trail.

o Only wheeled vehicles will be used on the trail.

o Any logs that need to be moved across or along the trail would be lifted 

and carried. 

o The trail would be returned to its existing condition after implementation. 

All materials used to fix the trail would be approved by the State Trails 

Manager.

o The project coordinator would notify the State Trails Office at the 

beginning and the end of the project to allow the Trails Office to post 

notifications to the public of project work along the trail. 

o There would be an onsite meeting with the State Trails Manager before 

conclusion of the project to address any problems related to the trail. 

 Lands 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-7 

 Work with the district Lands Specialist when overhead utility lines are in areas of 

MPB infested trees to coordinate with utility companies to assess and remove the 

infested or at risk trees.

 Identify to the public, by the placement of signs or other formats, when log trucks 

and increased traffic is within or directly affecting a residential community.

Scenery 

 All treatments should transition (‘feather’) the vegetation edge from the dense 

canopy (in the adjacent non-treated areas, including private land) into the unit. 

Avoid creating geometric shapes when implementing proposed activities, when 

possible. 

 When thinning dense stands, avoid creating a residual forested stand with evenly 

spaced trees if possible.

 Avoid creating strong lines between private and Forest Service boundaries. 

Remaining vegetation should be in a variety of sizes and spacing to maintain a 

more natural appearance. The transition zone width is dependent upon 

management and use of private lands, slope, and variety of vegetation. 

 Fuel treatments along private land boundaries would transition into the 

surrounding forest. These areas are essential shaded fuel breaks. Avoid creating 

‘corridors’ of cleared understory areas by laying out the outer (forest side) of the 

unit in a curvilinear layout.

 All temporary roads, skid trails, burn piles and log deck areas should be returned 

to a natural appearance by eliminating the cut/fill slope to match the adjacent 

contours. Re-seed and place natural levels of down debris across these routes. 

This is particularly important within the Peter Norbeck Scenic Byway corridor, 

around developed recreation areas, non-motorized recreation areas and trails.

 Hand-pile, chip or mulch activity fuels in the immediate foreground of US and 

State Highways, Scenic Byways, County Roads, Recreation Facilities, Recreation 

Trails, to limit additional disturbance to the area and clean up slash to natural 

levels (Guideline 5606). 

 Design criteria specific to the following public access routes: Peter Norbeck 

Scenic Byway (US Hwy 16, 16A, 16/385, SD Hwy 89, access to Bismarck Lake 

Campground and other recreation facilities).

o Where possible along the roads, 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.

o Clean up log decks within 300 feet of travel corridors by returning to 

original contours, scarify to eliminate compaction (as necessary), and 

plant with native grass seed. 

o Locate log landings outside the immediate foreground (200’) of the 

highways when possible. Limit equipment use within this distance zone as 

possible. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-8 

o Remove un-merchantable material piles (‘cull decks’ & piles of 

tops/limbs) in the immediate foreground (300’) of the highways. 

o Slash should be cleaned up to natural levels within 300 feet of these 

highways, in accordance with Forest Plan Guideline 4112b (ie - This can 

be accomplished by piling & burning, or chipping and removing chips.), 

and Forest Plan Guideline 5606. 

o Highlight large diameter ponderosa pine when possible, by removing 

small trees around them that block the view of them, could act as ladder 

fuels in a fire, and out compete with them for nutrients. 

Transportation 

 After project implementation any temporary roads would be closed and 

rehabilitated. Public signage such as a carsonite post with sticker could be placed 

at the temporary road entrance to designate the road appropriately for public 

travel management purposes. 

 Physical closures, such as slash, stumps, rocks and re-vegetation could be used to 

eliminate use. Earthen barriers may be used when there is not adequate material 

available for slash, stumps or rock closures. This may be done after harvest 

activities, to allow use of a road by the purchaser, or as funds become available. 

Closure gates may be utilized where administrative access might be needed.

 Existing gates and related signs would be protected during sale activities. 

Wildlife 

Sensitive Species

 A R2 sensitive species or 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. Solutions need to be based on the circumstances of each 

new discovery and must consider the species need, contractual obligations and 

costs, and mitigation measures available at the time of discovery. Standard 3115

Northern Leopard Frog/Black Hills Red-bellied Snake 

 Riparian areas or wetlands where populations of sensitive species are located are 

to be avoided during ground disturbing activities. Use one or more of the 

following (or other mitigation measures) tied to the site-specific conditions for 

disturbances adjacent to known occurrences: 

a. Avoid removing riparian or wetland vegetation; filling or dredging the 

riparian area or wetland; diverting stream flow from the current channel.

b. Prevent storm runoff from washing silt into the stream or wetland.

c. Reseed and/or replant cut and fill slopes with native seed and/or native plants 

promptly to control erosion and for prevention of noxious-weed infestations. 

Use appropriate measures to control erosion on disturbed areas that are steep, 

are highly erosive, and/or adjacent to the riparian area.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-9 

d. Timing, placement, and installation of temporary stream diversions shall 

allow passage of aquatic life and protect sensitive and species of local 

concern. 

Standard 3106 

 Avoid creating barriers (e.g., new open roads) between red-bellied snake 

hibernacula and wetlands. Standard 3116

 Retain a more dense canopy (>60 BA) and lop and scatter slash within or adjacent 

to the following sites (Table B-1). The denser canopy would allow for more 

moisture on the ground in the site as well as provide some hiding cover for big 

game. These sites may be used as upland habitat for sensitive northern leopard 

frogs.

The following sites should have slash lopped and scattered within 200’ of the site 

edge in the direction of the nearby pond/spring; if proposed for prescribed 

burning, do not burn down woody material, juniper and regeneration within 200’ 

of the site edge. 

Table B- 1. Sites with Lop and Scatter within 200' Edge

Location-Site(s) Description

030508-43, 48 

and 

030507-5

Church Camp (site 43)- Lop and scatter 200’ from pond on 

west side of 030508-48 and east side of 030507-5 to protect 

upland habitat for sensitive frogs.

030905-10 Crow Creek Pond—Lop and scatter 200’ from the pond 

(southeast corner).

030906-12, 24 

Ruby Spring (site 24)—lop and scatter 200’ in the northeast 

corner of site 12, which is adjacent to site 24. Additionally, 

keep 1⁄4 acre in northeast corner more dense (>60 BA).

030906-13 

French Creek Fen (Site 13)—Lop and scatter 200’ on west 

side of site 13, just east of fen. Additionally, retain more 

dense canopy (>60BA) to provide shade and cover for 

wildlife.

031207-12, 13 

12, 13 (“Spar” Spring/CCC development) – site 12 is 

proposed for pine encroachment and is to the east of the 

spring and site 13 is proposed for free selection. It is 

recommended that sites are lop and scattered up to 200’ 

around the spring area. It is also recommended that no trees 

are cut within 200’ of the site. 

031306-14, 22 Lake of the Pines – lop and scatter within the southeastern 

portion of site 14 (adjacent to pond) and in site 22. 

 Deck piles and landings should be no closer than 200’ from any spring with 

exclosure fences. Heavy equipment would not be allowed to operate within wet 

areas to prevent noxious weed growth near existing springs. 

 Consult with a District Biologist prior to any work in a riparian area containing 

northern leopard frogs. If during any activities in the project area red-bellied 

snakes are observed or potential hibernacula are found, contact a District 

Biologist. If a hibernacula/breeding site is found a buffer may be established 

around the riparian area and the hibernacula. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-10

Northern Goshawk

 From April 1 through August 15, minimize additional human caused noise and 

disruption beyond that occurring at the time of nest initiation (e.g. road traffic, 

timber harvest, construction activities) within one-half mile of all active goshawk 

nests up until the nest has failed or fledglings have dispersed. Standard 3111

 When removing trees in suitable goshawk nesting habitat, except when done for 

the express purpose of enhancing goshawk habitat; Identify 180 acre nest areas 

around historically active nests. Vegetation management activities within nest 

areas shall be limited to those that maintain or enhance the stand’s value for 

goshawk. Standard 3108

Snails

 Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern snail colonies to: 

a. Retain overstory sufficient to maintain moisture regimes, ground level 

temperatures and humidity. 

b. Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter.

c. Avoid burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy 

equipment and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation 

composition and ground cover. 

d. If prescribed burning is unavoidable, burn when snails are hibernating, usually 

below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and use fast-moving fires to minimize effects to 

snails.

e. Control invasive weeds, but use herbicides when snails are not on the surface, 

and treat individual plants rather than broadcast application. Standard 3103

 There is one SOLC snail site located along Upper French Creek Road (030906-9). 

Work should be done when the ground is frozen to prevent soil compaction and 

disturbance. Slash needs to be moved off this site for future disposal (i.e., burning 

or chipping). Standard 3103

Butterflies

 Consider habitat needs (survey as appropriate) of regal fritillary and Atlantis 

fritillary butterflies prior to prescribed burning on prairies or meadows. This is 

especially important for prescribed burns scheduled from September through 

April. Design the project to conserve important habitat components of known 

sightings. Guideline 3105

 Defer prescribed burn units from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species, butterfly host and 

nectar species, and soil stabilization. Guideline 4107

Marten

 In areas identified as important connectivity corridors for marten, maintain 

canopy closure of at least 50 percent. Standard 3215
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-11

Bats/Caves 

 Avoid ground disturbance within 100 feet of an opening of a natural cave 

(Standard 1401a).

 Where caves or abandoned mines serve as nurseries or hibernacula for bats, 

vegetative changes within 500 feet of the opening are allowed only if needed to 

maintain bat habitat or if topography or other features protect the openings from 

disturbance. (Standard 3207). Slash shall not be piled at the entrance of caves or 

mines.

 Hibernating bats occur in site 030502-53 and would require/include a 500 ft 

buffer. In this site, no treatment within 100’ of adit opening (Standard 1401a). 

However, in the 100-500’ boundary, sanitation ONLY may occur. Contact the 

district wildlife biologist for details on buffer location and size. 

 Protect caves or mines identified as bat nurseries or hibernacula, and their 

microclimates when designing management activities (e.g. timber harvest, road 

construction, recreation facilities, trail construction). Protect known bat day and 

night roosts (Standard 3102). 

 Any caves or mines discovered during sale layout, sale operations, or post sale 

activities will be reported to the District Wildlife Biologist, District Geologist and 

District Archaeologist for evaluation. If determined that the site may be suitable 

bat maternity or hibernation habitat, buffers would be maintained to protect the 

microclimate of the site. Standard 3207

Turkey

 Provide at least 2 to 6 turkey-roost sites per section, consisting of mature trees 

with an average diameter at breast height (dbh) of 10 to 14 inches, widely spaced 

horizontal branches, and basal areas at least 90 square feet per acre. Sites should 

be at least one-fourth acre in size and not isolated from adjacent forested stands. 

Emphasis should be on the upper third of east-facing slopes if available. 

Guideline 3205

Raptors 

 Protect known raptor nests. Consider potential effects of disturbance, nesting 

phenology, human activities existing at onset of nest initiation, species, 

topography, other R2 sensitive species and plant species of local concern, forest 

cover, nest protection standards and recommendations used by state or federal 

agencies, and other appropriate factors when designing protection. Standard 

3204 

In sites with active raptor nests, vegetation treatments (including sanitation and 

fuels thinning) may occur only from Aug. 15-March 31, unless otherwise 

approved by a wildlife biologist. Minimize disturbance within 1⁄2 mile of active 

nests.

Currently known sites include: 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-12

030302-9, 12, 21 030506-35, 36

030309-1 030905-10

030502-11 030906-11

030503-25

Small Mammal Habitat 

 In vegetation treatment units, leave 1 pile of woody material per 2 acres to create 

near-ground structure for small mammal species, except within 300 feet of 

buildings. Standard 3117 

Big Game – Screening Cover 

 Provide big game screening along at least 20 percent of the edges of arterial and 

collector roads. Consider vegetation, slopes, landform, etc. in evaluating available 

screening. Guideline 3203 

 Keep 200’ buffer of regen along FSR 344 (Willow Creek) and in location 

030309-13 (along FSR 345.1) to maintain at least 20% screening cover after 

vegetation treatments.

Snags/Down Woody Material 

 Retain all snags greater than 20-inch dbh unless a safety hazard. If snag densities 

within a project area are below Objective 211, retain all snags unless they are a 

safety hazard. If large snags (>14” dbh) are not available, retain snags in the 

largest size class available. Standard 2301a 

 Retain at least six hardwood snags per acre in hardwood stands. Retain all snags 

in hardwood stands with snag density of less than six per acre. Standard 2301b 

 Cutting of standing dead trees for fuelwood is prohibited, except in designated 

areas. Standard 2304 

 All soft snags should be retained unless they are a safety hazard. Standard 2305 

 Activity debris would remain on site in all stands except those specified as 

“Whole Tree Yarding Required” under the alternative descriptions. Guideline 

2307 

 During vegetation management activities on ponderosa pine forested sites, retain 

an average of at least 50 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a 

minimum diameter of 10 inches. On white spruce forested sites retain an average 

of at least 100 linear feet per acre of coarse woody debris with a minimum 

diameter of 10 inches. Standard 2308

Hardwoods 

 Conserve live aspen with cavities. Standard 3124 

 Conserve live aspen with signs of cavity nesting, where this will not conflict with 

clone regeneration. Guideline 2204
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-13

 Do not locate landings or slash piles in hardwood stands or inclusions unless no 

alternative sites are available.

 During prescribed burning, fire should not be intentionally lit through an aspen 

stand or aspen clone during lighting operations. Lighting would be stopped 

approximately one aspen tree length (minimum 35”) from the aspen stand or 

clone, although fire may creep through the aspen on its own. Monitoring of 

aspen should occur during implementation and if the observed fire behavior is 

more intense than expected, lighting operations would be adjusted and/or wetline 

around aspen stands would occur to ensure protection of aspen stands. 

 Hinge all non-commercial conifers around and within hardwood release 

treatments, including inclusions, and directionally fall non-commercial conifers 

into the inclusion or around the perimeter to create a barrier. If non-commercial 

sized conifers are not available to create a barrier, mature aspen may be hinged 

around the perimeter in the same manner. Leave all slash as is to hinder 

browsing. 

Riparian Habitats 

 Avoid disturbance (e.g. road building, trail building, skid trails), non-commercial 

and commercial harvest adjacent to and within riparian communities (Standards 

1304 and 1306, and Guideline 3212). Buffer distance from riparian habitats will 

vary on a site-specific basis, and would be determined based on topography, 

vegetation community, etc. 

Treatments along riparian areas or within wet meadows would be limited to 

frozen ground conditions. This applies within sites 30308-33 and 030406-28. The 

spring or wet area should be avoided, and activity should be restricted to frozen 

ground. 

 Prohibit motorized vehicles from entering streams except at specified points. 

Guidelines 9107 and 9108

 Use biological control methods whenever practical, and whenever protecting 

other resources is desired, such as water quality. Guideline 4302

 Maintain slash and large woody debris within riparian communities (Guideline 

3212). Boundaries of riparian habitats would vary on a site-specific basis, and 

would be determined based on topography, vegetation community, etc. Large 

woody debris and slash should not block stream flow or spring flows in these 

areas.

 Protect riparian exclosure fence around Tenderfoot Creek along FSR 297.1I 

during operations. 

Wildlife Guzzlers

 Leave all trees within guzzler fence exclosures (including trees used as fence 

posts) to keep shade and cover for wildlife. Locations and sites are the following: 

030406-22 030405-19 030308-16 

 030907-2 030506-20 030505-35 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-14

 030914-7 030906-24 

Squirrel Caches

 Retain all trees within squirrel caches unless otherwise directed by a Wildlife 

Biologist. 

Slash Piles

 Locate slash piles that are scheduled for burning out of grasslands, meadows, and 

riparian areas to protect from invasion of non-native species and loss of habitat 

for butterfly species. In addition, do not place slash piles on top of squirrel 

caches. 

 If mammal tracks (i.e., mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, fox, or marten) are seen 

around landing piles or slash piles indicating potential use as cover or dens, these 

piles will not be burned. A wildlife biologist must be contacted and will assess if 

and when these piles may be burned or dismantled. 

Wildlife Closures/ Gates

 Retain all commercial and non-commercial trees for 1 chain length (66 ft) around 

all gates (seasonal and year-long) to aid in preventing unauthorized public access 

by their placement with surrounding vegetation. These gates and adjacent trees 

should both be protected features and retained as part of the road closure feature. 

The following table (Table B-2) lists the seasonal gates only and their locations. 

 Table B- 2. Seasonal Gates and Locations 

Gate 

Number Designation Location Site Road

A7 Seasonal 030903 1 413

A8 Seasonal 030508 8 284.1D

A12 Seasonal 030505 36 297.1E

A13 Seasonal 030506 7 297.1G

A17 Seasonal 030909 27 504 (east end)

A28 Seasonal 030909 15 654

A29 Seasonal 030903 45 240

A33 Seasonal 030909 12 504 (west end)

A34 Seasonal 030913 6 781.1A

B17 Seasonal 030301 3 345.1A

B35 Seasonal 030301 8 349.1A

Silviculture 

 Activity fuel should be removed, lopped, scattered or piled for later burning. 

Slash piles, other than those left for wildlife habitat (Standard 3117), should be 

burned within one year, if possible. This will reduce the risk of Ips beetle caused 

mortality.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-15

 Sites 030305-07, 50, 70, 71, and 72 are meadow sites with pine encroachment. 

Pine encroachment treatment would remove all pine trees, but spruce would be 

left within these sites. 

 In site 30508-11, retain trees in the largest diameter class. 

 In Overstory Removal treatments retain an average of one large tree per acre. 

 The most current Black Hills NF “Visual Marking Guides” would be followed for 

tree marking within distance of arterial and collector roads and private land with 

dwellings.

 The practices outlined in “Best Management Practices for the control of NonPoint Pollution from Silvicultural and Related Road Activities” would be 

followed. 

 Sanitation, or removal of conifer trees identified as insect infested, is included for 

all National Forest land within the project area.

 Whole tree harvest commercial-sized conifers from aspen stands in such a manner 

to insure limited damage to remaining aspen. Whole tree harvest would eliminate

shading of the ground by logging slash. If conifer slash is to be piled and burned, 

place piles at least one (aspen) tree height away from the edge of the aspen to 

avoid damage to the roots from the intense heat (Sheppard, 10-2004). Conifers 

less than 9-inches dbh shall be removed post harvest or hinged to provide 

protection to aspen suckers. 

 Where aspen (individual trees or clones) occurs within conifer stands with 

proposed treatments, remove all pine within 33 feet surrounding the perimeter. 

This will encourage expansion of these hardwoods. 

Soils and Hydrology

 Include all USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, South Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs), 

and industry standard methods for protecting geologic, soil and water resources. 

Protected Stream Courses: 

 Protected stream courses within the project area include all or portions of the 

following streams.

 Table B- 3. Vestal Protected Stream Courses on National Forest

Stream Name Stream Class Miles

French Creek Perennial 3.29

Glen Erin Creek Perennial 1.87

Laughing Water Creek Perennial 0.43

Loues Creek Perennial 0.04

North Fork French Creek Intermittent 0.16

Ruby Creek Perennial 1.65
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-16

Stream Name Stream Class Miles

Tenderfoot Creek Intermittent 0.45

Tenderfoot Gulch Perennial 0.02

Toe (Joe) Gulch Perennial 0.87

Willow Creek Perennial 1.33

 Protected stream courses will have a buffer and are generally called a WIZ (200 

ft. total width, 100 feet each side of the stream). Activities can occur in the WIZ 

but care will need to be taken to minimize impacts in the WIZ. Design criteria 

include; limit the amount of skid trails in the WIZ and skid trails would be 

designated in the WIZ. 

 Table B- 4. Vestal WIZ Sites - Alternative 2

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030301 3 57.3 1.0 GSH 2

030301 8 116.0 2.2 SWSC 2

030301 10 27.8 12.0 HR 43

030301 16 21.5 1.1 VDT 5

030301 24 22.1 7.0 PE 32

030301 30 0.8 0.2 HR 22

030301 31 3.2 2.4 HR 75

030302 36 1.9 0.6 VDT 33

030303 9 12.9 0.9 GSH 7

030303 25 5.8 2.9 HR 49

030303 32 12.5 2.2 HR 17

030303 43 76.2 12.5 SANI 16

030304 22 28.7 1.0 CT50 3

030304 23 68.0 1.8 GSH 3

030305 4 69.2 1.1 CT50 2

030305 31 10.8 0.7 CT 7

030305 33 6.4 2.7 CT 41

030305 34 1.9 0.8 CT 45

030305 35 3.5 0.7 CT 20

030305 54 3.0 0.9 HR 31
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-17

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030305 55 5.4 3.0 SANI 56

030305 66 15.9 1.0 GSH 6

030305 76 19.7 6.9 SANI 35

030306 46 33.6 6.3 GSH 19

030306 59 16.4 11.8 PE 72

030306 61 7.5 0.6 GSH 7

030307 25 18.4 1.8 VDT 10

030307 61 2.4 0.5 SANI 20

030307 62 1.7 0.3 DEFER 17

030307 69 30.7 15.9 PE 52

030308 6 38.8 22.7 PE 59

030308 10 21.6 3.7 VDT 17

030308 28 103.9 3.8 CT 4

030308 32 7.8 2.7 HR 34

030308 35 20.7 12.4 HR 60

030308 36 8.0 3.2 HR 40

030309 2 52.8 2.0 SANI 4

030309 3 17.3 1.1 CT 6

030309 8 14.3 2.7 SANI 19

030309 17 163.0 2.9 GSH 2

030309 20 2.5 0.3 SANI 10

030309 22 14.4 7.3 SANI 51

030309 47 9.1 6.3 HR 69

030309 49 5.5 4.5 HR 82

030403 5 13.6 2.0 CT 14

030403 9 20.3 5.8 PE 29

030403 13 12.9 2.0 GSH 16

030403 20 6.8 0.6 CT 8

030403 22 2.5 0.4 SANI 15

030404 40 26.4 2.0 GSH 8

030404 41 7.8 3.6 GSH 47
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-18

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

030405 14 37.7 4.0 CT 10

030406 8 97.0 5.1 GSH 5

030406 14 20.6 3.2 OR 16

030406 22 17.5 3.4 HR 20

030406 59 45.8 2.2 GSH 5

030407 3 79.2 2.3 VDT 3

030407 16 142.2 2.5 GSH 2

030407 20 14.5 0.5 CT 3

030407 26 37.8 4.0 CT 11

030407 29 22.0 4.8 GSH 22

030407 43 6.6 2.0 HR 30

030501 19 25.5 4.0 CT50 16

030502 13 18.0 4.0 PE 22

030502 19 14.1 2.3 SANI 16

030503 2 22.1 2.5 CT50 11

030506 63 56.3 1.1 VDT 2

030507 12 5.6 2.3 CT50 42

030508 48 97.0 2.3 CT50 2

030906 9 102.4 5.3 SANI 5

030906 12 68.6 2.1 GSH 3

030907 9 5.3 4.2 CT50 79

030909 2 93.1 1.6 GSH 2

030909 9 36.1 1.5 CT 4

030909 10 318.8 4.2 GSH 1

030909 15 14.1 4.4 GSH 31

030909 29 8.7 4.3 CT 49

030909 39 4.0 1.9 SANI 47

030913 9 66.2 4.8 FS 7

031201 3 9.3 4.0 GSH 43

031206 5 46.3 2.4 GSH 5

031207 3 68.5 2.3 FS 3
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-19

Location Site Site Acres Wiz Acres Prescription % of Site

031301 53 23.1 0.5 GSH 2

031303 6 56.2 4.7 GSH 8

031303 16 8.2 3.4 SANI 42

031303 17 44.7 2.3 FS 5

031303 54 57.1 3.5 GSH 6

031303 56 19.0 1.7 GSH 9

031306 14 63.5 3.0 POL 5

031307 20 112.5 1.4 VDT 1

030301 3 57.3 1.0 GSH 2

030301 8 116.0 2.2 SWSC 2

030301 10 27.8 12.0 HR 43

030301 16 21.5 1.1 VDT 5

030301 24 22.1 7.0 PE 32

030301 30 0.8 0.2 HR 22

030301 31 3.2 2.4 HR 75

030302 36 1.9 0.6 VDT 33

030303 9 12.9 0.9 GSH 7

030303 25 5.8 2.9 HR 49

Landings within the WIZ

 0-50 feet – No landings are permitted this close to the stream.

 50 -100 feet – Landing within this distance are discouraged. Only place a landing 

within this distance when there are no other options available. Erosion control 

measures such as compost socks, straw wattles, etc. may be needed if landing are 

in this zone. Consult with Hydrologist. 

Forwarding and Skid Trails within the WIZ

 Operate within the WIZ when conditions are dry or frozen. If conditions are wet, 

trees will need to be end lined out of the WIZ.

 0 to 50 feet – No equipment within 50 feet of the stream except at designated 

crossings.

 Limit the amount of forwarding and skid trails in the WIZ. 

 Forwarding and skid trails will be designated in the WIZ. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-20

 Avoid crossing perennial and intermittent streams to the extent practical and 

avoid creating low water crossings or 'fords' of streams. 

 Forwarding and skidding through water will be avoided. Perennial and 

Intermittent stream crossings will have a temporary structure installed to keep 

equipment and logs out of water and protect the stream bank. 

 Rehabilitate forwarding and skid trail crossings of perennial and intermittent 

streams to original contour, seed and install erosion control matting for a distance 

of at least 25 feet from the stream on any disturbed areas.

 All forwarding and skid trails will have drainage control structures installed on 

them when they are rehabilitated upon completion of work, discharging into a 

vegetative filter. Spacing will use the following as guidelines:

 Table B- 5. Spacing for Water Bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45

Roads within the WIZ 

 If FSR 342.1E is needed for this project, the crossing of French Creek would be 

done with a temporary bridge. 

 Temporary roads crossing perennial or intermittent stream. Any temporary roads 

crossing perennial or intermittent streams will require a structure to span the 

stream such as a temporary bridge, cattle guard, temporary arch or similar 

structure to avoid damage of the stream and stream bank. 

 Roads crossing streams with new construction or reconstruction, at the stream 

crossing, will use erosion control devices to minimize to amount of sediment from 

entering the stream. Such device could include compost socks, sediment stop, 

wattles, etc.

 Road clearing limits and widths in the WIZ will be limited to the absolute 

minimum width.

 Road drainage features on roads would be spaced as outlined in Table B-6. 

 Table B- 6. Spacing for Water Bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-21

 Seed all roads in the WIZ, temporary and system, upon their closure. 

 Upon rehabilitation of stream crossings, seed and erosion control fabric will be 

installed for a distance of at least 25 feet from the stream on any disturbed areas.

Soils: 

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

compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit. 

(Forest Plan Standard 1103.) 

 All forwarding and skid trails would have drainage control structures installed on 

them when they are rehabilitated upon completion of work. Drainage control 

structures could include slash. Spacing would use the following as guidelines: 

 Table B- 7. Spacing for Water Bars

Road or Trail

Grade (%)

Spacing Between

Water Bars (Feet)

2 250

5 135

10 80

15 60

20 45

 On soils with severe EHR and slopes steeper than 40%, ground skidding must be 

avoided. 

 On soils with severe EHR and slopes between 20 and 40%, machinery operations 

must be restricted to dry or frozen soil conditions. 

 On soils with topsoil thinner than one (1) inch, consider need for retention of 

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

requirements and fuel loading concerns. Exceptions may occur when high fire 

hazard overrides the need to leave slash onsite. 

 Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting 

the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist. 

 All off-road, ground-based equipment operations should be minimized as 

possible, and should take place during dry or frozen conditions to limit soil 

compaction, rutting and soil erosion. The ‘Dry or Frozen Design Criteria’ is to 

protect soils with a VSEHR on slopes 20 to 40%. Machinery operations are only 

permitted when there are dry or frozen conditions. These are areas with slopes 

20% to 40% with VSEHR. Machinery operations must be restricted to dry or 

frozen soil conditions. 

Table B- 8. Dry or Frozen Design Criteria 

- Alternative 2

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 1 55.0 33.1 60

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 3 109.0 27.1 25

030303 4 133.0 40.8 31

030303 13 26.1 5.3 20
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-24

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 17 20.7 10.3 50

030303 20 14.4 3.0 21

030303 24 61.5 13.8 22

030303 25 5.8 4.4 75

030303 31 33.8 3.6 11

030303 33 58.4 9.5 16

030303 34 9.9 6.3 63

030303 37 12.3 3.1 25

030303 38 16.7 7.0 42

030303 39 47.5 21.3 45

030304 48 15.6 7.0 45

030305 13 15.7 6.3 40

030305 17 9.4 1.1 12

030305 24 8.7 1.2 13

030305 29 14.2 4.4 31

030305 32 4.8 2.1 45

030305 33 6.4 1.3 20

030305 36 14.8 1.9 13

030305 37 9.0 2.3 25

030305 38 7.3 1.2 17

030305 53 13.8 13.8 100

030306 40 9.1 1.3 15

030306 56 54.3 5.6 10

030306 57 14.3 2.0 14

030306 61 7.5 3.5 47

030306 66 22.9 11.4 50

030306 67 3.7 2.7 73

030306 68 20.6 3.3 16

030308 11 41.3 8.1 20

030308 14 16.4 10.7 65

030309 4 16.6 2.5 15

030309 11 40.2 15.5 38

030309 14 72.9 8.9 12

030309 15 11.7 11.7 100

030309 16 9.0 5.8 65

030309 17 163.0 27.9 17

030309 22 14.4 8.7 60

030309 49 5.5 2.2 39

030309 61 1.5 0.7 49

030309 62 32.5 27.8 86

030401 1 28.4 4.3 15

030401 3 41.5 12.9 31

030401 5 24.5 6.8 28

030401 7 15.4 5.1 33

030401 9 41.5 18.0 43

030401 10 38.5 34.0 88

030401 12 6.0 6.0 100

030401 14 41.3 4.2 10

030401 15 3.4 2.0 58

030401 22 7.8 1.5 19

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030401 23 5.5 5.5 100

030401 31 27.8 6.2 22

030401 37 4.0 1.6 41

030401 45 8.8 8.8 100

030402 10 21.1 14.8 70

030402 12 9.5 4.1 43

030402 15 6.6 6.2 94

030402 16 1.7 1.7 100

030404 1 7.9 3.0 38

030404 6 8.1 1.8 21

030404 7 3.1 2.5 80

030404 11 31.5 7.8 25

030404 17 18.7 5.6 30

030404 19 12.5 2.8 22

030404 21 19.0 13.6 71

030404 24 1.7 0.3 17

030404 28 3.4 0.7 19

030404 31 2.4 1.5 60

030404 38 10.0 4.0 40

030404 44 1.8 1.4 79

030404 52 27.4 11.7 43

030405 2 16.0 2.7 17

030405 3 70.7 15.6 22

030405 5 156.3 40.7 26

030405 14 37.7 28.1 75

030405 17 26.0 21.6 83

030405 18 15.3 3.8 25

030405 19 20.7 6.5 32

030405 29 2.7 2.7 100

030405 41 43.7 6.4 15

030406 10 10.1 2.2 22

030406 11 22.4 8.3 37

030406 13 49.9 8.3 17

030406 19 15.9 1.6 10

030406 20 36.6 26.7 73

030406 31 7.0 3.9 56

030406 48 2.9 2.9 100

030406 57 9.6 2.5 26

030406 59 45.8 18.7 41

030406 63 144.7 14.0 10

030407 1 56.1 6.3 11

030407 2 33.3 7.6 23

030407 5 43.7 10.6 24

030407 6 31.7 4.5 14
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-23

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030407 9 129.3 20.4 16

030407 10 19.6 6.4 33

030407 16 142.2 18.4 13

030407 21 18.5 7.9 43

030407 24 39.9 38.5 97

030407 27 47.2 4.6 10

030407 28 19.0 19.0 100

030407 32 26.1 6.2 24

030407 33 36.3 36.3 100

030407 46 26.6 4.3 16

030407 49 17.2 10.5 61

030407 53 4.4 1.5 35

030407 54 15.9 4.3 27

030407 55 12.3 2.7 22

030501 3 120.6 31.7 26

030501 5 7.6 4.7 61

030501 6 14.7 7.4 50

030501 8 20.6 8.0 39

030501 9 23.0 4.4 19

030501 12 18.2 15.8 87

030501 18 57.1 7.4 13

030501 19 25.5 2.9 11

030501 20 17.3 3.9 22

030501 22 77.7 35.7 46

030501 23 9.7 3.4 35

030501 24 41.5 18.9 45

030501 25 21.4 4.4 20

030501 26 32.3 15.6 48

030501 51 3.9 1.4 37

030501 52 37.9 19.3 51

030502 1 70.8 24.9 35

030502 2 17.1 7.1 42

030502 60 79.0 8.5 11

030502 62 33.4 3.3 10

030505 19 34.2 12.4 36

030505 30 24.1 20.4 85

030505 35 33.5 3.9 12

030502 1 70.8 24.9 35

030506 4 21.8 2.2 10

030506 12 45.0 5.9 13

030506 13 9.6 1.5 16

030506 14 23.1 23.1 100

030506 15 38.3 18.4 48

030506 18 19.6 3.4 17

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

030506 20 18.6 8.6 46

030506 39 7.0 1.6 22

030506 59 70.5 7.5 11

030506 60 24.2 8.3 34

030506 67 27.4 16.1 59

030507 9 22.0 6.2 28

030507 22 8.8 2.3 26

030904 29 10.9 1.9 17

030904 30 4.5 0.8 17

030914 2 11.8 9.9 85

030914 10 10.6 3.1 29

030914 28 15.2 3.4 22

031301 5 158.2 29.9 19

031301 14 20.7 2.2 11

031301 16 66.8 19.8 30

031301 37 5.8 4.1 71

031301 43 13.4 4.7 35

031302 3 5.2 5.2 100

031302 4 10.5 10.5 100

031302 7 10.5 1.3 13

031302 10 26.1 2.7 10

031302 12 22.2 9.2 42

031302 13 28.7 9.8 34

031302 15 56.5 15.5 27

031302 19 18.6 4.8 26

031302 21 5.6 5.6 100

031302 22 21.3 21.3 100

031303 3 51.7 21.7 42

031303 5 42.5 28.1 66

031303 6 56.2 8.3 15

031303 7 51.4 36.6 71

031303 16 8.2 8.2 100

031303 30 12.3 1.5 12

031303 54 57.1 39.8 70

031303 57 61.6 25.2 41

031304 1 35.9 15.2 42

031304 2 48.4 7.2 15

031304 5 40.2 9.2 23

031304 1 35.9 15.2 42

031304 2 48.4 7.2 15

031304 5 40.2 9.2 23

031304 6 45.0 4.6 10

031304 10 49.9 32.4 65

031304 13 23.4 7.9 34
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-24

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

031304 17 21.6 21.6 100

031304 19 14.3 2.3 16

031304 22 12.6 12.6 100

031304 25 2.4 1.3 54

031304 28 13.3 4.6 35

031305 3 80.8 32.4 40

031305 7 94.7 22.8 24

031305 13 34.5 6.7 20

Location Site

Site 

Acres

Dry/Frozen 

Acres

% of 

Site

031306 3 42.7 8.3 19

031307 36 124.6 42.3 34

 Avoid ground-based harvest and skidding equipment operations on sustained 

slopes steeper than 40%. The ‘No Activity Design Criteria’ is to protect soils with 

a VSEHR on slopes greater than 40%. No machinery operations activities will be 

allowed on slopes greater than 40%. These are areas with slopes greater than 

40% with VSEHR. Machinery operations are not permitted on these areas.

Table B- 9. No Activity Design Criteria - 

Alternative 2

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030303 1 55.0 20.4 37

030303 3 109.0 15.6 14

030303 4 133.0 18.2 14

030303 17 20.7 2.2 11

030303 31 33.8 3.6 11

030303 37 12.3 4.5 36

030303 38 16.7 7.1 43

030303 39 47.5 13.1 28

030305 13 15.7 6.3 40

030305 17 9.4 1.5 16

030305 29 14.2 9.3 65

030305 35 3.5 0.6 18

030305 36 14.8 8.8 59

030305 37 9.0 1.6 17

030305 53 13.8 1.3 10

030306 56 54.3 6.2 11

030306 57 14.3 5.3 37

030306 67 3.7 0.9 24

030308 16 18.4 4.3 23

030309 8 14.3 1.9 13

030309 61 1.5 0.5 30

030401 3 41.5 5.3 13

030401 9 41.5 10.7 26

030401 10 38.5 6.1 16

030401 14 41.3 13.4 33

030401 15 3.4 3.4 100

030401 16 45.7 19.0 42

030401 22 7.8 5.2 67

030401 23 5.5 1.1 19

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030401 36 11.4 6.8 60

030401 37 4.0 3.9 98

030401 45 8.8 1.7 20

030402 10 21.1 12.4 59

030402 12 9.5 2.9 30

030404 3 39.8 11.3 28

030404 4 18.6 3.3 18

030404 6 8.1 0.9 11

030404 7 29.7 5.5 18

030404 10 6.2 0.9 14

030404 11 31.5 11.0 35

030404 14 8.5 0.8 10

030404 17 18.7 3.8 20

030404 18 5.4 1.3 25

030404 21 19.0 5.5 29

030404 38 10.0 8.9 89

030405 5 156.3 45.7 29

030405 17 26.0 5.7 22

030405 29 2.7 2.7 100

030405 41 43.7 5.5 13

030406 10 10.1 3.8 38

030406 11 22.4 7.8 35

030406 19 15.9 2.0 13

030406 20 36.6 27.0 74

030406 31 7.0 0.9 13

030406 63 144.7 33.3 23

030407 2 33.3 29.5 89

030407 6 31.7 7.3 23

030407 9 129.3 125.3 97

030407 10 19.6 8.8 45

030407 16 142.2 20.8 15
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B

B-25

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

030407 19 5.5 1.3 24

030407 24 39.9 19.3 48

030407 27 47.2 13.2 28

030407 28 19.0 14.7 77

030407 32 26.1 6.5 25

030407 33 36.3 9.8 27

030407 49 17.2 7.4 43

030407 55 12.3 2.0 16

030501 5 7.6 1.7 22

030501 8 20.6 2.8 14

030501 9 23.0 5.3 23

030501 12 18.2 9.1 50

030501 19 25.5 3.2 13

030501 23 9.7 1.5 16

030501 24 41.5 9.0 22

030501 26 32.3 14.1 44

030501 52 37.9 15.5 41

030502 1 70.8 9.0 13

030502 2 17.1 1.9 11

030506 13 9.6 2.6 28

030506 14 23.1 3.3 14

030506 15 38.3 4.9 13

030506 59 70.5 9.8 14

030506 67 27.4 5.5 20

030904 29 10.9 1.4 13

030904 30 4.5 1.4 32

030914 2 11.8 3.3 28

031301 3 44.6 7.1 16

Location Site

Site 

Acres

No 

Activity 

Acres

% of 

Site

031301 44 7.5 3.2 42

031302 3 5.2 5.2 100

031302 7 10.5 2.7 25

031302 11 24.6 7.8 32

031302 12 22.2 10.5 47

031302 15 56.5 21.0 37

031302 19 18.6 6.2 33

031302 21 5.6 1.3 24

031302 22 21.3 2.8 13

031303 6 56.2 15.0 27

031303 7 51.4 22.0 43

031303 54 57.1 21.4 38

031303 57 61.6 7.4 12

031304 1 35.9 35.9 100

031304 2 48.4 6.1 13

031304 5 40.2 20.0 50

031304 6 45.0 12.6 28

031304 10 49.9 31.2 63

031304 17 21.6 9.3 43

031304 19 14.3 5.2 36

031304 26 13.9 13.9 100

031304 28 13.3 1.5 12

031305 6 41.6 4.0 10

031307 8 23.8 8.9 37

Fisheries 

 Avoid the reconstruction of FSR 342.1E and the inwater activity associated with 

the road-stream crossing on French Creek downstream of Stockade Lake. If FSR 

342.1E must be reconstructed, then use a temporary bridge to avoid placing 

additional fill in French Creek. Inwater activity on French Creek downstream of 

Stockade Lake should be avoided during June through mid-July and October 1st

through April 15th to keep heavy equipment out of lower French Creek during the 

mountain sucker and brook/brown trout spawning, incubation and emergence 

period, respectively, to be consistent with WCPH Management Measure 3; design 

criteria c.

 Leave the perched culvert on FSR 344 as-is on East Meeker Creek (Meeker 

Ranch) as an instream barrier to keep non-native brook stickleback (Culaea 

inconstans) from migrating further upstream.

Appendix C:

MONITORING PLAN

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C

C-1 

Monitoring Plan for the Vestal Project 

Introduction

The Forest Plan identifies specific items to be monitored, and the Monitoring 

Implementation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2005) describes monitoring protocols that 

have been established for numerous resources, as directed by the Forest Plan. The 

Monitoring Implementation Guide identifies frequency and methods of data collection, 

unit of measure, sampling design, expected precision and reliability, reporting frequency, 

data storage location, and costs for each monitoring item identified by the Forest Plan. 

This guide is subject to periodic adjustments. For additional information, refer to the 

Forest Plan (Chapter 4), and the Monitoring Implementation Guide. 

The ID Team for the Vestal project compiled additional monitoring objectives/items, 

which are summarized below. These items provide emphasis regarding particular 

resource monitoring needs in the project area. Monitoring would be prioritized by the 

responsible line officer if funding is unavailable to implement all items listed or 

referenced in this Monitoring Plan. 

Soils and Hydrology

To ensure that soil and water resources are not impaired due to project activities, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) are applied. BMP monitoring occurs during and after 

management activities. BMP implementation monitoring would occur during 

management activities, primarily through contract administration or oversight of Forest 

Service crew work. 

Project specific design criteria for soil and water protection will be incorporated into any 

contracts or internal work orders used to implement the proposed activities. The 

effectiveness and implementation of these design criteria would be monitored as stated 

above for BMPs and during the annual Implementation and Effectiveness field review. 

Additional monitoring may occur based on needs as identified by the project hydrology 

and soils specialist. 

Fuels

All fuels treatments would be recorded in the FACTS database. Prescribed fire surveys 

would be conducted following prescribed burning to ensure resource objectives are being 

met. 

Monitoring of smoke conditions during burning operations would be done to comply with 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. District personnel will utilize the SASEM (Smoke 

Model), or an equivalent program to assure provisions are being met. The impacts on 

metropolitan areas such as Rapid City would be assessed at the time of burning. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C

C-2 

Noxious Weeds

Areas of weed infestation would be monitored and the effectiveness of the weed 

treatments measured. Areas should be re-treated as necessary. 

Wildlife

The Hell Canyon District biologist would monitor known goshawk nests every summer 

for activity and breeding success. The biologist would coordinate with implementation 

crews to ensure the timing restrictions are followed in active territories. Occurrences and 

sighting of wildlife species would be documented during field visits and monitoring trips. 

Heritage

Post project site monitoring is a useful method for determining the effectiveness of 

avoidance measures. Twenty percent (20% rounded up to the nearest whole number) of 

eligible and unevaluated cultural resources in the vicinity of treatment areas will be 

revisited and monitored for effects from the Vestal Project following implementation. 

The selection of sites to be monitored is at the discretion of the District Archaeologist, 

and results will be sent to SHPO in the form of a site monitoring report. 

Botany

Monitoring and plant surveys for R2 Sensitive Species will be ongoing. Management of 

any new occurrences as well as the existing known occurrence will need to be considered 

as treatment plans are developed for the area. 
Appendix D:

TREATMENTS 

BY SITE

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-1 

Alternative 2 Treatments by Site

Cover Type Abbreviations: 

GRA Grasslands

NFL Non-Vegetated Sites (rock, gravel pits, etc.)

TAA Aspen

TPP Ponderosa Pine

TWS Spruce

WAT Water

Alternative 2 Prescription Abbreviations: 

CT Commercial Thinning OR Overstory Removal

CT50 Commercial Thinning to a BA of 50 ft2

/acre PCT Precommercial Thinning

DEFER Deferred from treatment PE Pine Encroachment

FS Free Selection POL Products Other than Logs 

Thinning

GSH Group Shelterwood SANI Sanitation

HC Hardwood Conversion SWSC Shelterwood Seedcut

HR Hardwood Release VDT Variable Density Thinning

Alternative 2 Post Sale Activities

POL Products Other than Logs Thinning

Regen 

Surv Regeneration Survey

PE Pine Encroachment

HR Hardwood Release

Alternative 2 Fire & Fuels Abbreviations: 

DF Dead Fall

FB Fuelbreak

RX Prescribed Burning

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30301 1 4 5.4 TPP 3C CT50 4A RX POL

30301 2 14 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30301 3 57 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30301 4 19 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30301 5 23 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A RX POL

30301 6 50 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30301 7 15 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30301 8 116 5.4 TPP 4A SWSC 4A RX Regen Surv

30301 9 26 8.2 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30301 10 28 8.2 TAA 3A HR 3A RX HR

30301 11 11 8.2 TPP 4A CT 4A RX POL

30301 12 10 8.2 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30301 13 34 8.2 TPP 4A VDT 4A RX POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-2 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30301 14 7 8.2 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30301 15 18 8.2 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30301 16 21 8.2 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30301 17 33 5.4 TPP 2 OR 2 Regen Surv

30301 18 5 8.2 TPP 3B CT 4A DF POL

30301 19 15 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30301 20 6 5.4 TPP 3A POL 3A RX POL

30301 21 4 5.4 TAA 3A HR 3A RX HR

30301 22 2 5.4 TAA 3B HR 3B RX HR

30301 23 3 5.4 TPP 3A GSH 4A RX POL

30301 24 22 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

30301 25 33 8.2 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30301 26 2 5.4 TAA 4A HR 4A RX HR

30301 27 19 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

30301 28 2 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30301 29 4 8.2 TPP 4A VDT 4A RX POL

30301 30 1 8.2 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30301 31 3 8.2 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30301 32 4 8.2 NFL DEFER

30301 33 2 8.2 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30301 34 10 8.2 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30301 35 16 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30301 36 1 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30301 37 6 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

30302 1 47 5.4 TPP 2 OR 2 Regen Surv

30302 2 63 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30302 3 29 8.2 WAT DEFER

30302 4 9 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30302 5 5 8.2 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30302 7 23 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30302 8 13 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30302 9 46 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30302 10 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30302 11 16 8.2 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30302 12 12 8.2 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30302 13 13 8.2 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30302 14 3 5.4 GRA DEFER

30302 16 9 5.4 TAA 4B HR 4B HR

30302 17 7 5.4 TPP 3C CT50 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-3 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30302 18 3 5.4 TPP 3B SANI 3B POL

30302 19 3 5.4 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

30302 20 1 8.2 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

30302 21 5 5.4 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30302 22 8 5.4 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30302 23 2 5.4 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

30302 24 10 5.4 TPP 3C OR 2 Regen Surv

30302 25 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

30302 26 2 5.4 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30302 27 4 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30302 29 3 8.2 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30302 30 1 8.2 GRA DEFER

30302 31 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 32 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 33 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 34 4 5.4 GRA DEFER

30302 35 4 8.2 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30302 36 2 8.2 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30302 37 2 5.4 NFL DEFER

30302 38 8 5.4 TPP 3A OR 2 Regen Surv

30302 39 2 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30302 40 2 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30302 41 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30303 1 55 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 2 62 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 3 109 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30303 4 133 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30303 5 10 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30303 6 51 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30303 7 3 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30303 8 16 5.4 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30303 9 13 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30303 10 12 5.4 TPP 4C POL 4A POL

30303 11 53 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 12 26 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 13 26 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30303 14 23 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 15 10 5.4 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30303 16 34 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A DF POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-4 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30303 17 21 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30303 18 18 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 19 40 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 20 14 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30303 21 8 5.4 GRA PE PE

30303 22 24 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30303 23 7 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30303 24 62 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 25 6 5.4 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

30303 26 7 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30303 27 11 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30303 28 4 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 29 37 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 30 11 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30303 31 34 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30303 32 12 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30303 33 58 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 34 10 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30303 35 17 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30303 36 4 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30303 37 12 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30303 38 17 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30303 39 48 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30303 43 76 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30304 2 1 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30304 4 18 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 5 7 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 6 15 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 7 30 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A POL

30304 8 27 5.4 TPP 2 POL 3A POL

30304 9 27 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30304 10 17 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30304 11 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 12 33 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30304 13 18 5.4 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30304 14 3 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

30304 15 6 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 17 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 18 10 5.4 GRA PE PE
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-5 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30304 19 3 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 20 6 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

30304 21 11 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 22 29 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30304 23 68 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30304 24 8 5.4 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30304 25 2 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30304 26 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 27 7 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 28 5 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 29 1 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 30 3 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 31 3 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

30304 32 4 5.4 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30304 33 3 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30304 34 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30304 35 1 5.4 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30304 36 4 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 44 26 5.4 GRA PE PE

30304 45 2 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30304 46 4 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30304 47 18 5.4 TPP 2 POL 3A POL

30304 48 16 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A POL

30305 1 4 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 2 11 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30305 3 127 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 4 69 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30305 5 22 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 6 27 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 7 5 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 8 13 5.4 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30305 9 30 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30305 10 23 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 11 37 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 12 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 13 16 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30305 14 12 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30305 15 42 5.4 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30305 16 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-6 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30305 17 9 5.4 TPP 4C OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 18 20 5.4 NFL DEFER

30305 19 3 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 20 4 5.4 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30305 21 7 5.4 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 22 5 5.4 TPP 2 CT 4A POL

30305 23 31 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 24 9 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30305 25 20 5.4 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 26 12 5.4 TPP 2 OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 27 22 5.4 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30305 28 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 29 14 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30305 30 7 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30305 31 11 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30305 32 5 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30305 33 6 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 34 2 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 35 4 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30305 36 15 5.4 TPP 3C OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 37 9 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30305 38 7 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 39 13 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

30305 40 6 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30305 44 23 5.4 TPP 2 POL 3A POL

30305 45 3 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 47 2 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30305 48 12 5.4 TPP 2 POL 3A POL

30305 49 22 5.4 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30305 50 1 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 51 9 5.4 TPP 2 CT 4A POL

30305 52 5 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 53 14 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30305 54 3 5.4 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30305 55 5 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30305 56 4 5.4 TPP 3C POL 3A POL

30305 57 6 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 58 6 5.4 TPP 3C OR 2 Regen Surv

30305 59 7 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-7 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30305 60 3 5.4 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30305 61 14 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 62 12 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30305 63 17 5.4 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30305 64 15 5.4 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30305 65 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30305 66 16 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 67 24 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30305 68 1 5.4 GRA DEFER

30305 69 5 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30305 70 5 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 71 5 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 72 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

30305 73 5 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30305 76 20 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30306 2 36 5.4 TPP 3A CT 4A POL

30306 40 9 5.4 TPP 4C SWSC 4A Regen Surv

30306 41 11 5.4 TPP 3C POL 3A POL

30306 42 35 5.4 TPP 4B SWSC 4A DF Regen Surv

30306 45 28 5.4 TPP 4C SWSC 4A DF Regen Surv

30306 46 34 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30306 49 13 5.4 GRA PE PE

30306 56 54 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30306 57 14 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30306 59 16 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

30306 61 8 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30306 62 10 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30306 66 23 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30306 67 4 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30306 68 21 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30306 81 2 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

30306 82 2 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30306 96 1 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30307 25 18 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A POL

30307 28 80 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30307 61 2 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30307 62 2 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER 1 RX

30307 63 3 5.4 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30307 69 31 5.4 GRA PE RX PE
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-8 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30308 1 24 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30308 2 67 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30308 3 109 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30308 4 110 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30308 5 38 5.4 TPP 4A POL 4A RX POL

30308 6 39 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

30308 7 13 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30308 8 21 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30308 9 3 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30308 10 22 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A RX POL

30308 11 41 5.4 TPP 4A POL 4A POL

30308 12 80 5.4 TPP 4B VDT 4A RX POL

30308 13 5 5.4 TPP 3A OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30308 14 16 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30308 15 33 5.4 TPP 3A CT 4A POL

30308 16 18 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A RX POL

30308 28 104 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A RX POL

30308 29 30 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30308 31 14 5.4 TPP 3C SANI 3C RX POL

30308 32 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 RX HR

30308 33 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 RX HR

30308 34 3 5.4 TAA 3C HR 3C RX HR

30308 35 21 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 RX HR

30308 36 8 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 RX HR

30308 42 10 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL

30308 44 17 5.4 TPP 3B OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30308 45 83 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A RX POL

30308 50 4 5.4 TPP 3A OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30309 1 50 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB/DF POL

30309 2 53 5.4 TPP 3A SANI 3A RX POL

30309 3 17 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A RX POL

30309 4 17 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30309 5 6 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 RX Regen Surv

30309 6 69 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 7 12 5.4 TPP 4A POL 4A RX POL

30309 8 14 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30309 9 11 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30309 10 10 5.4 TPP 3B SANI 3B POL

30309 11 40 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-9 

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30309 12 13 5.4 TPP 3A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 13 13 5.4 TPP 3A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 14 73 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A RX/DF POL

30309 15 12 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A RX POL

30309 16 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 17 163 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30309 18 6 5.4 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30309 19 4 5.4 TAA 4C HR 4C HR

30309 20 3 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30309 21 9 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 22 14 5.4 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30309 23 7 5.4 TAA 3A HR 3A RX HR

30309 45 14 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30309 46 3 5.4 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30309 47 9 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 RX HR

30309 48 10 5.4 TAA 3A HR 3A RX HR

30309 49 6 5.4 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30309 55 2 5.4 TPP 3A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 61 1 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30309 62 32 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30309 63 6 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30309 64 4 5.4 TPP 3A POL 3A POL

30309 65 3 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30309 66 1 5.4 NFL DEFER RX

30309 67 3 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL

30309 68 11 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A RX POL

30401 1 28 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30401 2 14 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30401 3 41 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30401 4 20 4.1 TPP 3A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30401 5 24 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30401 6 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 7 15 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 8 38 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30401 9 42 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30401 10 38 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 11 12 4.1 TWS 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 12 6 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 13 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-10

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30401 14 41 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30401 15 3 4.1 TPP 3B SANI 3B DF POL

30401 16 46 4.1 TPP 3C SANI 3C DF POL

30401 17 14 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 19 21 4.1 TPP 3B OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30401 22 8 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 23 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30401 25 7 4.1 TWS 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30401 26 31 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 27 31 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 28 46 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30401 29 11 4.1 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30401 30 3 4.1 TWS 4B SANI 4B POL

30401 31 28 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30401 36 11 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30401 37 4 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30401 45 9 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30402 5 8 4.1 GRA PE PE

30402 6 14 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30402 7 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30402 8 59 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A DF POL

30402 9 19 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30402 10 21 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30402 11 37 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30402 12 9 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30402 13 8 4.1 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30402 14 1 4.1 NFL DEFER

30402 15 7 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30402 16 2 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30403 1 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30403 2 18 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30403 3 6 4.1 GRA PE PE

30403 4 112 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A RX POL

30403 5 14 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A RX POL

30403 6 6 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30403 7 71 4.1 GRA PE RX PE

30403 8 18 4.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A RX POL

30403 9 20 4.1 GRA PE RX PE

30403 10 1 4.1 TAA 1 HR 1 HR
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-11

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30403 11 9 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30403 12 3 4.1 GRA PE PE

30403 13 13 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30403 14 25 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30403 15 1 4.1 GRA PE PE

30403 16 2 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30403 17 1 4.1 GRA PE PE

30403 18 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30403 19 12 4.1 GRA PE PE

30403 20 7 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30403 21 2 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A RX POL

30403 22 3 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30403 23 1 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A RX POL

30404 1 8 4.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

30404 2 16 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 3 40 4.1 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30404 4 19 4.1 TPP 2 SANI 2 DF POL

30404 5 3 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 6 8 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30404 7 3 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C DF POL

30404 8 33 4.1 TPP 4C FS 4B DF POL

30404 9 5 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30404 10 6 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30404 11 31 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30404 12 16 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30404 13 21 4.1 NFL DEFER

30404 14 9 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30404 15 17 4.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30404 16 4 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30404 17 19 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30404 18 5 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30404 19 13 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C DF POL

30404 20 12 4.1 TPP 3A CT 4A DF POL

30404 21 19 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30404 22 21 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30404 23 1 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30404 24 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30404 25 24 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30404 26 5 4.1 TAA 3A HR 3A HR
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-12

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30404 27 7 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30404 28 3 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A DF POL

30404 29 8 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30404 30 4 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30404 31 2 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30404 32 2 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30404 33 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30404 34 3 4.1 GRA PE PE

30404 35 2 4.1 GRA PE PE

30404 36 6 4.1 TPP 3C CT50 4A POL

30404 37 4 4.1 GRA PE PE

30404 38 10 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30404 39 2 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30404 40 26 4.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

30404 41 8 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30404 42 5 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30404 43 13 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30404 44 2 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30404 51 2 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30404 52 27 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30405 1 40 4.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30405 2 16 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30405 3 71 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30405 4 22 4.1 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

30405 5 156 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30405 6 108 4.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

30405 7 17 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 8 9 4.1 TPP 4B SWSC 4A Regen Surv

30405 9 57 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30405 10 49 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 11 25 4.1 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30405 12 11 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 14 38 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30405 15 3 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 17 26 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30405 18 15 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 19 21 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30405 28 4 4.1 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30405 29 3 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-13

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30405 30 1 4.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

30405 31 1 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30405 32 14 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 41 44 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30405 42 66 4.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A DF POL

30405 43 43 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30405 44 8 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 RX

30406 1 59 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30406 2 10 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30406 3 36 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30406 4 9 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 5 30 4.1 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30406 7 4 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30406 8 97 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30406 9 58 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30406 10 10 4.1 TPP 3C CT50 4A POL

30406 11 22 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30406 13 50 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30406 14 21 4.1 TPP 4B OR 2 Regen Surv

30406 16 8 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 17 15 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30406 18 13 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30406 19 16 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30406 20 37 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30406 21 23 4.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C DF POL

30406 22 17 4.1 TAA 4B HR 4B HR

30406 27 5 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 28 10 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 29 6 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 30 3 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30406 31 7 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30406 32 2 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30406 33 1 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30406 48 3 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A DF POL

30406 49 22 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30406 50 8 4.1 GRA PE PE

30406 57 10 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30406 58 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30406 59 46 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-14

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30406 60 25 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30406 62 3 4.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30406 63 145 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30406 64 16 4.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30407 1 56 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30407 2 33 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30407 3 79 4.1 TPP 4A VDT 4A DF POL

30407 4 9 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30407 5 44 4.1 TPP 3A SANI 3A DF POL

30407 6 32 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30407 8 17 4.1 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

30407 9 129 4.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30407 10 20 4.1 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

30407 12 26 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30407 16 142 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A DF POL

30407 19 6 4.1 TWS 4A SANI 4A POL

30407 20 15 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30407 21 18 4.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A DF POL

30407 22 2 4.1 TAA 3C HR 3C HR

30407 24 40 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30407 25 88 4.1 TPP 3A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30407 26 38 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30407 27 47 4.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30407 28 19 4.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30407 29 22 4.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30407 32 26 4.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A DF POL

30407 33 36 4.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30407 35 13 4.1 GRA PE PE

30407 43 7 4.1 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30407 45 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30407 46 27 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A DF POL

30407 47 3 4.1 TPP 4A CT 4A DF POL

30407 49 17 4.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30407 50 3 4.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30407 51 6 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30407 52 42 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30407 53 4 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30407 54 16 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30407 55 12 4.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-15

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30407 57 12 4.1 TPP 4A POL 4A POL

30501 3 121 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30501 4 32 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30501 5 8 5.1 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30501 6 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30501 7 24 5.1 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30501 8 21 5.1 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30501 9 23 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30501 11 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30501 12 18 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30501 16 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30501 17 19 5.1 TPP 4B POL 4A POL

30501 18 57 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30501 19 26 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30501 20 17 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30501 21 12 5.1 NFL SANI POL

30501 22 78 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30501 23 10 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30501 24 42 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30501 25 21 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30501 26 32 5.1 TPP 3C POL 3A DF POL

30501 31 23 5.1 GRA PE PE

30501 35 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30501 36 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30501 37 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30501 38 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30501 39 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30501 46 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30501 47 45 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30501 48 14 5.1 TPP 4B HC 3A HR

30501 50 36 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30501 51 4 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30501 52 38 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30502 1 71 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30502 2 17 5.1 TPP 3C POL 3A DF POL

30502 3 68 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A RX POL

30502 4 56 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A RX POL

30502 5 36 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A RX POL

30502 8 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-16

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30502 11 42 5.1 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

30502 13 18 5.1 GRA PE RX PE

30502 14 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30502 15 12 5.1 GRA PE RX PE

30502 17 15 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30502 18 23 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30502 19 14 5.1 TWS 4C SANI 4C POL

30502 21 65 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30502 24 12 5.1 TPP 4C HC 3A HR

30502 25 8 5.1 TPP 4B HC 3A HR

30502 26 2 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30502 27 8 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL

30502 29 10 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL

30502 30 36 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX/DF POL

30502 34 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30502 35 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30502 36 3 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 RX

30502 37 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30502 38 2 5.1 GRA DEFER

30502 39 2 5.1 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

30502 40 3 5.1 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30502 41 2 5.1 GRA PE RX PE

30502 43 37 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX/DF POL

30502 44 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A RX POL

30502 45 1 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30502 46 18 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30502 53 30 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30502 56 73 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30502 58 7 5.1 GRA PE PE

30502 59 17 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30502 60 79 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30502 62 33 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30502 63 1 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 POL

30503 2 22 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30503 3 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30503 4 42 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30503 5 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A PE

30503 6 8 5.1 GRA PE POL

30503 7 20 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-17

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30503 8 16 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30503 9 25 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30503 10 21 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30503 11 36 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30503 12 73 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30503 13 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30503 15 45 5.1 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30503 16 13 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A HR

30503 17 23 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30503 18 1 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30503 19 3 5.1 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30503 20 2 5.1 TAA 1 HR 1 PE

30503 21 2 5.1 GRA PE HR

30503 22 2 5.1 TAA 1 HR 1 POL

30503 24 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30503 25 31 5.1 TPP 3B SANI 3B POL

30503 26 23 5.1 TPP 3B VDT 4A DF POL

30503 27 18 5.1 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

30503 28 3 5.1 TPP 4B HC 3A HR

30503 29 16 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 DF HR

30503 30 6 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 DF HR

30503 31 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30503 32 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30503 33 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30503 44 31 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30505 5 4 5.1 GRA PE RX PE

30505 15 15 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30505 19 34 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A RX POL

30505 20 9 5.1 GRA PE PE

30505 25 197 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30505 26 27 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30505 27 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30505 30 24 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30505 32 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30505 35 33 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30505 36 67 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A RX POL

30505 37 32 5.1 GRA PE RX PE

30505 40 8 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A RX POL

30505 43 12 5.1 TPP 4B HC 3A RX HR
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-18

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30505 44 100 5.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A RX POL

30506 2 160 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30506 3 15 5.1 GRA PE PE

30506 4 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30506 7 27 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30506 12 45 5.1 TPP 3C SANI 3C POL

30506 13 10 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30506 14 23 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30506 15 38 5.1 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30506 18 20 5.1 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30506 20 19 5.1 TPP 5 SANI 5 POL

30506 33 28 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A DF POL

30506 34 36 5.1 GRA PE PE

30506 35 27 5.1 TPP 4A OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30506 36 92 5.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30506 37 30 5.1 GRA PE PE

30506 38 4 5.1 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30506 39 7 5.1 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30506 40 4 5.1 TAA 4A HR 4A HR

30506 41 8 5.1 GRA PE PE

30506 42 2 5.1 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

30506 46 16 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30506 59 71 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30506 60 24 5.1 TPP 3C HC 3A DF HR

30506 61 16 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30506 63 56 5.1 TPP 4C VDT 4A DF POL

30506 65 31 5.1 GRA PE PE

30506 67 27 5.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

30506 69 25 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30506 70 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30507 1 95 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30507 2 59 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30507 4 38 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30507 5 60 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30507 7 64 5.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A DF POL

30507 8 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30507 9 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30507 10 30 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30507 11 102 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A DF POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-19

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30507 12 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A DF POL

30507 13 116 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30507 15 6 5.1 GRA PE PE

30507 16 33 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30507 19 90 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30507 20 10 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30507 21 3 5.1 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30507 22 9 5.1 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

30507 23 1 5.1 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

30507 25 4 5.1 TAA 3A HR 3A DF HR

30507 27 11 5.1 GRA PE PE

30507 28 7 5.1 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

30507 29 3 5.1 TPP 1 DEFER 1 

30507 31 9 5.1 TPP 3C SANI 3C DF POL

30507 32 8 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30507 33 11 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30507 34 21 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30507 41 22 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30507 42 9 5.1 GRA PE PE

30507 44 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30507 45 29 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30507 46 2 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30508 1 28 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30508 2 12 5.1 GRA PE PE

30508 4 15 5.1 TPP 4B OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30508 5 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30508 8 25 5.1 TPP 4C VDT 4A DF POL

30508 9 18 5.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30508 10 18 5.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30508 11 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30508 12 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30508 13 11 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30508 14 16 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30508 17 8 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A DF POL

30508 18 59 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30508 19 3 5.1 TAA 4B HR 4B HR

30508 20 4 5.1 TAA 3B HR 3B DF HR

30508 24 95 5.1 TPP 4C FS 4B DF POL

30508 25 21 5.1 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-20

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30508 26 3 5.1 TPP 4B OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30508 28 3 5.1 TPP 4B OR 2 DF Regen Surv

30508 29 7 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30508 30 5 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30508 31 5 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30508 43 4 5.1 GRA PE PE

30508 45 11 5.1 TPP 4B HC 3A DF HR

30508 46 90 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30508 47 4 5.1 GRA PE PE

30508 48 97 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A DF POL

30508 49 4 5.1 GRA PE PE

30606 28 1 5.1 GRA DEFER

30903 1 52 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30903 2 19 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30903 3 20 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 4 16 5.1 TPP 4A FS 4B POL

30903 5 36 5.1 TPP 4A POL 4A POL

30903 6 71 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A RX POL

30903 7 5 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30903 8 23 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 9 29 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30903 10 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 11 17 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 12 38 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 13 38 5.1 GRA PE PE

30903 14 21 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 15 52 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 16 12 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 17 23 5.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

30903 18 10 5.1 TPP 4A POL 4A RX POL

30903 19 54 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 20 15 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30903 21 12 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30903 22 13 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30903 23 14 5.1 TPP 3B FS 4B POL

30903 24 33 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30903 25 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 26 37 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 27 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-21

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30903 28 13 5.1 TPP 3A SANI 3A DF POL

30903 29 5 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30903 30 6 5.1 TPP 3A HC 3A HR

30903 31 14 5.1 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30903 32 6 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 33 3 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 34 6 5.1 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

30903 35 17 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 36 1 5.1 TAA 1 HR 1 HR

30903 37 8 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 38 22 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

30903 39 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30903 40 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 41 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30903 42 7 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30903 43 4 5.1 TPP 1 CT 4A POL

30903 44 6 5.1 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30903 45 3 5.1 TPP 3A OR 2 Regen Surv

30903 46 3 5.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30903 47 14 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30903 48 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 49 14 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 50 1 5.1 TPP 4A HC 3A HR

30903 51 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 52 3 5.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

30903 53 13 5.1 GRA PE PE

30903 54 44 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 55 9 5.1 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30903 56 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30903 57 6 5.1 GRA PE PE

30903 58 4 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30903 59 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 60 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30903 61 12 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30903 63 3 5.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30903 64 2 5.1 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

30903 65 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30903 66 1 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30904 1 48 5.1 GRA PE PE
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-22

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30904 2 29 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30904 3 4 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 4 12 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30904 5 10 5.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30904 6 35 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 7 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30904 8 71 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30904 9 14 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30904 10 20 5.1 TPP 3C CT50 4A DF POL

30904 11 16 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30904 12 27 5.1 TPP 4C FS 4B POL

30904 13 6 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30904 14 16 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30904 15 10 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30904 16 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 17 1 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30904 18 2 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30904 19 10 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30904 20 2 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30904 21 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 22 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30904 23 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 24 58 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30904 25 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30904 26 1 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30904 27 8 5.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30904 28 2 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30904 29 11 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30904 30 4 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30904 31 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30904 32 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30905 10 39 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30906 1 42 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 2 42 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 3 26 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30906 4 30 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30906 5 43 5.1 TPP 4B VDT 4A POL

30906 6 51 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30906 7 4 5.1 GRA PE PE
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-23

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30906 8 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30906 9 102 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30906 10 12 5.1 TPP 4A POL 4A POL

30906 11 21 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30906 12 69 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 13 41 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 14 22 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 15 13 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 16 6 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30906 17 2 5.1 TPP 4A VDT 4A POL

30906 18 23 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30906 19 2 5.1 NFL DEFER

30906 20 5 5.1 TAA 4B HR 4B HR

30906 21 5 5.1 NFL DEFER

30906 22 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30906 23 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

30906 24 3 5.1 TPP 1 GSH 4A POL

30906 25 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30906 26 18 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 27 19 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30906 28 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30906 29 18 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30906 30 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30906 31 4 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30906 32 1 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30906 33 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 34 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30906 44 15 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30906 45 9 5.1 TPP 2 PCT 3A PCT

30907 1 1 5.1 NFL DEFER

30907 2 27 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30907 3 35 5.1 TPP 4A FS 4B POL

30907 4 26 5.1 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

30907 5 12 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30907 6 63 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30907 7 20 5.1 TPP 3A CT50 4A POL

30907 8 71 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30907 9 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A DF POL

30907 10 7 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-24

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30907 11 1 5.1 NFL SANI POL

30907 12 4 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30907 13 5 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30907 14 2 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

30907 15 2 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30907 16 3 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30907 17 12 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30907 18 9 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30907 19 1 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30907 20 2 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30907 21 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30907 22 5 5.1 TPP 3A POL 3A POL

30907 23 5 5.1 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

30907 24 6 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30907 25 8 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30907 26 16 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

30907 27 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

30907 28 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

30907 29 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30907 30 20 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30907 31 13 5.1 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

30907 32 3 5.1 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL

30907 33 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30907 34 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30907 35 8 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30907 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30907 37 7 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30908 10 64 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30908 16 37 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

30908 39 22 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A DF POL

30909 2 93 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30909 3 25 5.1 TPP 3B DEFER 3B FB

30909 4 8 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30909 5 96 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

30909 6 59 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B DF POL

30909 7 12 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30909 8 48 5.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A POL

30909 9 36 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30909 10 319 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-25

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30909 11 23 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30909 12 37 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30909 13 13 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30909 14 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30909 15 14 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30909 16 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 19 8 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 22 27 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30909 23 28 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30909 24 6 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 27 20 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 28 10 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 29 9 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30909 31 9 5.1 GRA PE PE

30909 35 3 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30909 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30909 37 67 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30909 39 4 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30912 12 47 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30912 13 1 5.1 GRA DEFER

30913 2 7 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30913 3 22 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30913 4 95 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30913 5 2 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30913 6 51 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30913 8 42 5.1 TPP 3A PCT 3A PCT

30913 9 66 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

30913 12 6 5.1 GRA PE PE

30913 13 20 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

30913 15 20 5.1 GRA PE PE

30913 16 9 5.1 TPP 4B DEFER 4B FB

30913 17 3 5.1 TPP 3A PCT 3A PCT

30913 18 13 5.1 GRA PE PE

30913 21 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30913 22 2 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30914 1 47 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

30914 2 12 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30914 3 50 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30914 4 27 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-26

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

30914 5 4 5.1 NFL DEFER

30914 6 30 5.1 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

30914 7 40 5.1 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

30914 8 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 9 74 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30914 10 11 5.1 TPP 3C GSH 4A DF POL

30914 11 36 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

30914 13 24 5.1 TPP 4B DEFER 4B FB

30914 14 27 5.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A DF POL

30914 15 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30914 16 41 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30914 17 7 5.1 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

30914 18 8 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30914 19 5 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 20 5 5.1 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

30914 23 14 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30914 24 13 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 25 8 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30914 26 4 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 27 3 5.1 TPP 2 GSH 4A POL

30914 28 15 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30914 29 4 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

30914 30 5 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30914 31 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 32 1 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 33 17 5.1 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

30914 34 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30914 35 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30914 36 3 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

30914 37 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

30914 38 2 5.1 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

30914 39 8 5.1 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31201 3 9 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31201 9 6 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31203 26 49 5.1 TPP 4A FS 4B POL

31205 36 6 5.1 GRA PE PE

31205 50 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

31206 1 89 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31206 2 18 5.1 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-27

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31206 3 5 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

31206 4 7 5.1 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

31206 5 46 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31207 1 32 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31207 3 68 5.1 TPP 4A FS 4B POL

31207 4 10 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31207 6 24 5.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

31207 7 14 5.1 TPP 3A GSH 4A POL

31207 9 18 5.1 TPP 4A CT50 4A POL

31207 10 2 5.1 GRA PE PE

31207 11 27 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31207 12 3 5.1 GRA PE PE

31207 13 28 5.1 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

31207 18 6 5.1 GRA DEFER

31208 1 74 5.1 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

31208 2 17 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31208 7 16 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31208 13 4 5.1 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31301 1 22 5.4 TPP 4A CT 4A POL

31301 2 42 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 3 45 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 4 15 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31301 5 158 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

31301 6 43 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 7 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

31301 8 34 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31301 9 46 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31301 10 24 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 11 39 5.4 TPP 3B SANI 3B POL

31301 12 29 5.4 TPP 4A SWSC 4A Regen Surv

31301 13 21 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 14 21 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31301 15 28 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 16 67 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31301 17 12 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 18 52 5.4 TPP 3C POL 3A POL

31301 19 21 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31301 20 11 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 21 9 5.4 TPP 1 SANI 1 POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-28

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31301 23 2 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

31301 24 4 5.4 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

31301 25 1 5.4 TPP 4B HC 3A HR

31301 26 8 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

31301 27 16 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 28 10 5.4 TPP 3A SANI 3A POL

31301 31 12 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

31301 32 11 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

31301 33 6 5.4 GRA PE PE

31301 34 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 35 29 5.4 TPP 4A POL 4A POL

31301 36 15 5.4 GRA PE PE

31301 37 6 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

31301 38 1 5.4 NFL DEFER

31301 41 3 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31301 43 13 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

31301 44 8 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31301 52 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31301 53 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31302 3 5 5.4 TPP 2 HC 3A HR

31302 4 10 5.4 TPP 3A HC 3A HR

31302 7 10 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31302 8 91 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31302 9 60 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A DF POL

31302 10 26 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31302 11 25 5.4 TPP 4C SANI 4C POL

31302 12 22 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A DF POL

31302 13 29 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31302 15 57 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31302 16 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31302 19 19 5.4 TPP 4B HC 3A DF HR

31302 21 6 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31302 22 21 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31302 34 19 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 1 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 2 37 5.4 TPP 3B OR 2 Regen Surv

31303 3 52 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 4 3 5.4 GRA PE PE

31303 5 42 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-29

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31303 6 56 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 7 51 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

31303 9 44 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A FB POL

31303 10 50 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 11 58 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 12 34 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 13 36 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

31303 14 44 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 15 72 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 16 8 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31303 17 45 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

31303 21 3 5.4 GRA DEFER

31303 22 20 5.4 GRA PE PE

31303 24 20 5.4 TPP 4A OR 2 Regen Surv

31303 25 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31303 26 4 5.4 GRA PE PE

31303 29 6 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 30 12 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A DF POL

31303 31 3 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A DF POL

31303 34 88 5.4 GRA PE PE

31303 36 108 5.4 GRA PE PE

31303 47 14 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31303 54 57 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31303 55 47 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

31303 56 19 5.4 TPP 3B GSH 4A POL

31303 57 62 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

31304 1 36 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31304 2 48 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 3 3 5.4 NFL SANI POL

31304 4 62 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31304 5 40 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 6 45 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 7 34 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31304 8 67 5.4 TPP 3C CT50 4A POL

31304 9 42 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31304 10 50 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

31304 11 1 5.4 TPP 2 DEFER 2 

31304 12 16 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

31304 13 23 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-30

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31304 14 29 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31304 15 7 5.4 GRA PE PE

31304 16 10 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 17 22 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A DF POL

31304 18 15 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31304 19 14 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31304 20 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

31304 21 10 5.4 GRA PE PE

31304 22 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 23 14 5.4 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

31304 24 15 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

31304 25 2 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31304 26 14 5.4 TPP 4C GSH 4A POL

31304 27 6 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 28 13 5.4 TPP 4B GSH 4A POL

31304 29 2 5.4 GRA PE PE

31304 30 8 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31304 31 6 5.4 TPP 4A GSH 4A POL

31305 1 33 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31305 2 28 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31305 3 81 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A RX POL

31305 4 46 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL

31305 5 17 5.4 TPP 4B POL 4A POL

31305 6 42 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 4A RX POL

31305 7 95 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A RX POL

31305 8 10 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31305 9 6 5.4 GRA PE PE

31305 10 44 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31305 11 17 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 12 15 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 13 35 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A RX POL

31305 14 12 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 15 1 5.4 GRA PE PE

31305 16 3 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 17 15 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 19 7 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31305 20 8 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

31306 1 3 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

31306 2 27 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-31

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31306 3 43 5.4 TPP 4B FS 4B POL

31306 4 25 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31306 5 31 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31306 6 4 5.4 GRA PE PE

31306 7 1 5.4 GRA PE PE

31306 8 4 5.4 TAA 3B HR 3B HR

31306 9 48 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31306 10 38 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31306 11 78 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB/DF POL

31306 12 18 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 13 59 5.4 TPP 3B CT50 4A POL

31306 14 63 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

31306 16 3 5.4 GRA PE PE

31306 17 49 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31306 18 23 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 20 30 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 22 34 5.4 GRA PE PE

31306 23 1 5.4 TAA 2 HR 2 HR

31306 24 55 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 25 19 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 26 3 5.4 TPP 1 CT 4A POL

31306 28 22 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 29 30 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31306 30 13 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31306 31 2 5.4 TAA 3A HR 3A HR

31306 32 10 5.4 TPP 3B CT 4A POL

31306 37 19 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31306 39 14 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31307 1 42 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31307 2 26 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31307 3 42 5.4 TPP 4C CT50 4A POL

31307 4 47 5.4 TPP 4B CT50 4A POL

31307 6 32 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31307 7 3 5.4 NFL DEFER

31307 8 24 5.4 TPP 4A SANI 4A POL

31307 14 45 5.4 TPP 3B POL 3A POL

31307 15 41 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31307 16 4 5.4 NFL DEFER

31307 18 7 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix D

D-32

Location/Site Acres MA

Cover 

Type

Existing 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Prescription

Alternative 

2 

Structural 

Stage

Alternative 

2 

Fire & 

Fuels

Alternative 

2 

Post Sale 

Activities

31307 19 30 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

31307 20 112 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A POL

31307 26 18 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31307 27 16 5.4 TPP 3C CT 4A POL

31307 29 36 5.4 GRA PE RX PE

31307 32 18 5.4 TPP 4C CT 4A POL

31307 34 36 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B POL

31307 36 125 5.4 TPP 4C VDT 4A POL

31307 40 17 5.4 TPP 4B CT 4A POL

31310 4 93 5.4 TPP 4B SANI 4B FB POL
Appendix E:

FINDINGS: SILVICULTURE
 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E

E-1 

Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and 

Policy

Vestal Project 

The following findings are made based on the environmental analysis and the silvicultural 

prescription: 

Consistency with plans [16 U.S.C. 1604 (i)]: 

1. Timber harvest would occur on lands suited for timber production or would occur in 

areas where timber harvest is permitted and is necessary to help achieve other 

resource management objectives.

All areas to be harvested are suitable and permissible for harvest. 

2. Silvicultural treatments are consistent with the Forest Plan.

See page II-25 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan for 

acceptable Silvicultural Systems.

Timber Harvest [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]: 

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; 

See Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report.

2. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after 

final regeneration harvest.

Regeneration surveys would be accomplished on all shelterwood seed cuts (3rd and 

5th years), overstory removals (1st year), and on all selection cuts (5th year) to assure 

the stands have regenerated properly. There would be no clearcutting in the Vestal 

project area.

3. Streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water are 

protected from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water 

courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely 

affect water conditions or fish habitat.

See Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report.

4. The harvesting system to be used was not selected primarily because it will give the 

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.

Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)]: 

1. For clearcutting, if it is the optimum method. 

Clearcutting would not be used in the Vestal project area.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E

E-2 

2. Clearcuts, coppice cuts, seed tree, and shelterwood regeneration harvests are 

appropriate to meeting the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan.

See page II-25 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan for 

acceptable Silvicultural Systems.

3. An interdisciplinary review was completed and the potential environmental, 

biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts were assessed and the 

cutting methods are consistent with the multiple use of the project area. 

See Vestal Project EIS and specialist reports.

4. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with 

the natural terrain.

5. Even-aged regeneration harvests made in one operation meet the 40-acre maximum 

size limit requirement.

There are no harvests that need to meet this requirement.

6. Harvest will be consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, 

recreation, esthetic resources, cultural and historic resources, and the regeneration of 

timber resources.

Vestal Project Botany BE and specialist report

Vestal Project Wildlife BE and specialist report

Vestal Project Hydrology specialist report

Vestal Project Heritage specialist report

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment [16 U.S.C. 1604 (m)]: 

Stands of trees harvested have generally reached the culmination of mean annual 

increment of growth (CMAI).

Page II-26 of the phase II Amendment of the Black Hills Forest Plan Guideline 

2411. Regeneration harvests of even-aged timber stands should not be undertaken 

until the stands have generally reached (or surpassed 95% of the) culmination of the 

mean annual increment measured in cubic feet.

CMAI occurs when the periodic annual increment equals the mean annual 

increment (MAI). The BHNF considers any stand that has reached 120 years old as 

having reached CMAI. All stands receiving regeneration harvests meet this 

requirement.
Appendix F:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE 

ACTIVITIES

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-1 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities

 

Past Actions

Years Type of Activity Acres Project Name

1960-

present

Livestock Grazing Allotments: Cicero, French Creek, North 

Custer, South Custer, Tenderfoot

1980-1999 Timber Harvest 11,885 Buckhorn, Marble, Custer, Wabash, Ruby 

Creek, Thunderhead, Minnie, Sanator, 

Willow, Laughing, Atlantic, Bismarck, Glen 

Erin Salvage

1982-1999 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement – thin/ weed 

and release

863 Marble, Ruby Creek, Sourdough, 

Thunderhead, Needles 2, Laughing, 

Buckhorn, Limestone, Minnie

1985-1999 Pre-commercial Thinning 5,302 Buckhorn, Marble, Custer, Wabash, Ruby 

Creek, Minnie, Sanator, Willow, Laughing, 

Atlantic, Bismarck

1986-1998 Site prep for Natural 

Regeneration

925 Marble, Ruby Creek, Laughing, Bismarck, 

Buckhorn

1986-1999 Weed Spraying 3,100 Marble, Ruby Creek, Sourdough, 

Thunderhead, Needles 2, Laughing, 

Buckhorn, Limestone, Minnie

1988-1999 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement - Forage

548 Custer, Willow, Bismarck, Laughing, 

Minnie, Elephant, Ruby Creek, Buckhorn, 

Sanator, Herbie, 

1990 Wildfire 14,518 Cicero Peak

1990-2000 Burn and Rehab Piles 600 Willow, Minnie, Bismarck, Laughing, 

Custer, Ruby Creek, Wabash, Herbie 

Salvage, Glen Erin, Garsong

1990-2000 Jackpot Burning 80 Needles 2, Goat, Buckhorn, Ruby Creek

1990-2011 Fuels Reduction – chipping, 

crushing/compacting

214 Bismarck, Minnie

1990-2011 Fuel Break Construction 1,010 Ruby Creek, Minnie, Buckhorn, Laughing, 

Willow, Custer, Sanator, Painter, Silverstar 

1991-1996 Plant Trees 40 Cicero Salvage, Outside Sale

1994-95 Fish Habitat Improvement 8 Sanator

1997-2002 Land Exchanges & 

Acquisitions

Acquired: 

1,274 ac.; 

Conveyed:

1,337 ac.

Busskohl, Kreitz, Linde, Custer Area, 

Knuckles, Pacer 2

1999 Pine Encroachment control 160 Buckhorn

2000-2011 Timber Harvest 5,333 Limestone, Needles 2, Wabash, Silverstar, 

Goat, Little Quincy, Quincy Bug, Tenderfoot 

Bug, Joe Gulch, Atlantic Bug, BX10 

Settlement, Garsong, Painter

2000-2011 Pre-commercial Thinning 960 Limestone, Needles 2, Goat

2000-

Present

Burn and Rehab Piles 350 Needles 2, Buckhorn, Goat, Thunderhead, 

Bismarck, Limestone, Sanator, Painter, 

Elephant

2000-

Present

Jackpot Burning 25 Needles 2, Goat, Buckhorn, 

2000-2011 Wildlife Habitat 170 Bismarck, Buckhorn, Custer, Limestone, 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-2 

Improvement - Forage Needles 2, Goat

2000-2011 Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement – thin/ weed 

and release

282 Needles 2, Limestone

2000-2011 Weed Spraying 1,944 Painter, Limestone, Needles 2, Custer, 

Garsong, Thunderhead, Minnie, Laughing, 

Pringle

2007 Site prep for Natural 

Regeneration

108 Painter

2011 POL Thinning 345 Tenderfoot Bug, Joe Gulch, Atlantic Bug

2011 MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake Campground & Day Use 

Area

Weed Spraying 111 Custer County RAC 

Present Actions

Years Type of Activity Measure Project Name Comments

2011-2013 Timber Harvest 1,181 ac Wabash Resale

2011-2012 POL Thinning 102 ac Quincy Bug

2011-2014 POL Thinning 1,111 ac Goat

2011-2014 Precommercial Thinning 256 ac Goat

2011-2015 MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake 

Campground & Day 

Use Area, Bob 

Marshall Camp

2011-

ongoing

Cut and Chunk-cutting and 

chunking of MPB infested 

trees, forest-wide.

Cut and Chunk

On-going Maintaining Issued Easements 48 

easements

On-going Special Use Permits Multiple projects

On-going Land Exchange Cattail Land 

Exchange, Deer 

Valley Administrative 

Site Sale, Tenderfoot 

Creek Acquisition,

Federal parcels 

identified for 

conveyance or 

acquisition. 

On-going Encroachments Trespass & 

encroachment, 

dumping 

garbage/storage of 

personal items

Livestock Grazing Permits Allotments: Cicero, 

French Creek, North 

Custer, South Custer, 

Tenderfoot

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Years Type of Activity Measure Project Name

2012 Forest-wide level planning project in 

response to the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. This project does not 

propose any activities within the Vestal 

project area, however there are 

Forest-wide Mountain Pine Beetle Response 

Project
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix F

F-3 

potential activities in areas adjacent to 

the Vestal project area. A decision and 

implementation are expected in fall of 

2012.

Burn and Rehab Piles 50 Tenderfoot Bug, North Wabash

Jackpot Burning 272 acres Goat

Cut and Chunk – forest-wide cut and 

chunk of MPB infested trees in urgent 

areas, such as adjacent to private 

property.

Forest-wide Cut and Chunk

2016 Broadcast Burn 32 acres Goat

2013, 2014 Wildlife Habitat Improvement 166 acres Goat

Weed Spraying 508 acres Goat

Range Improvement -implementation 

(dugouts, fencing, etc.)

French Creek Range 2010 EA 

(HC Range EA)

Thinning within a 1 mile buffer around 

Custer City

Mountain Pine Beetle Project 

(Custer County Commissioners)

MPB Prevention Spraying Bismarck Lake Campground & 

Day Use

MPB Prevention Spraying Camp Bob Marshall

Lake Enhancement Bismarck Lake Dredging

Road Maintenance – Implementation of 

Travel Management 

Black Hills Travel Management 

Plan

Land Exchange & Acquisitions Cattail Land Exchange, Deer 

Valley Administrative Site Sale, 

Tenderfoot Creek Acquisition,

Access Issues/Road System 

Management

As private land owners 

subdivide or develop property, 

access issues would occur.

Special Use Permits As private land owners develop 

property an increase in special 

use requests and applications for 

various uses would be expected. 

Small Tracts Act May be opportunities to pursue 

conveying land.

Utility Lines With new subdivisions 

emerging, new requests for 

electric, fiber optic, telephone 

lines that cross NFS land would 

be expected.

Encroachments Trespass & encroachment, 

dumping garbage/storage of 

personal items would continue 

to be expected. 

Mining 1 Mine Straight 8 Placer Mine

The State of South Dakota has an ongoing program to assist private landowners with 

identification of mountain pine beetle infested trees and initiation of other preventative 

treatments. It is expected that a significant number of acres of private land will be 

involved with this program in the next several years. More information on this program 

may be found here: http://www.sdda.sd.gov/Forestry/. 

Appendix G:

SUMMARY: BIOLOGICAL 

ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL 

EVALUATION

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G 

 G-1 

Summary of Botany and Wildlife 

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

Introduction

This is a summary of the Vestal project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluations 

(BA/BE’s), and is a review and analysis of actions proposed in the Vestal Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. The full BA/BE’s are in the Vestal project file. The 

purpose of a BA/BE is to determine how the proposed action and alternatives to the 

proposed action will affect federally listed species or sensitive species listed by the 

Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670, R2 Supplement No. 2600-2011-1, 2672.11 – 

Exhibit 01, effective June 10, 2011). The Vestal BA/BE’s were prepared in accordance 

with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follow standards established in Forest Service Manual direction 

(2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §402). The Vestal BA/BE’s tier 

directly to the EIS for the revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended, the BA/BE completed for the Forest Plan 

revision, and the BA/BE prepared for the Phase II Amendment (USDA Forest Service 

2006c).

Pre-field Review and Field Reconnaissance

Botany

Federally Listed Plant Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on September 14, 2010 for the state of South Dakota. There are no 

threatened or endangered plant species habitat known to occur in the State of South 

Dakota, nor does habitat that could support threatened or endangered plant species 

known from adjacent states occur in the project area (USFWS 2010). 

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 

The Region 2 Forest Service sensitive species list was updated by the Regional Forester on June 

10, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011). All R2 sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the 

Black Hills National Forest were considered in the evaluation. Based on the pre-field review, 

Viola selkirkii is the only known Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species that occurs within the 

project area. Suitable habitat is however present in the area for two other species, 

Cypripedium parviflorum and Platanthera orbiculata. A pre-field review was conducted 

of available information to assemble occurrence records, describe habitat needs and 

ecological requirements, and determine whether field reconnaissance is needed to 

complete the analysis. Sources of information included botanical surveys, Forest Service 

records and files, local professional judgment, and published research. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-2

Table G- 1. Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species Occurring within or with Suitable Habitat 

within the Vestal Project Area

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Distribution and Habitat

Species 

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present 

in 

Project 

Area?

Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

yellow 

lady’s 

slipper

Primarily circumboreal in distribution and rangewide is generally 

found in shady deciduous and mixed woodlands near streams, 

shrublands, swamps, bogs, and wet forests. Habitat in the Black 

Hills includes stream banks under both white spruce and 

deciduous overstories, moist cliffs and moist areas/seeps under 

white spruce or mixed conifer forest. Occasionally, it is found on 

upper mesic forest slopes. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 3,500 to 6,500 ft.

No Yes

Platanthera 

orbiculata 

large roundleaf orchid

Endemic to the boreal regions of northern North America, with a 

more southern distribution in the eastern United States. Black 

Hills occurrences are found primarily on shady, north-facing 

slopes in paper birch/hardwood or white spruce forests on moist, 

rich, humus soil. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 

4,300 to 6,200 ft.

No Yes

Viola 

selkirkii 

greatspurred 

violet

Viola selkirkii is a circumboreal herbaceous species, and 

rangewide it is locally abundant in specialized microsites in 

coniferous and deciduous forests. Black Hills occurrences are 

known from BKF lands, Custer State Park and Mt. Rushmore 

National Monument and are restricted to a concentrated area (ca. 

36 square miles) of the central core on igneous or metamorphic 

bedrock. Microhabitats are often moist, cold air drainages, in 

shaded to open areas, and often in the vicinity of granitic rock 

outcrops. White spruce is usually the dominant overstory with a 

variable understory. All currently known occurrences on BKF 

lands are located within the Black Elk Wilderness and/or the 

Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. Black Hills occurrences range in 

elevation from 5,200 to 7,000 ft.

Yes Yes

Wildlife

Federally Listed Wildlife Species

There are no federally listed wildlife species in the Vestal project area. A list of federally 

threatened, endangered and proposed species has been provided by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), South Dakota State Office, and was last verified on 

September 01, 2011 (USFWS 2011a). The South Dakota State Office is the primary 

center for all of the Black Hills, including Wyoming. The USFWS lists the following 

endangered and/or threatened species for Pennington County, South Dakota: whooping 

crane, Sprague’s pipit, and black-footed ferret.

The whooping crane and least tern have been removed from the list of species considered

on the Black Hills National Forest under Section 7 consultation (letter of concurrence 

from D. Gober, Field Supervisor, USFWS, Pierre, South Dakota, dated August 8, 2003). 

It was determined that management activities on the Forest would have ‘no effect’ on 

these species because the Black Hills National Forest lacks suitable habitat. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-3 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the conservation status of Sprague’s Pipit to 

determine whether the species warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

The status review found that listing Sprague’s Pipit as threatened or endangered is 

warranted, but that listing the species at this time is precluded by the need to complete 

other listing actions of a higher priority. To ensure this review was comprehensive, the 

Service solicited information from state and federal natural resource agencies and all 

interested parties regarding the Sprague’s pipit and its habitat. Sprague’s pipits use 

grassland habitat almost exclusively throughout the year. During the breeding season, 

Sprague’s pipits favor relatively large grassland patches. The grassland habitat 

associated with the project area consists of relatively smaller grassland patches mixed 

with areas of ponderosa pine forest. This species would be expected to migrate through 

the project area at most. This species was not observed during field surveys of the 

project area (2008-2011). The Vestal Project on the Black Hills National Forest system 

land would not reduce habitat for this species and therefore would have ‘no effect’ on the 

Sprague’s pipit. 

Although the black-footed ferret is listed for Custer County, it is an experimental 

population located in eastern Pennington County; it is an endangered population, with 

provisions for accidental ‘take’, located in southern Custer County, where they have been 

re-introduced into Wind Cave National Park. Habitat for the black-footed ferret is not 

present in the project area because there are no large-sized prairie dog colonies. The 

Vestal Project would have ‘no effect’ on ferrets because the project area lacks suitable 

habitat.

Table G- 2. Expected Occurrence of Threatened and Endangered Species within the Project 

Area

Species Status1 Species 

Present2

Habitat

Present3

Further 

Analysis 

Provided4

Habitat Description/Analysis 

Rationale

Black footed 

ferret (Mustela 

nigripes)

E NO NO NO

Prairie dog towns (USFWS 

2011b). No reintroduction sites or 

other known suitable habitat in the 

project area.

Sprague’s Pipit 

(Anthus 

spragueii)

C NO NO NO

Large grasslands (USFWS

2011e). No suitable habitat 

present. 1 E= Endangered in Custer County; C= Candidate in Custer County. 2 Confirmed records of species in project area or immediate vicinity.

3 Habitat Present- Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. 4

Further Analysis Provided- If the species is not suspected to occur and if suitable habitat is not present or 

habitat would not be affected by the proposed project then no further effects analysis for that species is 

necessary because they would not be expected to be adversely affected by the project as proposed. Refer to 

the Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale section of Table G-2.

Region 2 Sensitive Wildlife Species

The current sensitive species list for the Rocky Mountain Region (R2) was renewed on 

June 10, 2011. Sensitive species for the Black Hills National Forest are listed on the R2 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species home page (USDA Forest Service 2011). 

There are now 25 species on the Region 2 sensitive species list that could be present in 

the Black Hills.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-4

The pre-field review of Region 2 Sensitive Species was completed using survey results, 

district records, literature reviews, on-line databases, and the South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Database. There are two, one of which was new in 2011, goshawk territories 

that have been monitored within the project area. There are two Frest sites within the 

project area, but no sensitive species have been recorded there. Stream surveys 

conducted by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, document the 

mountain suckers within the analysis area. 

The following table lists Region 2 sensitive species that may be present in the Black 

Hills. Fourteen R2 sensitive species occur or could potentially occur (habitat may be 

present) in the Vestal project area (Table G-3). 

Table G- 3. Expected Occurrence of R2 Sensitive Species within the Vestal Project Area

Species Species 

Present1

Habitat 

Present2

Further 

Analysis 

Provided3

Habitat Description/Analysis 

Rationale

Fringed Myotis

(Myotis thysanodes) YES YES YES

This species forages on insects in a wide 

variety of habitats including grasslands 

and forested areas. Roosting sites also 

vary but include snags, caves, mines, 

and rock crevices (Keinath 2004). 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat (Corynorhinus

townsendii)

YES YES YES

Forages on insects in a variety of 

habitats including forested and wet 

areas. Roosts in a variety of structures 

including caves, mines, and buildings 

(Gruver & Keinath 2006). 

Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus) NO YES YES

This bat roosts primarily among foliage 

in deciduous and coniferous trees, often 

along the edges of clearings. Forages on 

insects, especially moths (Valdez & 

Cryan 2009).

Black-tailed prairie 

dog 

(Cynomys 

ludovicianus)

YES YES YES

Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies

(USFWS 2011c). There is one prairie 

dog town within the project area.

American marten

(Martes americana) NO YES YES

Spruce forests with complex nearground structure, extending into 

Adjacent ponderosa pine stands 

(Buskirk 2002). 

Bighorn Sheep 

(Ovis canadensis 

canadensis)

NO NO NO

Prefers vegetative openness (grasslands, 

rocky areas, large burns and clear-cuts). 

Existing herds in the Black Hills are

mostly located in Custer State Park, in 

the Spring Creek area, and in the Elk 

Mountain range (Beecham et al. 2007). 

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

YES YES YES

In the Black Hills, bald eagles are still 

considered winter residents or spring/fall 

migrants. Usually found near unfrozen 

water or carrion in winter (Tallman et al. 

2002, USFWS 2011d). 

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis) YES YES YES

Forages in a variety of forested areas 

and small openings; nests primarily in 

dense mature conifer forests (Kennedy 

2003). 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-5 

American peregrine 

falcon 

(Falco peregrinus 

anatum) 

NO NO NO

Tall cliffs in open areas near water 

(Johnsgard 1990). Not suspected to 

occur in project vicinity. There are no 

cliffs over 25’ high near open water in 

the project area.

Northern harrier 

(Circus cyaneus) YES NO NO

Prairies, open fields and marshes 

(Tallman et al. 2002). Not suspected to 

occur in project vicinity. Suitable 

habitat for this species is not present on 

federal lands within the project area; 

however, they have been observed in a 

private meadow, but no activities are 

expected to occur there.

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

americanus) 

NO NO NO

Low elevation riparian areas and 

woodlands characterized with 

cottonwood-willow or bur oak (Panjabi 

2003). Suitable habitat for this species 

is not present in the project area.

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) NO NO NO

Dry grasslands and pastures, usually 

associated with prairie dogs or ground 

squirrels (Tallman et al. 2002). Not 

suspected to occur in project vicinity. 

Suitable habitat for this species is not 

present in the project area because only 

a small prairie dog town is within the 

project area.

Flammulated owl

(Otus flammeolus) NO YES YES Open ponderosa pine forests, cavity nester (McCallum 1994). 

Lewis’s woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis) NO NO NO

Open areas with large snags; oak and 

cottonwood forests (Anderson 2003, 

Panjabi 2003). Large acres of suitable 

habitat are not present within the project 

area, but it can be found adjacent to the 

project area in burned areas.

Black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus) 

YES YES YES

Burned areas with a high density of preburn snags; dense and/or mature forests 

with a high snag density (Anderson 

2003, Panjabi 2003). 

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus) NO NO NO

Open country with scattered, low 

deciduous thickets (Tallman et al. 2002). 

Not suspected to occur in project 

vicinity because suitable habitat is not 

present.

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

NO NO NO

Found almost exclusively in native 

mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). 

Suitable habitat for this species is not 

present in the project area.

Long-billed curlew

(Numenius 

americanus) 

NO NO NO

Considered native prairie specialists 

requiring short-grass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with nearly flat 

topography (Sedgwick 2006). Suitable 

habitat for this species is not present in 

the project area.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-6

Northern leopard frog

(Rana pipiens) YES YES YES

Riparian and wetland areas for tadpoles, 

sub adults, and breeding adults; upland 

habitats for foraging adults (Smith and 

Keinath 2007). 

Black Hills redbelly 

snake (Storeria 

occipitomaculata

pahasapae) 

YES YES YES 

Wet meadows, woodlands, and forestmeadow edge habitat in the Black Hills 

(Smith & Stephans 2003). Denning 

habitat could include anthills and rocky 

outcrops areas near these habitats.

Lake chub (Couesius 

plumbeus) NO NO NO

Present only in Deerfield Reservoir 

(Isaak et al. 2003) which is not in the 

Vestal Project Area. 

Finescale dace 

(Phoxinus neogaeus) NO NO NO

Small lakes and cool, boggy 

environments associated with springs or 

beaver dams in the Redwater Drainage 

(Isaak et al. 2003). Species is not 

present in the project area.

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus

platyrhynchus) 

YES YES YES 

Cool, clear, moderately swift mountain 

streams with mud, cobble, or boulder 

substrate (Isaak et al. 2003). Reported 

in French Creek downstream of 

Stockade Lake.

Cooper’s mountain 

snail

(Oreohelix strigosa 

cooperi)

NO YES YES Lowland wooded or riparian areas on 

limestone soils (Frest & Johannes 2002). 

Regal fritillary

butterfly

(Speyeria idalia) 

NO YES YES

Tallgrass prairie and extensive 

grasslands with violets (Royer & 

Marrone 1992). Not suspected to occur 

in project vicinity. 1 Confirmed records of species in project area or immediate vicinity.

2 Habitat Present – Suitable habitat known or suspected to occur. 3 Further Analysis Provided – If the species is not suspected to occur and if suitable habitat is not present or 

habitat would not be affected by the proposed project then no further effects analysis for that species is 

necessary because they would not be expected to be adversely affected by the project as proposed. Refer to 

the Habitat Description/Analysis Rationale section of Table G-3.

Determinations Summary – Flora (Botany) 

The No Action alternative would result in both positive and negative impacts to 

Cypripedium parviflorum, Platanthera orbiculata, and Viola selkirkii. The positive 

impacts would result in no direct disturbances to any known or unknown individuals and 

a decrease in potential from noxious weed infestations from no disturbances. The 

negative impacts could result in an increased risk of a large-scale, high intensity wildfire 

damaging species habitat. The following determination is valid for all three species: 

“May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in 

the Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.”

The action alternative would result in both positive and negative impacts to Cypripedium 

parviflorum, Platanthera orbiculata, and Viola selkirkii. Positive impacts would be a 

decrease in the potential for a high intensity fire and increased water yields. Negative 

impacts may include an increase in noxious weeds and damage to any unknown or known 

individual plants. Any negative impacts to individuals are expected to be short-term, 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

 G-7 

while long-term impacts should be beneficial. The following determination is valid for 

all three species: “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.” 

 Table G- 4. Determination Summary for R2 Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Cypripedium parviflorum

yellow lady’s slipper MAII MAII

Platanthera orbiculata 

large round-leaf orchid MAII MAII

Viola selkirkii

great-spurred violet MAII MAII

NI = No impact

MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Determinations Summary – Fauna (Wildlife)

The determination of effects on federally listed wildlife species and Region 2 Sensitive 

Species in this BA/BE were made as the result of the information gathered in the prefield review, field reconnaissance, and effects analysis for all alternatives. The basis for 

these determinations was potential habitat, distribution, and effects from proposed 

activities, and the Black Hills National Forest Plan, including the Phase II Amendment 

(Standards and Guidelines). The determination language is set forth in Forest Service 

Manual 2670 and by the USFWS. 

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a) evaluated 

population viability, and determined that all federally listed and sensitive species are 

likely to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are 

followed, and if conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. All standards and 

guidelines will be followed in proposed action of the Vestal project. Furthermore, all 

alternatives are consistent with Objective 221, which is to conserve or enhance habitat for 

sensitive species. Mountain pine beetle activity is expected to affect habitat within the 

project area, but the project activities are following standards and guidelines. Therefore, 

persistence of all R2 sensitive species would not be affected by the proposed action of the 

Vestal project.

With implementation of Forest Plan direction and project-specific design criteria, the 

following determinations are made for R2 Sensitive Species (Table G-5): 

Table G- 5. Determination Summary for R2 Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Bald eagle NI NI

Fringed myotis MAII MAII

Townsend’s big-eared bat MAII MAII

Hoary bat MAII MAII
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G

G-8

Species Alternative 1 

Determination

Alternative 2 

Determination

Northern goshawk MAII MAII

Flammulated owl MAII MAII

Black-backed woodpecker MAII MAII

Northern leopard frog MAII MAII

Black Hills redbelly snake NI MAII

Cooper’s mountain snail MAII MAII

Regal fritillary butterfly NI MAII

Mountain Sucker MAII MAII

Black-tailed prairie dog NI MAII

American marten MAII MAII

NI = No impact

MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.
 

Appendix H:

EPIDEMIC DETERMINATION

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H

 H - 1 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H

 

H - 2 
 

Appendix I: 

Response to Comments

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-1 

Appendix I 

Vestal Project

Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS

The Hell Canyon Ranger District received 57 comments on the Vestal project Draft EIS from individuals, groups, tribes, and other agencies. All 

original correspondence is stored within the project file. The following numbered list corresponds to the Comment/Response table below. 

1. Russell Eagle Bear – THPO Officer, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD – hardcopy letter.

2. Diedre Bainbridge – private citizen, Jackson, WY – hardcopy letter.

3. Nancy Hilding – President, Prairie Hills Audubon Society, Black Hawk, SD – comments database (email). 

4. Richard Stumpf – private citizen, Custer, SD – office visit.

5. Dan O’Brien – private citizen, Custer, SD – office visit.

6. Dann Detwiler & Monica Fiveash – private citizens, Custer, SD – comments database (email). 

7. Katherine Montague – private citizen, Rapid City, SD – hardcopy letter. 

8. Robert F. Stewart –Regional Environmental Officer, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Denver, CO – comments database (email). 

9. Matt Lewison – private citizen, Custer, SD – office visit.

10. Timothy J. Tennyson – private citizen, Jackson, WY – hardcopy letter. 

11. Josh Van Vlack – Forester, Neiman Timber Co., Hill City, SD – comments database (email).

12. Mike Carter – Director of Emergency Services, Custer County, Custer, SD – comments database (email).

13. Gary Lipp – Mayor, City of Custer, Custer, SD – hardcopy letter.

14. Carson Engelskirger – Forest Programs Manager, Black Hills Forest Resource Association, Rapid City, SD – comments database (email).

15. June Johnston – private citizen, Custer, SD – comments database (email). 

16. Sylvia Lambert – private citizen, Interior, SD – comments database (email).

17. Mary Joy Breton & Denise Breton – private citizen, Saint Paul, MN – comments database (email).

18. Elizabeth Dimond – private citizen – comments database (email).

19. Ann Yellott – private citizen – comments database (email).

20. Nancy Reid – private citizen – comments database (email).

21. Jon Block – private citizen, Santa Fe, NM – comments database (email). 

22. Mary Robbins – private citizen, Seward, NE – comments database (email). 

23. Deborah Hochhalter – private citizen, Red Feather Lakes, CO – comments database (email).

24. Brigitte de Perrot – private citizen, Manheim, PA – comments database (email).
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-2 

25. Mary Rose Kaczorowski & Jane Mary Lang – ECOTERRA Intl. – comments database (email).

26. Lon Ball – President, Klickitat Organics, LLC, Trout Lake, WA – comments database (email).

27. Wendy Roth – private citizen, Black Hawk, SD – comments database (email).

28. Waziyatawin – private citizen – comments database (email).

29. Joanna Hamlin – private citizen – comments database (email). 

30. Nate Meyer – private citizen, Minneapolis, MN – comments database (email). 

31. Sam Hellberg – private citizen – comments database (email).

32. LaDonna No Neck – private citizen – comments database (email).

33. Alexandra Myhal – private citizen – comments database (email).

34. Chad Hanson – John Muir Project, Cedar Ridge, CA – comments database (email). 

35. Brian Brademeyer – Executive Director, Friends of the Norbeck, Rapid City, SD – comments database (email).

36. Harrison No Neck, Jr. – private citizen – comments database (email).

37. Jim Sween – private citizen – comments database (email).

38. Colin J. Paterson – President, Norbeck Society, Rapid City, SD – comments database (email).

39. Dick Artley – private citizen, Grangeville, ID – comments database (email).

40. Walt Bones – Secretary of Agriculture, South Dakota Dept. of Agriculture, Pierre, SD – comments database (email).

41. Max Wilbert – private citizen – comments database (email).

42. Margie Nogueras – private citizen, Jayuya, PR – comments database (email).

43. William A. Read – private citizen, Moose, WY – comments database (email).

44. Mary Zimmerman – private citizen, Deadwood, SD – comments database (email).

45. Kay Shade – private citizen, Bent, NM – comments database (email).

46. Christine Manarpaac – private citizen – comments database (email).

47. Gary Brundige – Resource Program Manager, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks - Custer State Park, Custer, SD – comments database 

(email).

48. Talli Nauman – private citizen – comments database (email).

49. Laura Marciniak – private citizen – comments database (email).

50. Fred C. Heidepriem – private citizen, Gillette, WY – comments database (email).

51. Duane Short – Wild Species Program Director, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Laramie, WY 

52. Nancy Hilding – President, Prairie Hills Audubon Society/private citizen, Black Hawk, SD – comments database (email).

53. Nancy Hilding – President, Prairie Hills Audubon Society/private citizen, Black Hawk, SD – comments database (email).
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-3 

54. Suzanne J. Bohan – Director, NEPA Compliance and Review Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Denver, CO – 

hardcopy letter. 

55. Jerad Tennyson – private citizen, Custer, SD – hardcopy letter.

NOTE: Two comments were received outside of the comment period. These comments are in the project file. 

 

Nancy Hilding – President, Prairie Hills Audubon Society/private citizen, Black Hawk, SD – comments database (email). 

Zane Edwards – private citizen – comments database (email). 

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

1 Russell Eagle 

Bear

Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe 

THPO

We are responding to your letter dated December 21,2011 in 

reference to the DEIS for the Vestal Project which you are 

proposing to implement multiple resource management actions,

including commercial and non-commercial vegetation 

treatments and prescribed burning.

As the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe I appreciate your notification of the undertaking and 

the awareness you are demonstrating for the archaeological sites 

and cultural heritage of Indigenous peoples.

At this time we have no concerns for the project to proceed as 

planned. If any historical and or archeological remains are 

discovered during the proposed project, all ground disturbance

activities will cease and the Forest Service and this office will 

be contacted.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter.

The project includes design criteria which outline 

required actions to be taken at known cultural resource 

sites to prevent adverse effects. Project design criteria 

also outlines required actions if any historical or 

archeological features or items are discovered during the 

course of project implementation. These actions include 

immediately ceasing all operations within a 100 meter 

radius from the site and notification of the SHPO, THPOs 

and District Archeologist. See Appendix B of the EIS. 

The Hell Canyon District received a letter from the South 

Dakota Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) on March 19, 2012. The SHPO concurred with 

the Forest Service’s determination of No Adverse Effects, 

providing that site specific recommendations are 

implemented. 

2a Diedre 

Bainbridge 

My husband Tim Tennyson and I own approximately 131 acres 

within the area of the proposed Vestal Project. We have owned 

this particular property over 8 years and have owned property in 

Custer for over 20 years. I visit it numerous times each year to 

do caretaking duties and

upkeep on the land, which has included spending over $13,000 

to thin our forest, remove green beetle trees and to spray to 

prevent beetle infestation. 

Included in the hundreds of pages that I reviewed prior to 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-4 

submitting this letter, I read the Draft EIS, the text of the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HR1904), the Black Hills 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(BHFMP,as amended), the scoping documents, all 27 scoping 

letters and comments on the DEIS, the "Content Analysis" of 

those letters prepared by the USFS, December 2011, the 2006

Draft Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP),an 

annotated bibliography for Forest Managers on Fire-Bark Beetle 

Interactions, an article "Preventing Disaster" by Jack D. Cohen, 

article FPB/SIR/19-2007, "Special investigation of Mountain 

Pine Beetle Attack and Salvage Harvesting on Streamflows", 

and a host of related referenced materials including aerial photos 

and maps, and the historic documentation on the fire ecology of 

the Black Hills, "Yellow Ore, Yellow Hair, Yellow Pine".

No citation was provided for the Annotated bibliography. 

The Jack Cohen article was part of attachment 11from 

comment letter 39. This article was reviewed – please see 

response to comment letter 39. 

See response to comment 2ppp on review of "Special 

investigation of Mountain Pine Beetle Attack and Salvage 

Harvesting on Streamflows.

The Yellow Ore, Yellow Hair, Yellow Pine book 

provides photos of the Black Hills taken approximately a 

century apart, 1874 and 1974.

2b Despite my ownership of this property (HS199) located at 

12470 and 12472 Willow Creek Road for over 8 years and the 

fact that my husband is a Custer native; we were not contacted 

during the scoping process. I was advised that the decision not 

to send me the scoping notice, a large property owner in the

proposed project area, was due to cost. We learned about the 

Vestal Project only when we noticed the marked or 

unfortunately, the unmarked trees, surrounding our property in 

December 2011. 

I would have certainly commented during the scoping process 

and most importantly I would have suggested

alternatives or options which would have addressed my 

concerns and others as well. I also would have participated in 

community planning meetings which would have evaluated the 

need and alternatives long before scoping as required by HFRA. 

In regard to this project, the abbreviated NEPA process 

specified under HFRA and only allegedly applicable in the 

Vestal Project allowed for submitting alternatives only at the 

juncture of the scoping process.

Notice of the project was provided to the public in several 

ways. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in 

the Federal Register on April 22, 2011. This initiated the 

scoping period. The project was added to the Black Hills 

National Forest Schedule of proposed actions and the 

NOI and scoping documents were made available on the 

Black Hills website the same day. In addition, 

approximately 150 scoping letters were sent out to tribal 

representatives, government agencies, permit holders, 

groups and individuals who had expressed interest in this 

project or in management of the Vestal area, on April 20, 

2011. The scoping letter included a summary of the 

proposed action and also the scheduled public meeting. 

A News Release noting the start of public scoping and the 

scheduled public meeting was sent to local news outlets 

on April 28, 2011. As a result, news articles appeared in 

the Custer Chronicle on May 4, May 11, and the Rapid 

City Journal on May 11, 2011. 

A public meeting was held on May 11, 2011 at the Custer 

High School. Notice of this meeting was contained in the 

NOI, scoping document and letters, and News Release, 

which was published as noted above. Included in this 

meeting were South Dakota State personnel who were 

available to discuss State programs available to private 

landowners. These programs include both reducing 

fuels, fire hazard as well as treating for MPB risk on 

private lands. The types of treatments included in these 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-5 

programs are similar to actions proposed in the Vestal 

project. The National Fire Protection Association's 

(NFPA) Firewise Communities program encourages local 

solutions for wildfire safety by involving homeowners, 

community leaders, planners, developers, firefighters, and 

others in the effort to protect people and property from 

wildfire risks.

The public notice and public meeting are consistent with 

Sec 104 (e) of the HFRA. 

In December of 2003, President Bush signed the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act. This act provides for expedited 

processes for hazardous fuel reduction projects, such as 

Vestal. It requires collaboration with local communities, 

particularly when Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

(CWPP) are being drafted. The Forest Service 

collaborated with Custer County in an advisory role 

during preparation of the CWPP. Funding for preparation 

of the Custer CWPP was made available through the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003(PL 108-148) 

through a federal grant process. See response to comment 

2f on CWPP. 

The Forest Service has always worked cooperatively with 

the community of Custer. Within relatively small 

communities, such as Custer, cooperation between the 

Forest Service and other entities occurs in both a formal 

and informal manner. Many of the employees of the 

Hell Canyon District and the Black Hills National Forest 

are members of local organizations, community groups, 

homeowner associations, VFDs, etc. Collaboration does 

not only occur at documented meetings. 

The Forest Service has given the Vestal project a high 

priority, based on collaboration with the local community. 

There is great concern within this community and others 

across the Black Hills National Forest, about the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic. 

Collaboration with the community of Custer and other 

entities to reduce fuels is on-going. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-6 

The Forest Service also collaborated with Custer County 

as part of the National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB), 

and the Custer Resource Advisory Council (RAC) which 

recommends federal funds for community based projects 

on or near National Forest lands in the County. Title 3 of 

the Secure Rural Schools Act provides funds for fuel 

reduction. An estimated $80,000/year has been allocated 

for this purpose and has been used for projects such as 

assistance to private landowners to cut n chunk infested 

trees on their land or for thinning. 

Specific meetings occurred with the Custer VFD on 5-3-

11, Custer City on several occasions, including 5-2-11, 

Custer County on several occasions, including 5-11-11. 

In addition, the proposed project was discussed with local 

Civic organizations. 

All comments received, whether as scoping comments or 

as comments on the DEIS, are considered. The scoping 

period started with publication of the NOI in the Federal 

Register on April 22, 2011, but does not have a formal 

end date – scoping input is always welcome and 

considered. The NOI states that scoping comments 

would be most helpful if received within 30 days. The 

scoping letter states comments should be received by 

May 31 to be most helpful to the planning team. The 

final scoping comment on this project was received on 

December 2, 2011. 

The Black Hills National Forest began consultation with 

affiliated Native American tribes through correspondence 

dated March 3, 2009 when a report detailing the cultural 

resource inventory of 6,332 acres of the project area 

prepared through contract was submitted in fulfillment of 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), EO 

13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” (2000), and EO 13005 “Indian Sacred 

Sites” (1996). No concerns, recommendations or 

additional information was provided by the tribes as a 

result. 

The tribes were also contacted during scoping. The 

Scoping document and cover letter was sent to 33 THPOs 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-7 

and other tribal representatives. No concerns, 

recommendations or additional information was provided 

by the tribes as a result. A list of tribal representative 

contacted during scoping is in Chapter 4 of the EIS. 

As the project was still in development, the Black Hills 

National Forest again opened the door for collaboration 

on June 22, 2011 during the Tribal Consultation Meeting 

mentioned in your comment letter. 

The DEIS was sent to 32 THPOs and other tribal 

representatives. Comment letter 1 in this table was 

received from Russell Eagle Bear, THPO of the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe. This letter states that the tribes have no 

concerns with this project and recommend that the project 

proceed as planned. No other comments or concerns 

were received from any other tribal representatives. 

On February 16, 2012, the affliated Native American 

Tribes, and the South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), were consulted when a report detailing 

the cultural resource inventory for the entire project area 

was submitted in compliance with the cultural resource 

laws and orders listed above. The Hell Canyon District 

received a letter from the South Dakota Office of the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on March 19, 

2012. The SHPO concurred with the Forest Service’s 

determination of No Adverse Effects, providing that site 

specific recommendations are implemented. 

Adequate consultation with affiliated American Tribes 

has occurred and tribal governments have been given 

ample opportunity to collaborate and voice their concerns 

or support for the project.

2c In addition, I believe that the Vestal Project was slipped in 

under radar so to speak, by advertising the 45 day comment 

period to begin on December 30, 2011, in the middle of the 

Christmas Holiday. I do not believe this date was chosen by 

accident. Only after I formally requested your "annual program 

of work" as per HFRA requirements, which I have not

received, was an article published in the paper advising folks to 

comment. I feel my very sincere, specific, and relevant concerns 

and interests have been usurped. Community Planning pursuant 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS for the 

Vestal project was published in the Federal Register on 

December 30, 2011; the same day a Legal Notice of the 

Opportunity to Comment was published in the Rapid City 

Journal, which is the Black Hills Newspaper of Record. 

The DEIS was posted to the Black Hills National Forest 

website at this same time. Notification and/or DEIS 

copies were sent to all who responded to scoping, the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-8 

to HFRA and Scoping missed me entirely. I feel that because of 

this breech in public involvement (a cornerstone of NEPA) that 

the process and decisions to be followed and made which will 

affect me and my property have been structured to my 

disadvantage and my right to due process jeopardized.

tribal contact list, the required agencies list, and local 

government contacts. Copies of the DEIS were made 

available to the public at the Hell Canyon Office in 

Custer. Approximately 25 copies were distributed to 

those who stopped into the office. 

A copy of the DEIS was provided to you on 12-22-11 at 

the Hell Canyon Office in Custer, by Patricia Hudson. 

Your FOIA request of 1-20-12 was given FOIA tracking 

number: ‘BKNF 12-0799-R’ and was responded to in 3 

separate letters. The first, on 1-30-12 which 

acknowledged receipt of your FOIA request and included 

a web address for item 2 of your request: 

“Implementation Plan for the Comprehensive Strategy for 

a Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire

Risks to Communities and the Environment, dated May 

2002”. 

A second letter was mailed on February 09, 2012 with 

attachments to respond to item 1 of your FOIA request: 

“Annual program of work....for the years of 2003 to 

present” at the regional and local levels. A final letter 

was mailed on February 17, 2012 stating that there are no 

other responsive documents and that no fees were being 

charged. 

A news release requesting comments on the Vestal 

project was sent to local news outlets on 1-9-12. As a 

result of this news release the following media events 

occurred: 

1-12-12: KEVN TV News Center 1- aired a story with 

Ranger Kolund 

1-12-12: Black Hills Pioneer paper printed the story

1-18-12: Custer Chronicle paper printed the story

1-25-12: Custer Chronicle paper printed a second story

See also response to comment 2b - scoping

2d Because I was not invited to participate in Community Planning 

and because the Vestal Project scoping did not include me, I 

could not submit an alternative or option which I think belongs 

among the group being considered in detail. Upon review of the 

section dealing with alternatives not considered in detail, it 

became apparent that an option to the Proposed Action would be 

very appropriate and would address many of the concerns that I 

See response to comments 2b and 2c on scoping and 

public involvement. 

The proposed action is site specific. The Interdisciplinary 

Team (IDT) developed the proposed action after review 

of the entire project area. Extensive field work preceded 

development of the proposed action. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-9 

have. The decision maker may actually want to develop a series 

of options that could be applied at specific sites or under special 

circumstances. I suggest that the treatments for my suggested 

option need to be site specific wherein big game cover and 

habitat, erodible soils, stand structure, wetlands, floodplain 

considerations, surface water run-off and high-moderate SIOs 

(scenic integrity objectives) are analyzed for each site according 

to the BHFMP. I also believe this option can include in the SIO 

analysis not only the impact on recreation values but also on 

contiguous private property owners striving to co-create with 

the FS in achieving a balanced and healthy ecosystem. 

I believe CT 70-80 is an appropriate alternative to curb the MPB 

in areas where this option is appropriate. Adjustments for 

thermal cover or other special conditions may dictate an even 

higher CT rate (leave more basal area) be adopted on a site 

specific basis. There could also be a caveat in this option if the

area were in a true WUI within a 0.5 -mile radius of the 

community at risk, the CT could be as low as 50.

The IDT includes resource specialists representing all 

resource areas. These specialists have extensive 

knowledge and experience in their field, much of which is 

local, Black Hills experience. Refer to Chapter 4 of the 

EIS. 

The Black Hills National Forest, Land and Resource 

Management Plan did consider visual quality and 

designated SIOs for National Forest lands. A map of 

SIOs within the project area has been added to the EIS. 

See Map 17 in Appendix A. See responses to comments 

2n, 2aa and 2dd on scenery and SIO. 

Based on recommendations from the project 

entomologist, Kurt Allen, commercial thinning (CT) in 

this project area is proposed to be no more than 60 ft2

/ac 

basal area (BA). The recommendation is based on the 

high populations of beetles in the area and the existing 

stand conditions. An active beetle epidemic is occurring 

and indications are that resulting tree mortality will 

increase throughout the project area, likely at a rapid level 

(Allen, 2011). 

From the March 25, 2011 – ‘Mountain Pine Beetle 

Conditions in the Vestal Area’..... 

“In the Black Hills, stands that are less than 80 ft2 of 

basal area per acre with average stand diameters below 7 

inches are at a reduced risk. In areas where there are 

ongoing beetle epidemics, lowering stand densities even 

further, such as to 40-60 ft2 of basal area per acre 

provides a higher level of prevention.” 

Stands proposed for CT treatments have average stand 

diameters greater than 7 inches and are generally above 

10” dbh. These diameters are more susceptible. Stands 

at 80 BA are at a High risk for MPB. The Vestal area is 

experiencing a beetle epidemic and therefore, the 

recommended BA of no more than 60 is proposed for CT 

treatments. 

Stands of 80 basal area are being infested in the Black 

Hills, this is not an adequate preventative treatment in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-10 

In addition, an option that utilized the use of pheromones to 

attract and concentrate the beetles in sacrificial areas that are 

then cut and burned could be used to delay the expansive and 

intrusive treatments proposed under implementation of the 

Vestal Project. This approach would be particularly

attractive in efforts to save specific trees that have high scenic, 

wildlife or other values. 

epidemic situations. The Vestal strategy allows some 

denser stands to be left strategically as identified for 

wildlife habitat needs. If the stands identified for 

preventative treatments are not done the entire landscape 

will likely be overwhelmed. See projected pine structural 

stages under Alternative 1- No Action in Table 22 in 

chapter 3 of the Vestal EIS. 

Kurt Allen an Entomologist with the Rocky Mountain 

Region, Forest Health Management, residing at the Rapid 

City Service Center. He has extensive experience with 

MPB both locally and within the Rocky Mountain 

Region. His advice and expertise on the subject has been 

sought by numerous entities in the Black Hills, including 

Mount Rushmore, Custer State Park, as well as private 

landowners. 

The proposed action does defer some sites for thermal 

cover and other resource concerns, based on site specific 

conditions. 

See response to comment 2t on thinning to a 60 not 80 

BA 

See response to comment 35e on effectiveness of 

treatments 

Refer to comment 2g on WUI. 

It is correct that the use of pheromones would attract 

beetles to areas where pheromones are used. However, 

phermones do not attract all beetles in an area and they 

may even attract beetles from adjacent areas exacerbating 

the level of beetle caused mortality in the project area. 

Without doubt, use of pheromones will result in a large 

area of dead trees, 10’s to 100’s of acres in size, where 

ever they are used. The impact would continue for years 

as new generations of beetles emerge from these areas. It 

is unclear where such a sacrifice area would be placed in 

the Vestal project area, given the extensive amount of 

private lands and values at risk. The project 

entomologist, Kurt Allen, strongly recommends against 

using such methods in the Vestal project area. 

Therefore, this technique is not proposed in the Vestal 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-11 

Also, local landowners who can afford it could be authorized by 

the FS to spray trees within a certain distance (perhaps 200 feet) 

of their property edge to protect them until such time as the FS 

can work with local and state governments in the grant 

application process to fund such action for land- owner

reimbursement.

area. 

Authorizing local landowners to spray trees on National 

Forest lands is outside the scope of this project. 

2e I was more than a bit underwhelmed by the one-third page, only 

two paragraphs, dedicated to describing the Purpose and Need 

for this complex project. This is especially true when we have 

all been told that Purpose and Need is the cornerstone of NEPA 

and that it provides the basis for even considering a project. The 

purpose statement is written in a 'summary/conclusionary' style

of forced logic. 

It and the limited approach to identifying alternatives are 

unfortunately excellent examples of a controlled-sanction, 

autocratic approach to administrative oversight of our national 

natural resources. This tyrannical approach is not in keeping 

with the spirit of the NEPA or of a democratic, representative 

form of government. No data, no science, no explanation, 

nothing other than the FS saying 'there's a problem'- trust us. 

There may, perhaps, even be good reasoning and logic to make 

these statements but the Purpose and Need section is devoid of 

any references and substance and lacks any supporting science 

to validate the conclusion that there is a problem. This is 

unacceptable because the Purpose and

Need forms the basis and logic for considering an action. This is 

so poorly supported that it defies an explanation. If all of the 

things stated in the two paragraphs on page10 of the DEIS were 

true then references should be given that I can check. This is 

very inadequate and needs to be augmented and referenced.

The need for the project is predictably geared to meeting the 

purpose of the project and not surprisingly the Proposed Action 

is uniquely crafted to fulfill the Purpose and Need. All three of 

these three key elements are narrowly defined and smack of a 

dictatorial decision framework. I would hope that the FS can 

and will do a better job than this and give the reader/concerned 

citizen something more objective that is supported by science. 

The purpose and need for action was developed by 

comparison of the existing conditions to the desired 

future conditions in the Forest Plan. The 2 paragraphs 

referred to are a concise summary statement of the 

purpose and need – not the entire analysis. Please refer to 

the reminder of Chapter 1 in the EIS. 

The existing condition is summarized by resource in 

Chapter 3 and presented in more detail in the specialist 

reports in the project file. 

The Vestal project analysis identified two key issues, see 

pages 11-12 in the Vestal DEIS. All scoping input 

received on this project was considered in determining 

key issues and possible alternatives to the proposed 

action. In addition to the No Action and proposed action 

alternatives, 11 alternatives were considered, but not in 

detail (pages 17-20, DEIS). 

Alternatives considered in detail are based on the key 

issues identified as a result of scoping. The decision 

maker, District Ranger, approved the issues and 

alternatives in a 7-28-11 memo. Alternatives not 

considered in detail are discussed in the EIS, Chapter 2. 

Please refer to the Literature cited section of the EIS – 

Chapter 5, as well as that cited for the specialist reports. 

In addition, all references provided to the Forest Service 

during scoping or as comments on the DEIS have been 

reviewed and considered by the IDT. 

The proposed action was designed specifically to meet 

the purpose and need for action. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-12 

Perhaps in the Final EIS all of this will be fixed. Seriously, I 

expect more from the employees of my federal land 

management agencies.

2f The Vestal Project DEIS states at page 2 that Custer County has 

developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 

which is a fire mitigation plan for at risk communities. It states 

the plan identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel 

reduction; recommends the types and methods of

treatment on Federal and non-federal land; includes actions that 

would protect one or more at risk communities and 

infrastructure, and includes recommendations to reduce 

structural ignitability of public and private property throughout 

the at-risk community (ARC). Custer County CWPP identified 

the City of Custer ARC as an urban interface environment with 

a high density of structures and infrastructure and allegedly 

states that in many areas the structures lack defensible fire 

protection space. Also at page 2 it is determined that the Vestal 

Project will be analyzed under the provisions of the HFRA,

section 102 (a) (4).

The entire statement at page 2 of the DEIS on Vestal as it relates 

to Custer County CWPP as quoted in the first paragraph above 

is fiction. The Custer County Wildfire Protection Plan was 

drafted in 2006 in response to a Federal Government mandate. 

The Custer County Commissioners did not accept it until

May 11, 2011, in Resolution 2011-7. At the time of resolution it 

was in its original form and had not been modified in any way to 

speak to any current issue of MPB infestation. Lynn Kolund, 

District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, was present at the 

County Commissioners meeting to discuss the Vestal Project. At

said meeting on May 11, 2011 the issue of fire danger due to the 

beetle infestation was discussed in terms of declaring a "State of 

Emergency and asking for Federal Assistance from the 

President of the United States." Out of this pre-text of fear the 

County accepted the old CWPP boilerplate, non-site specific

document of 2006. The minutes from the County 

Commissioners meeting are incorporated herein by reference.

The CWPP was a boilerplate document used by a number of 

surrounding communities and counties. The document states at 

iii that the Custer County Board of Commissioners 

acknowledges that the Custer County Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan is the sole responsibility of the Custer County 

Office of Emergency Services. On or about January 5, 2012, 

The Custer County CWPP is a Custer County document, 

outside the scope of this project. 

The CWPP was prepared by and adopted by Custer 

County as resolution 2011-7. The handbook for 

preparing CWPPs, issued by the Communities Committee 

sponsored by several groups including the Western 

Governors' Association acknowledges that the HFRA 

provides much flexibility to communities to determine the 

substance and detail of their plans and the procedures 

they use to develop them. 

 

The Custer CWPP does not in any way, direct or 

authorize vegetation treatments on National Forest lands. 

All proposed actions in the Vestal project are consistent 

with the Black Hills Forest Plan. Refer to Maps 6 and 7 

in Appendix A which display National Forest lands 

(60%) and the interspersed non-Forest Service lands 

(40%), including all known structures (~3,200). 

Specifically refer to Map 14 for a display of existing fire 

hazard, and Map 12 for a display of existing MPB risk. 

Map 17 in Appendix A displays MPB progression since 

2005, as interpreted from aerial mapping. 

It is correct that the Custer County Commissioners 

accepted their CWPP in resolution, 2011-7. 

See response to comment letter 12 from Custer County

The City of Custer is identified as an ARC in the Custer 

County CWPP. It is also identified as an ARC in the 

Federal Register on August 17, 2001. 

There is no Federal Government mandate that requires 

Custer County to draft a CWPP. The Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (HFRA) does not require that a CWPP be 

adopted by any community. Furthermore, the HFRA 

does not require that Authorized Hazardous fuel reduction 

projects only occur within communities which have 

adopted a CWPP. Nor, do CWPPs approve treatments on 

National Forest lands. Rather, HFRA projects must 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-13 

Mike Carter, Director of the Custer County Office of

Emergency Services, advised by telephonic communication that 

he drafted the plan from a boilerplate document which was the 

same plan used by other surrounding communities and counties. 

The boilerplate plan of 2006 did speak to wildfire issues of 

Custer County in certain aspects but not in the detail alleged in 

the DEIS which is required by HFRA. 

The plan does not prioritize areas for Hazardous Fuel reduction 

nor does it recommend types and methods of treatment on 

Federal and non-federal land, nor does it include actions that 

would protect one or more at risk communities and 

infrastructure.

The entire document encompasses several communities in 

addition to the City of Custer. The 2006 CWPP is incorporated 

in its entirety herein by reference. In particular Appendix G1-

G24 is titled Communities at Risk Zones and Profiles and 

discusses several communities in the area. Within this

Appendix at page G-8 there is a project site proposal. Charts G10 and 11 identify Forest Service land near Custer that contains 

areas for potential fuel reduction (see Exhibit 1 Pages G 7-11). 

The Sites are all within the Custer City Limits or adjacent. This 

is the only mention of prioritized action on federal land

and it is not specific to what kind of action should be taken. 

There is no proposed project site mentioned within even a 1⁄2 

mile radius of the ARC, City of Custer. The plan does discuss 

possible methods of treatment on predominantly private land in 

regard to fuel reduction. Much of this is in terms of three

sample community and private projects.

The boilerplate draft of the CWPP states at page 9 that three 

entities must mutually agree to the final contents of the plan 

pursuant to federal law, HFRA, in order for the plan to be valid: 

the local government, the local fire department and the state 

agency responsible for forestry. See Custer County Resolution 

7-2011(also incorporated herein by reference). This is the only 

documentation that the plan was accepted by any entity. There is 

no documentation that the state entity responsible for Forest

Management has accepted the plan nor is there documentation 

that the applicable fire department accepted said plan. The 

CWPP is not valid.

consider recommendations by communities which have 

developed CWPPs, Sec 103 (b)(1). The Custer CWPP 

was considered. A copy is in the project file. 

All actions proposed in the Vestal project would occur on 

National Forest lands. The Vestal project will be 

consistent with the Black Hills Forest Plan as required by 

law. 

The Vestal project is an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project under Sec 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA. It 

qualifies as an authorized project because there is an 

existing mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring which 

threatens to spread onto both private and Federal lands 

and threatens forest resources. Refer to Appendix H in 

the EIS. 

The noted discussion in Chapter 1 of the Vestal DEIS, 

regarding the Custer CWPP, has been edited for 

clarification in the FEIS. 

Refer to pages iv and v in the CWPP to view the intended 

‘Mission’, ‘Purpose’, ‘Goal’, ‘Objective’ and ‘Scope’ of 

the Custer County CWPP. The goal is to reduce the 

threat of catastrophic wildland fires impacting life, 

property or infrastructure within the boundaries of Custer 

County by adopting sound forest management practices.

See response to comment 2b on collaboration
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-14 

2g The Vestal Project DEIS at page 9 relies on the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act, HFRA of 2003, to justify much of its projected 

action in regard to hazardous fuel reduction. 

At page 9 it states that a provision of the HFRA regards the 

encouragement of communities to prepare a CWPP, which 

identifies areas of wildland-urban interface (WUI) and 

recommends the types and methods of treatments on Federal 

and non-Federal Land.

It states at page 9 that Custer County has completed a CWPP 

and the plan designates a three-mile buffer as WUI. This is 

another total fiction. The 2006 CWPP for Custer County does 

not adopt or designate a three-mile buffer as WUI for Custer. 

At pages 17 & 18 the 2006 boilerplate CWPP does state under 

Item 2 - Activity Reducing Hazardous Fuels; Issue A - 

establishing a buffer zone around communities at-risk of fire, 

wildland/urban interface. It makes this statement at the bottom 

of page 17 about a buffer zone and goes on to make 

recommendations at the top of page 18, not one includes the 

discussion of or the adoption of a three mile WUI around the 

City of Custer. There is a statement in G that certain building 

requirements should be required and enforced in the three-mile 

area of planning and zoning. This is a County Zoning 

Ordinance, not a WUI. There is no statement or 

recommendation that a WUI of any size or distance around 

Custer is formally recommended or adopted. 

In the CWPP Glossary it does define a Buffer Zone as an area 

like a green belt or golf course that separates wildland areas 

from vulnerable residential or business development. This in no 

way embraces the three-mile WUI around the City of Custer as 

proposed in the Vestal Project DEIS as part and parcel of the 

Custer CWPP. At page 11 the CWPP at issue does mention that 

many heritage sites are located within the three-mile zone 

established for the at risk communities. It does not define what 

The Vestal project is authorized under Sec 102 (a)(4) 

based on the existence of a MPB epidemic and the 

imminent risk it poses to resources on Federal and nonFederal lands. The HFRA does not justify or propose 

management actions. It provides for expedited processes

on authorized projects. The purpose and need for action 

in the Vestal project is presented in Chapter 1 of the EIS. 

The noted discussion in Chapter 1 of the Vestal DEIS, 

regarding the Custer CWPP, has been edited for 

clarification in the FEIS. 

The HFRA definition of WUI at Sec 101 (3)(B) states 

“....recommends the types and methods of treatment on 

Federal and non-Federal land...”. Communities have 

discretion as to what information is contained in their 

CWPP. See response to comment 2f on CWPP. 

Hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized under Sec 

102 (a)(4), such as Vestal, do not have to be within a 

WUI. 

The Custer CWPP defines WUI on page B-12 of the 

Glossary: “Wildland/Urban Interface: The line, area, or 

zone where structures and other human development meet 

or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative 

fuels. Often incorrectly referred to as the ‘interzone’ or

‘urban/wildland interface’.” It is correct that the CWPP 

document does not specifically state that the WUI is 3 

miles, or any other distance. However, WUI is defined as 

stated above and a 3 mile zone is referred to throughout 

the CWPP both within the text of the document (page 11, 

19) and as displayed on the many maps in Appendix G. 

The Forest Service has interpreted this document to mean 

that the WUI is 3 miles. This interpretation was 

confirmed through discussions with Custer County 

personnel. To reiterate, whether or not the Vestal project 

occurs within a WUI as identified by the CWPP is 

immaterial to its qualification as an authorized hazardous 

fuel reduction project under Sec 102 (a)(4). 

There is a substantial amount of non-federal lands within 

the Vestal project area (~40%). These private lands are 

concentrated toward the city of Custer, but also occur as 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-15 

the three mile zone is or what its significance is per se to the 

City of Custer. It does not define it as Custer Counties WUI. It 

is unclear what the three-mile zone is and by whom it is 

established. No such zone is delineated for the City of Custer. In 

fact at page G-9, a chart specific to Custer, there are other 

similar charts in G for each community at risk studied in the 

2006 plan; the said chart depicts Custer with a 1⁄2 mile, 1, 2 and 

3 mile sample zone. Nothing is stated about what anyone of 

these zones meant or which one if any was formally adopted by 

Custer County and accepted in Resolution 2011-7.

At page 97 the DEIS does discuss values at risk and does 

discuss the 1⁄2 mile, one, two and three miles buffer zone 

identified around the various communities at risk in Appendix G 

of the CWPP attached. According to the Vestal Project these 

various zones were used to assess the level or value of wildfire 

risk for each community in terms of structures.

Also at page 95, the DEIS states that Custer County CWPP 

identifies a three-mile radius from the city limits of the City of 

Custer as a Community at Risk Boundary. There is no such 

boundary identified in the boilerplate CWPP of 2006. Again, 

this statement of such a boundary is a fiction.

The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, 1997 Revision Phase 11 Amendment defines 

a WUI at page 78 precisely as HFRA defines WUI in Sec 

101(16): 

In applying Title I of the HFRA, this term means: 

An area within or adjacent to an at risk-community (ARC) 

identified to the Secretary in a Community Wildfire

Protection Plan 

OR

In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan is not in effect:

• An area extending 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk 

community (ARC)

scattered parcels throughout the whole project area (See 

Maps in Appendix A). There are approximately 3,200 

structures within the Vestal project area (see Maps 6 and 

7). While the structures are clustered around the city of 

Custer (Map 6, tile 4), there are a substantial number of 

homes, businesses, vacation properties etc. throughout the 

entire project area. The National Forest lands and private 

lands are intermixed. Because the Vestal project 

boundary surrounds Custer, all access roads to and from 

Custer occur within the Vestal project. There are 

tremendous values at risk within this project area. There 

is a MPB epidemic occurring which threatens these 

values (see Appendix H and Maps 11 and 12

A map of the 3 mile WUI has been added to the EIS – 

See Figure 1 in Chapter 1. The same map is located in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS, Figure 9. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-16 

• An area within 1-1/2 mile of the boundary of an at-risk 

community (ARC) including any land that:

o Has a sustained steep slope that creates the 

potential for wildland fire behavior 

endangering the at-risk community (ARC)

o Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an 

effective firebreak, such as a road or ridge top

OR

o Is in Condition Class3 as documented by the 

secretary in the project specific environmental 

analysis

AND

• An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk 

community (ARC) that the Secretary determines- -in 

cooperation with the at-risk community (ARC)-requires 

hazardous fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation.

Assuming for the sake of argument only that Custer County has 

a valid CWPP in place in terms of the 2006 boilerplate plan as 

accepted by the county government in 2011, said plan does not 

define a WUI in which case Custer County does not have a valid 

WUI in place which is identified to the Secretary as part of its 

plan. This places Custer County as an area that does not have a 

valid plan in place in this regard. 

The Forest Management Plan and HFRA dictate that Custer's 

WUI is 1⁄2 mile and only under certain circumstances no larger 

than 1-1/2 miles. The three-mile WUI as proposed by the Vestal 

Project is illegal in scope according to Federal Standards, Laws 

and Guidelines. Pursuant to the Forest Management Plan it 

would require documentation by the Secretary in a project 

specific environmental analysis. The extent of the proposed 

treatment area noted in the Vestal DEIS violates the Forest 

Management Plan.

The Forest Plan definition of WUI would apply when no 

CWPP is in place. 

The coarse scale national data characterizes the Black 

Hills, including the project area, as primarily Condition 

Class III, high relative risk of significantly altering or 

losing key components of the ponderosa pine forest 

system. 

2h the Forest Service must have an "annual program of work" that 

must give priority to projects that protect at-risk communities or 

watershed and that implement community wildfire protections 

plans Sec 103 (a) without such a plan the agency is not in

compliance with HR1904.

The annual program of work is composed of several 

documents that collectively present the program. The 

Forest Service complies with Sec 103(a). 

These documents were provided to you per your FOIA 

request. See response to comment 2c 

2i When relying on a CWPP, HFRA requires the CWPP be agreed 

to by the applicable local government, local fire department and 

See response to 2f on CWPP
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-17 

state agency responsible for forest management. The CWPP 

must identify and prioritize areas of hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments and recommend types of treatment, methods of 

treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will protect one

or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructures and 

recommend measures to reduce structural ignitability 

throughout the at-risk community. Sec 101 (3) (A) (B) (C).

2j --Projects under HR 1904 must be specifically designed and 

implemented under the requirements of HR 1904: I maintain 

that the Vestal Project fails to qualify under each of the legal 

requirements.

Sec 101 (16)-Defines WUI- Wildland Urban Interface 

(A) An area within or adjacent to an at risk-community that is 

identified in recommendations to the Secretary in a 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan;

OR

(B) In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan is not in effect- 

(i) An area extending 1⁄2 miles from the boundary of an atrisk community 

(ii) An area within 1 1/2 mile of the boundary of an at-risk 

community ,including any land that- 

(I)Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential 

for wildfire behavior endangering the at-risk 

community; 

(II)Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an 

effective firebreak, such as a road or ridge top

OR

(III)Is in condition class 3, as documented by the 

Secretary in the project-specific environmental 

analysis;

AND

(iii)An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk 

community that the Secretary determines, in cooperation with 

the at-risk community, requires hazardous fuel reduction to 

provide safer evacuation from the at-risk community.

See response to 2f and 2g on CWPP and WUI 

2k All projects under HR1904 have to comply with the 

Management Plan for the National Forest involved, HR1904 Sec 

The actual verbage of HR 1904 Sec 102 (b) reads, “An 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction project shall be 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-18 

102 (b). Failure to comply with a plan standard is a violation of 

HR1904.

conducted consistent with the resource management plan 

and other relevant administrative policies or decisions 

applicable to the Federal land covered by the project.” 

The Vestal project will be consistent with the Black Hills 

National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan. 

The analysis conducted for this project confirms 

compliance with all Forest Plan standards. Forest plan 

standards are addressed in Chapter 3 as well as in 

specialist reports. 

2l In Regard to Sec 102 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects: 102 

(a) (4) Federal land on which windthrow or blow-down, ice 

storm damage, the existence of an epidemic disease or insects, 

or the presence of such an epidemic on immediately adjacent 

land and the imminent risk it will spread, poses a significant 

threat to an ecosystem component, or forest or rangeland 

resource.

This is a correct quote of Sec 102 (a) (4). The Vestal 

project is an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project 

under this section of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA). The existence of a MPB epidemic in this area is 

documented in a letter signed by the Forest Supervisor on 

April 11, 2011 a copy of which is contained in Appendix 

H of the EIS. The risk of spread and the threat to 

resources is summarized. Information on values at risk is 

contained in Chapter 3 of the fire/fuels section. 

2m Old Growth Objectives: Sec 102 (e) not necessarily applicable 

to (a) (4) should be in this instance where Fuel Reductions is 

outside of WUI.

Sec 102 (f) LARGE TREE RETENTION:(1) IN GENERAL.- 

Except in old growth stands where the management direction is 

consistent with subsection (e) (2), the Secretary shall carry out a 

covered project in a manner that-(A) focuses largely on small

diameter trees, ...(B)Maximize the retention of large trees, as 

appropriate for the forest type, to the extent that the trees 

promote fire resilient stands. 

NOTE-All of the Alternative 2 Vegetative Treatments proposed 

in the hundreds of acres surrounding my property denude the 

forest of large trees, structural stage 4A, 4B, &5. My property is 

not in a WUI, and all of this massive structural thinning across 

the board is to reduce the risk of MPB spread and not to stop an

active on-site epidemic. HFRA 102 a (4) is not applicable in this 

case. All of the proposed excessive thinning of large, mature 

trees violates the Forest Plan.

Sec 102 (e)- Old Growth and Sec 102 (f) Large Tree 

retention; applies only to ‘covered projects’ – See Sec 

102 (e)(1)(B). The Vestal project is not a covered 

project as defined at Sec 102 (e)(1)(B). 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 2k on Forest Plan consistency

See response to comment 2l on authorized fuel reduction 

projects

Proposed treatments surrounding your property are 

similar to treatments proposed in the remainder of the 

Vestal area. Refer to pages 17-24 in Chapter 2, in the EIS 

for definitions of the various treatments. Existing pine 

stands surrounding your property would maintain a size 

class 4 – Mature Trees; and a crown cover density of A - 

< 40%. Large trees would still remain, but not all large 

trees. Refer to map 5 in Appendix A for expected 

structural stages following implementation of Alternative 

2. Also refer to Map 11, which was added to the EIS and 

shows MPB progression from 2005-2011. This map is 

based on aerial mapping of the epidemic. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-19 

It is correct that the purpose and need for action includes 

reducing the threat from the existing MPB epidemic, not 

to stop the epidemic. The Forest Service is not aware of 

any effective measures that stop an epidemic. 

2n The Forest Plan requires that certain percentages of each 

structure be preserved throughout the forest. 

The proposed clearcut of the large, mature trees at the forest 

edge adjacent to my meadows will remove my wind and fire 

breaks and will deprive me of a valuable resource to preserve 

my home and property. 

It also violates my personal SIO which is a main reason I have 

required that this property be preserved by my heirs.

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

Forest Plan objectives are desired resource conditions or 

goods and services to – they are not absolutes. 

Management areas 4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 have structural stage 

objectives which apply to the entire management area, 

forestwide. These are: Objs 4.1-203; 5.1-204; and 5.4-

206. The proposed action contributes toward 

achievement of these objectives. Refer to the Forest 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3 in the EIS, Tables 28-32. 

These objectives do not note percentages of each 

structure to be preserved, rather these are percentages to 

be managed for. It is recognized that achievement of 

these objectives may take decades and is dependent on 

funding and growth rates (Phase II FEIS, page III-18). 

The mountain pine beetle epidemic is influencing the rate 

at which the objective would be met. 

Local knowledge of MPB outbreaks in the Black Hills 

was used to develop assumptions to project structural 

stages to year 2018. 

The proposed action reduces fire hazard adjacent to your 

property. Maps of existing and post- treatment fire 

hazard have been added to Appendix A. 

The high value of landscape scenery within this project 

area, to private landowners, business owners, groups, 

agencies, governmental organizations, tribes, tourists, etc 

is recognized. ‘Scenic Integrity Objective’ (SIO) applies 

to National Forest Lands, not private lands. The Scenery 

Management System is for the inventory and analysis of 

the aesthetic values (including Scenic Integrity 

Objectives) of National Forest Lands, and does not apply 

to private lands. A map of SIOs in the project area has 

been added to Appendix A. Also see responses to 

comments 2aa and 2dd on scenery. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-20 

2o SEC 104 Environmental Analysis and 104 (d) ALTERNATIVE 

ANALYSIS PROCESS FOR PROJECTS IN WUI- (1) 

Proposed Agency Action and 1 Action alternative, for an 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction project that is proposed to 

be conducted in the WUI. The Secretary is not required to

study, develop, or describe more than one proposed agency 

action and 1 action alternative in the EIS or EA statement 

prepared pursuant to section 102(2) of NEPA. The Vestal 

Project DEIS has the proposed agency action (Proposed Action 

in the DEIS) and the mandatory No Action Alternative but it 

does not have another action alternative as required by NEPA 

under the rules for HFRA. Why? 

Again, had you contacted me during the FS scoping process, I 

would have given you one or more legitimate alternatives for 

consideration.

The Vestal project analysis identified two key issues, see 

pages 11-12 in the Vestal DEIS. All scoping input 

received on this project was considered in determining 

key issues and possible alternatives to the proposed 

action. In addition to the No Action and proposed action 

alternatives, 11 alternatives were considered, but not in 

detail (pages 17-20, DEIS). 

It is correct that no more than 2 action alternatives must 

be studied, developed and described in authorized 

hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, this does 

not mandate that 2 action alternatives be considered in 

detail – see Section 104 (c), Consideration Of 

Alternatives. The Decision Maker approved the 

alternatives to be considered as the No Action and 

Proposed Action Alternatives, in a letter dated: 7-28-11. 

The key issues are also approved in this same letter. 

See response to comment 2b on Scoping and Public 

Collaboration

2p PROPOSEDAGENCYACTION-Notwithstanding paragraph 

(1), but subject to paragraph (3), if an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project proposed to be conducted in the WUI interface 

is located no further than 11⁄2 miles from the boundary of an atrisk community, the Secretary is not required to study, develop, 

or describe any alternative to the proposed agency action in the

EA or EIS.

The Vestal Project DEIS proposes actions well outside of the 1 

1⁄2 mile limit and therefore is not exempt from studying, 

developing, and describing an additional action

alternative.

The Vestal project surrounds the at-risk community of 

Custer. See response to comment 2f. 

See response to comments 2e and 2o on alternatives. 

2q So where does this DEIS stand? If the FS is contemplating 

actions only within 1 1⁄2 miles from the boundary of an at-risk 

community AND it otherwise qualifies as a HFRA project then 

the No Action and the Proposed Action alternatives would 

suffice. Otherwise it should have analyzed a sufficient range of 

alternatives assuming it would not qualify under HFRA or it 

should have analyzed the No Action, Proposed Action and 

another action alternative because it is considering actions 

within a wildland-urban interface more than a 1 1⁄2 mile radius 

from the boundary of the purported at risk community (HFRA 

Section 104(d)(1). The Vestal Project DEIS either needs to be 

supplemented with another full analysis, including appropriate 

See response to comments 2 e, 2o and p
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-21 

scoping and another action alternative, or it should be scraped 

and the No Action Alternative selected.

2r I fail to see, based on the DEIS, how the FS will remain 

consistent with the standards of the BHFMP for several 

disciplines such as soil, big game thermal cover, sedimentation, 

floodplain incursions, scenic goals, structural diversity, and 

other wildlife goals and standards (for instance, habitat for 

amphibians and reptiles which rely on forest floor debris and 

thermal cover). A simple statement by the FS that says "we will 

be in compliance" does not cut it, even if the abbreviated NEPA 

standards under the HFRA applied. 

As examples, the BHFMP has within Goal 2, a goal Vestal' has 

chosen to respond to specifically, at 214, the goal of having 500 

acres of restored riparian shrub communities across the forest 

during the plan period on sites capable of supporting the 

community. The Vestal Project alone plans to create almost 

1,500 acres of restored riparian shrub communities, which is 

three times the goal for the entire forest throughout the entire 

length of the plan. What would be lost or traded in terms of 

other habitat types if this were implemented and are there 1,500 

acres on federal land that are appropriate to conversion to this 

type? This decision as part of the Proposed Action is made with 

essentially no comment as to what each community can support.

See response to comment 2w on soils and hydrology

See response to comment 2s on thermal cover

See response to comment 2n on structural diversity

See responses to comments 2v-6 and 2w on Forest Plan 

consistency

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns

See response to comment 38f on down woody material

See response to comments 2n, 2aa and 2dd on scenery

Forest Plan objective 214 states, “Restore riparian shrub 

communities across the forest by 500 acres during the 

Plan period on sites capable of supporting this 

community.” This is a forest-wide objective, not a 

project level objective. The Vestal project does not 

propose any riparian shrub community restoration. 

We believe that you may be referring to the Pine 

Encroachment (PE) treatment which is proposed on 1,458 

acres. The PE treatment is for the purpose of maintaining 

meadows by removing encroaching pine, it is not to 

restore riparian shrub communities. 

2s The stand requirements for maintaining thermal cover is defined 

as cover used by animals to ameliorate the effects of weather. 

Optimally, thermal cover is provided by a stand of coniferous 

trees, 30-60 acres, at least 40 feet tall, with a canopy cover of at

least 70 percent, and call for maintaining densities in excess of 

over 100 sq. ft. per acre; but all of the commercial thinning 

surrounding my property calls for reductions of basal area to 50 

sq. feet and below.

Thermal cover is defined in the Forest Plan, Glossary, 

pages 69-70. This definition in the Forest Plan is similar 

to what is stated in this comment, however it does not 

‘call for maintaining densities in excess of over 100 sq ft 

per acre’. 

Thermal cover is provided by various stand conditions. 

Optimal thermal cover is provided by stands with a 3C, 

4C or 5 structural stage. Other structural stages (3B and 

4B) may also provide thermal cover, but it is not optimal. 

Thermal cover may also be provided by dense stands that 

may be less than 30 acres and by hardwoods in the 

summer.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-22 

Big game do use thermal cover, but it is most important 

in summer heat, in which case hardwoods may provide 

relief, as thermal cover. Additionally, seasonal closures 

minimize motorized use of important big game habitat, 

which minimizes disturbance and may minimize the need 

for a lot of thermal cover. 

 

The DEIS describes the effects to big game and thermal 

cover (pg. 67; pgs. 62-63 of the wildlife report for elk). 

Additional information on thermal cover has been added 

to the FEIS under the demand species section of Chapter 

3. 

The proposed action identified important cover stands and 

defers all but sanitation treatments in these stands. The 

MPB risk remains high in the deferred stands, however 

treatments surrounding them would reduce risk. 

Additionally, it is expected that more stands in SS 3C, 

4C, and 5 would remain in the project area with the 

proposed action than with the no action alternative, due to 

MPB caused mortality, although they may not be in the 

best location. 

See response to comment 2n on structural stage 

objectives. 

See response to comment 2u on thinning to a BA of 50 

ft2/ac. 

2t If the forest stands abutting my property had not been 

previously thinned by commercial cuts and if the MPB 

infestation were high, where the Vestal Project proposes 

excessive thinning, I could perhaps support such a drastic action 

in the interest of long term benefits. However, given that the 

area has been thinned and MPB are not a big problem to the 

north, west/north west and east/north east of my property; a 

much more reduced effort such as sanitization or a cut that 

leaves at least 80 sq. ft. /acre should be supported. However, to 

the west of my property, which is not marked under the Vestal

Project, there is an active infestation of green bug trees which 

needs to be sanitized by the USFS immediately before the bugs 

fly this spring. 

Forest stands abutting commenter’s property were 

thinned in 1987-1990. Typical re-entry time is every 20 

years to maintain healthy stands. There are MPB in these 

stands at the present time. Even if sanitation is done 

these stands will be reinfested from beetles on other areas 

of the landscape, particularly areas within one mile to the 

north where inoperable stands and untreated areas of the 

Norbeck Wildlife preserve are heavily infested. 

Mountain pine beetle infestations may move quickly on 

the landscape when habitat is available. A map of MPB 

progression has been added to Appendix A of the EIS. 

See Map 11. 

Local knowledge of MPB outbreaks in the Black Hills 

was used to develop assumptions to project structural 

stages to year 2018. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-23 

I have been granted a permit from the FS to cut and section

the bug trees within one hundred feet of my property at my cost 

(presently is $12.00 a tree). There are over 100 trees. This is the 

FS's job. Unfortunately the FS has tied its hands with this DEIS 

under provisions of NEPA until a Record of Decision is 

published (plus15 days). 

Effectively, the FS evidently cannot help the state, local 

government, and community combat the active beetle epidemic 

in an effective and scientifically proven way.

The area to the west of commenter’s property presumably 

stands 30304-9, 10, 21, 22, 23 are mainly proposed for 

Group Shelterwood treatments, with the exception of 

30304-22 which is proposed for a CT50 treatment. 

Sanitation is proposed on all pine sites within the project 

area. 

Implementation of these treatments may occur following 

the signing of the Record of Decision by the District 

Ranger. 

See also response to comment 2d on thinning to 60 vs 80

The Forest Service is working with the State, County and 

local government agencies to assist in reducing mountain 

pine beetle mortality in the Vestal project area, and 

throughout the Black Hills. The Federal government 

assists with funding of treatments on private lands as well 

as, provides technical advice and expertise to accomplish 

treatments. 

2u If I read the DEIS at face value, I am led to believe that using 

the prescriptions noted in the DEIS, an area within a 3-mile 

radius from Custer will essentially be clear cut. I say essentially, 

because those of us that live here know that once tree densities 

are reduced to 50-60 sq. ft. /acre, and much, much more under

provisions and descriptions for PE and GSH treatments, that 

wind-throw will take care of the rest in a few short years. If this 

isn't true then the FS needs to do more explaining as to how the 

landscape will look after treatments and why wind-throw won't 

be a major contributor to making the treated areas appear to 

have been clear-cut or at least devoid of trees. 

There is no clearcutting proposed in the Vestal project. 

Site 30305-67 is proposed as a group shelterwood (GSH) 

treatment. It is not a clearcut. 

Management of timber stands at tree densities of 50-60 

ft2

/ac is within the timber management zone for the Black 

Hills. Refer to timber stocking chart on page H-2 of the 

Forest Plan. The 60 BA is proposed for the majority of 

commercial thinning, however a 50 BA is proposed 

adjacent to private lands to further reduce fire hazard. 

Photos which represent the various proposed treatments 

have been added to Chapter 2 of the EIS. See the 

proposed action discussion in Chapter 2. 

Tens of thousands of acres have been thinned to basal 

areas of 50-60 sq.ft/acre or less over the past few decades 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-24 

It is certainly true in terms of the GSH treatment which has no 

density requirement whatsoever. The FS can take as many trees 

as it chooses without limit and this proposed vegetation 

treatment alone encompasses more than 10,000 acres within a 

three mile radius of Custer. If it all looks like what will be left 

at 30305 site 67 just north, northeast and east of my house, it 

will all be a clear cut, notwithstanding the wind. Leaving only 

the few trees marked to stay in that area is unconscionable and 

shocking to the conscience. 

on the BHNF as standard forestry management, without 

significant blowdown occurring post harvest. The Forest 

Service is not aware of any literature or anecdotal 

evidence that suggests tree stands thinned to 50-60 ft2/ac 

will blow down in a few short years. It has not been 

witnessed on the Black Hills National Forest. 

One project area west of Vestal, named Bugtown, was 

aggressively thinned to a lower BA of 40 ft2

/ac over 

approximately 9,700 acres to reduce MPB risk, starting in 

2005. These stands had been at a very high basal area 

prior to thinning. Some blowdown occurred following

these treatments but only amounted to approximately less 

than one tenth of 1% of the trees in the treated areas. The 

blowdown that occurred was mainly as scattered trees, 

although there were some small patches of several trees 

too. 

Ponderosa Pine has a tap root that makes it much more 

resistant to blowdown than other pine species such as 

Lodgepole Pine. 

There is a limit to what trees may be removed and what 

density would be achieved in a GSH treatment. The 

shelterwood system is a 3 step management system which 

is an accepted silviculture system for management of 

ponderosa pine on the Black Hills National Forest (page 

II-25, Forest Plan). The steps include; development of 

quality seed trees by reducing stand density and retaining 

trees with desired features for future seed trees – 

commercial thinning (CT); a regeneration cut once seed 

trees have developed– shelterwood seedcut (SWSC); a 

release of established regeneration – overstory removal 

(OR). See pages 17-23 for treatment descriptions in the 

EIS. 

GSH is proposed in sites which currently contain stand 

structures representative of at least 2 phases of the 

system, rather than only 1 phase. The overall density of a 

GSH would not exceed a basal area of 60 ft2

/ac. No 

openings will be created under GSH or any other 

treatments. 

The OR component is applied to that portion of the GSH 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-25 

All for 2% aspen across the entire project area, see page 24 of 

the DEIS. Where is the science in this? Are the soils, aspect,

hydrology, and domestic and wild ungulate grazing pressures all 

supportive that aspen will flourish or even become established?

stand which has been successfully regenerated with 

younger age classes. The overstory, which consists of 

overmature trees, would be removed. This is a normal 

step in the shelterwood system where younger trees are 

liberated from overtopping shade. 

The SC component is applied to that portion of the GSH 

stand which is mature but not regenerated. Seedcuts are 

applied to mature trees that have been previously thinned 

and have thereby developed wind firmness. Seedcut 

basal areas range from 30-50 ft2

/ac and have been 

commonly applied as a step in the shelterwood system for 

decades in the Black Hills without significant blowdown. 

The CT is applied to that portion of a GSH stand, 

generally 5-15” dbh trees, which is generally singlestoried and too dense to develop quality seed tree 

characteristics. The CT portion of a GSH treatment 

would be to a BA of 60 ft2

/ac. This portion of s 

shelterwood system is applied prior to a seedcut. 

Therefore, the current condition of each individual site 

proposed for GSH will determine the post-treatment 

density.

Page 24 of the DEIS notes that there is currently 2% 

aspen in the project area. Hardwood treatments are 

proposed on a total of 557 acres. Hardwood conversion 

on 126 acres and hardwood release on 431 acres. The 

proposed action increases acres of aspen from 431 to 557. 

Hardwood release is proposed on sites where hardwoods 

are currently established. Hardwood conversion is 

proposed on sites that are currently typed as pine, but 

have a substantial established hardwood component. 

These treatments remove conifers only, no cutting of 

hardwoods would occur.

The Vestal project includes design criteria to protect 

aspen from grazing pressures see Appendix B of the EIS. 

Conifers would be hinged around and within hardwood 

stands and inclusions to create a barrier to deter or hinder 

browsing. Hinging has been shown to be effective in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-26 

deterring browsing in the Black Hills (Kota and Bartos, 

2005). 

2v I believe that the FS was in error in stating that the proposed 

Vestal Project qualifies for consideration as a project supported 

by the HFRA (HR-1904) program. Obviously there are many 

benefits to the FS if the Vestal Project did qualify. An 

abbreviated NEPA process is certainly one of those benefits. 

Expedited processing of decisions is another.

See response to comment 2l on why Vestal is an 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. 

2v-1 The Vestal Project does not qualify as a legitimate HFRA 

project because: The FS must have an "annual program of work" 

that gives priority to projects that protect at-risk communities or 

watershed or that implement community wildfire protection 

plans, HFRA1904 Sec. 103(a). The FS must demonstrate that 

this project is part of the annual program of work and/or was a 

collaborative effort within local communities, particularly where 

a Wildfire Community Protection Plan (CWPP) was prepared. I 

have requested this document to no avail. Does it exist and if so, 

why wasn't it provided to me for use in preparing my 

comments?

The annual program of work is composed of several 

documents that collectively present the program. The 

Forest Service complies with Sec 103(a). 

See response to comment 2c on your FOIA request for 

the annual program of work for years 2003 through 

present. 

2v-2 The Vestal Project does not qualify as a legitimate HFRA 

project because: HFRA1904 Sec. 104 (e) requires agencies-FS 

to provide notice of the project and conduct a public meeting 

when preparing authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction programs. 

The FS did not contact all of the landowners affected by the 

Vestal Project at any time nor did they give notice of or conduct 

a community preparatory planning meeting prior to scoping in 

regard to Vestal

See response to comment 2b on HFRA Sec 104 (e) 

public notice and meeting. 

2v-3 The Vestal Project does not qualify as a legitimate HFRA 

project because: HFRA 1904 Sec. 104(f) encourages meaningful 

public participation during preparation of authorized hazardousfuel reduction projects. The USDA Forest Service and DOl 

BLM shall facilitate collaboration when they are preparing 

authorized hazardous-fuel-reduction projects. As appropriate, 

collaboration should include representatives from Tribes, local 

representatives from Federal and State agencies, local 

governments, landowners, other interested persons,

community based groups, and other nongovernmental 

organizations. Local involvement is critical when planning 

projects, setting project priorities, and allocating resources at the 

local level. Agencies need to plan ahead to provide adequate 

time for collaboration.

In this instance all of the above mandates of HFRA Secs.103(a), 

104(e) and 104(f) are violated by the Vestal DEIS planning and 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-27 

scoping procedures. The FS prepared a plan, submitted it as a

project that qualified under provisions of HFRA, without 

implementing, collaborating with, contacting or notifying the 

local citizenry. Not one newspaper article was published in the

Custer County Chronicle advising the public that the project was 

being formulated and asking for opinion, comment or 

collaboration on planning. Certainly no pre-planning community

workshops were offered. There was no pre-planning, 

collaborative effort whatsoever. In this instance scoping was 

submitted to the public on April 20, 2011. The local community 

at large was not invited to participate in any meeting until May 

11,2011. This is well after the project was in the planning phase 

It is a concrete plan, in scoping, in the process of being 

proposed to the public. In the Scoping Letter the community is 

advised that they have only until May 31 or less than three 

weeks, after the public meeting wherein the plan was discussed 

to comment on scoping. As a landowner included in the 

mandate of HFRA1904 Sec. 104 (f) I take issue with

this procedure and the fact that I was not advised of the plan or 

the preparation phase for the plan and given the opportunity to 

contribute. I also take issue with the fact that I was ignored

and not advised about scoping. Again, I received no notice of 

scoping and certainly no notice prior to initiating the DEIS 

phase of the project. No notice despite being a significant (131

acres) landowner directly adjacent to the proposed project which 

will impact me significantly. 

In addition to collaboration with landowners Sec. 104 (f) 

provides that collaboration in preparing authorized fuel 

reduction programs should include representatives from local 

Tribes. The DEIS at page 11 details the Public Involvement all 

of which took place after scoping. This is not a preplanning

phase. In regard to Tribal Consultation in the preparation phase 

the project was not presented at a Tribal Consultation Meeting 

until June 22, 2011. This is three weeks after the comment 

period for scoping had terminated. This further violates HFRA1904 Sec 104 (f). This is not public involvement and 

collaboration in preparation. The statement in the Vestal DEIS 

that it is such is false. In fact Sec. 104 (g) applies specifically to 

scoping in direct contrast to preparatory collaboration 

requirement of Sec. 104 (f).

2v-4 The Vestal Project does not qualify as a legitimate HFRA 

project because: The CWPP on which the FS has based its 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and collaboration
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-28 

qualification under provisions of HFRA is totally fiction

to the point of being an unconscionable sham. Why? When 

relying on a CWPP, HFRA requires the CWPP be agreed to and 

accepted by the applicable local government, local fire 

department and state agency responsible for forest management. 

The CWPP must identify and prioritize areas of hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments and recommend types of treatment, 

methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will 

protect l or more at-risk communities and essential 

infrastructures and recommend measures to reduce structural 

ignitablility throughout the at risk community. Sec 101 

(3)(A)(B)(C). The CWPP was drafted in 2006 as a 'boiler plate'

report and not accepted by any of the three agencies required by 

HFRA until May 11, 2011 when scoping was already well 

underway on this alleged HFRA project, this is further evidence 

of the gross deviation from HFRA requirements in regard to 

community involvement in the preparation phase. Weeks after 

the project is in the scoping phase again which means there was 

a concrete plan, the District Ranger decides to propose that an 

old, outdated draft, of at the most a County Plan and not a 

CWPP due to HFRA requirements, be accepted as proof of 

community collaboration in planning. This defies logic and is a 

fraudulent manipulation of the requirements of Sec. 104. This 

occurred at a Custer County commissioners meeting with Lynn 

Kolund (District Ranger) present to discuss Vestal on May 11, 

2011.

As discussed above, the Custer County Commissioners accepted 

the CWPP on 5-11-2011 as Resolution 2011-7 in its original 

2006 boiler plate form. It was not amended to address current

or site-specific issue or conditions. There is no documentation 

that it was ever formally accepted by the local fire department or 

by the State Department of Agriculture, Division of

Forestry. It is not a valid CWPP pursuant to HFRA. MOST 

IMPORTANTLY, The FS cannot claim that the Vestal Project 

is pursuant to HFRA and in compliance with a CWPP which 

was not accepted by the local government until well after 

scoping for the project was well underway. There can be no 

pretense that that a CWPP was considered or the Community atrisk involved in the planning phase. This is fraud upon the 

Secretary and a direct violation of HFRA requirements and 

edicts. The Vestal Project is not a HFRA project. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2006 CWPP is 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 

See response to 2g on WUI
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-29 

valid, despite the fact that it was not accepted by the three 

agencies as required by HFRA as delineated above, it still does 

not designate a WUI of any size and certainly not 3 miles from 

the center of Custer, SD. This is important because again, 

HFRA defines WUI at Section Sec 101 (16):

WUI is defined as – NOTE: WUI definition omitted here for 

brevity is displayed at comment 2g and 2j

2v-5 Consequently, pursuant to HFRA Sec 101 (3) (A)(B) (C and 

Section Sec 101 (16) the only WUI that the Vestal Project could 

be legally operating within, were it a legal HFRA project which 

it is not for the above reasons and others to be discussed below, 

is a 0.5-mile radius from the city boundary of the at-risk 

community. The result is only 1/6 of the entire project can 

arguably be evaluated and implemented under the provisions of 

HFRA and the remaining 5/6 because Vestal is erroneously 

promulgated as a 3-mile radius project cannot be legally 

proposed under the expedited HFRA provisions.

See response to 2g on WUI 

2v-6 The Vestal Project does not qualify as a legitimate HFRA 

project because: HFRA mandates that the project comply with 

the Forest Management Plan. All proposed HFRA actions must 

be consistent with the applicable resource management plans. 

This means that any proposed action that would not be 

consistent with a resource management plan must be: modified 

to make it consistent with the plan, or be covered by a plan 

amendment or project specific amendment. The Healthy Forests 

Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act, Interim Field 

Guide, page 9.

The Vestal project is consistent with the Black Hills 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

No plan amendments are necessary or proposed. 

“The determination of whether or not an individual 

project is consistent with the Forest Plan shall be based 

on whether or not the project adheres to forest-wide and 

management area standards.” (Forest Plan, preface page 

5). 

2w The proposed action in the DEIS is incongruent and in 

opposition to the listed standards for soil disturbance (1110, 

1103), surface water run-off (1112, 1113 and 1116), stream 

channels (1201, 1209), riparian areas (1301 and 1302) violating 

or any deviation from these standards requires an amendment to 

the project or an amendment to the forest plan. This includes not 

mentioning them in the DEIS analysis or simply stating they 

will not be a problem with no scientific basis or

study to support the conclusion. 

See response to comment 2v-6

Information in the DEIS is based on resource analysis 

completed by the project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) 

and documented in resource specialist reports. 

Information is summarized rather than repeated verbatim, 

in the EIS. Resource specialist reports are contained in 

the project file. 

The Soil and Watershed Specialist Report addresses the 

mentioned Forest Plan Standards.

1103 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard. Past monitoring shows that when Forest plan 

Standards and Guidelines are implemented on similar 

projects, this standard is met (USDA Forest Service, 

2008, 2009 & 2010). The Vestal project includes design 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-30 

criteria to limit erosion and displaced land, Appendix B 

of the EIS. These design criteria would be followed and 

all Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be 

implemented. The Vestal project includes similar 

treatments to those sites monitored in the referenced 

reports. This project would not exceed the 15% limit and 

would be in compliance with standard 1103. 

1110 - The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard as revegetation will be initiated as soon as 

possible, after the termination of ground-disturbing 

activities Design criteria in Appendix B require, “Re-

vegetation would be initiated as soon as possible, 

generally not to exceed 6 months, after termination of 

ground-disturbing activities. All disturbed soils would be 

re-vegetated with native species when available, using 

seed mixtures free of noxious weeds

1112 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard as enough organic matter will be retained on 

site. Monitoring for standard 1103 shows that this is 

being achieved. Monitoring of similar project activities 

on the Forest has shown that when Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines are implemented, which include WCPs 

and BMPs, sufficient organic ground cover remains on 

site and this standard is met. See standard 1103 above. 

1113 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard as there will be only .1 mile of new system road 

construction, and this is not within a WIZ, adjacent to a 

stream. The closest perennial stream is approximately 1⁄4 

mile away and sufficient ground cover will remain to 

minimize, or eliminate, sediment. The proposed action 

does include 3potential stream crossings. Design 

criteria in Appendix B would minimize potential for 

sediment. Design criteria also requires landings to 

generally be greater than 100 feet from streams. 

1116 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard as organic material will be left on the ground. 

Past monitoring for Standard 1103 shows that there is 

very little detrimentally impacted soil following 

vegetation management See standard 1103 above. 

Organic material will be left on the ground. This would 

conserve site moisture and minimize runoff. 

Implementation of all the Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, which include WCPs and BMPs, would 

incsure this standard is met. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-31 

For example, at page 144, the DEIS states that the increase in

flow regimes under both alternatives will be a positive 

cumulative effect. That conclusion is not based on any study or 

science and it applies to 16 streams all within very different sites 

within this project area. 

The DEIS does not even include NCCS soil survey data for the 

area, and the soil erosion data that would be contained in such a 

report. There is a distinct difference between Alternative 1 and 2 

in this regard. By design Alternative 2 is not speculative. Yet in 

regard to each BHNFMP standard designated above the public 

is left to speculate as to how it is being applied and to assume 

that it is being applied with no adverse effect or detriment to the 

public or the human environment

1201 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard as this standard applies to instream work or 

stream channel relocation, none of which are being 

proposed in Vestal. 

1209 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard. Streamflows have been altered over time with 

the increase of vegetation (pine) within the watersheds. 

Generally there is not as much water available for ground 

water recharge or streamflow as there was when fewer 

trees were on the landscape. The MPB is starting to 

reverse this in some watersheds. This project would 

change the amount of vegetation (pine) on the watershed, 

augmenting streamflows and helping maintain stream 

health.

1301 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard. Up to 251 acres of treatment are proposed in 

the WIZ (water influence zone), including a variety of 

treatments which would reduce the basal area. Design 

criteria is included in Appendix B specific to 

implementation of activities within the WIZ. These 

design criteria would minimize impacts in the WIZ and 

would maintain or improve long-term stream health and 

riparian ecosystem condition.

1302 – The Vestal project will be in compliance with this 

standard. No commercial activities are planned in or 

immediately adjacent to wetlands. Reducing the upland 

vegetation may help with the water budget by making 

more water available for ground water recharge, 

streamflow or wetlands.

Water quantity/Flow Regime is discussed in the Soil and 

Watershed Specialist Report. If there are less live trees 

(pumps) on the landscape, more water is available for 

streamflow or ground water recharge, supplementing 

minimal flows in streams. 

NRCS soil data is available in the Soil and Watershed 

Specialist Report in the project file. Soil and Watershed 

Standards and Guidelines are also discussed in the Soil 

and Watershed Specialist Report.

2x The proposed action in the DEIS is incongruent and in 

opposition to the structural diversity standard (2101 and 2106-

7). Openings are too large in many cases and were not submitted 

Standard 2101 states that the maximum size of opening 

created by even-aged management will be 40 acres. The 

Vestal project does not propose to create openings by 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-32 

for review by the regional forester. This is particularly true in 

relation to the GSH, HC and HR, alleged hardwood restoration 

sites, as well as the PE (discussed below). 

The proposal does not address treatments relative to risks based 

on some science like keen's crown structure classification or 

other risk factor methodology.

even-aged management which are greater than 40 acres in 

size and is therefore, consistent with this standard and no 

review by the Regional Forester is necessary. Refer to 

Silviculture Finding Report in Appendix E of the EIS. 

Guidelines 2106 and 2107 are not Forest Plan Standards. 

These guidelines are followed because; no artificially 

created openings are proposed (guideline 2106) and Pine 

encroachment (PE) treatment is by definition only 

proposed in historic meadows (guideline 2107). Historic 

meadows are defined by soil type and other factors. 

Some meadows have inclusions of rock outcrops. Such 

inclusions of rock would not be included in PE 

treatments. 

Refer to treatment definitions on pages 17-24 of the EIS.

GSH – is group shelterwood treatment -- an even-aged 

treatment, however no openings are created

HC – is Hardwood Conversion. No openings are created 

with this treatment. Conifers are removed from the 

mixed conifer/hardwood stand to allow the existing 

hardwoods to grow. 

HR – is hardwood release – no openings are created. 

Conifers are removed from the hardwood stand. 

Leave trees are identified based on tree vigor factors 

along the lines of Keen’s and local factors. This was not 

mentioned in the analysis because it is common forestry 

practice.

2y The proposed action prescribes the 'PE' treatment at places that 

do not have soils associated with meadows, are often rocky 

outcrops, and have elevated, non-flat terrain. A specific

example of this borders my property at 30305 sites, 70, 71 & 72. 

The more reasonable solution would be to treat the area under 

the aforementioned option or simply sanitize it. Such an 

approach would be more in line with standard 2101 and 2106. In 

addition there are numerous PEs throughout the project site that 

clear cut entire stands of pine trees in excess of 80 to 100

acres with no mention that these sites are biologically 

appropriate for PE which again violate standard 2101 and 2106, 

and standard 3219 as far in excess of 10 acres and not in a legal 

WUI, and state nothing about the impact that this will have on 

the cover both to hide and thermal for the big game wildlife 

PE- pine encroachment – is the removal of conifers from 

existing meadows. This is not a clearcut. PE treatments 

maintain meadows. See pages 17-24 in the EIS. 

Historic meadows are defined by soil type and other 

factors. Some meadows have inclusions of rock outcrops. 

Such inclusions of rock would be avoided in PE 

treatments. 

Sites 30305-70, 71, and 72 are meadow sites which are 

being encroached upon by pine trees. The PE treatment is 

proposed to maintain these meadow sites. Rock outcrops 

occur within as inclusions.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-33 

which utilize the meadow, this violates the theme and goal of 

MA 5.4 wherein which the sample site on my property above 

sits, by providing according to BHFMP "a timber harvest and 

prescribed burn to improve habitat within this key wildlife area 

with hiding and thermal cover and late-successional areas 

provided".

Standard 3219 pertains to clearcutting . The Vestal 

project is consistent with this standard because no 

clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

See response to 2g on WUI

See response 2S on thermal cover 

See response to 2x on standard 2101, guideline 2106 

The effects analysis to deer and elk (pg. 67 of DEIS; pgs. 

62-63 of wildlife report for elk) addresses effects of the 

project to these species habitat. 

MA 5.4 is managed for Big Game Winter Range habitat. 

This is provided in a number of ways. Winter motorized 

closures are one way that habitat is provided. The 

proposed action includes design criteria to lessen 

unauthorized travel behind gates. Additionally, the full 

range of management practices may occur in this area. 

The proposed action is consistent with management 

direction for MA 5.4 – Big Game Winter Range. 

Forest Guideline 3203 regards screening or hiding cover 

requirements. The Vestal project meets this guideline – 

refer to pages 41-42 and 67 of the DEIS.

We note late succession stage as SS5. There are 14 acres 

of SS5 in management area 5.4, and 107 acres total in this 

project area. No treatments, other than sanitation, are 

proposed within late succession stands. The proposed 

action is expected to retain this late succession habitat by 

reducing MPB risk to surrounding stands. However, the 

No Action alternative is projected to reduce SS5 from 107 

acres to 10 acres total on the landscape, due to MPB 

caused mortality. 

The quoted text is not correct. The quoted text appears to 

be based on a paragraph under Desired Future Condition 

for MA 5.4 on page III-91 of the Forest Plan. 

2z The soils and potential for run-off flooding into private 

meadows and homes, the wetlands within each meadow and the 

effect on its ecosystem, all of this is ignored in each PE analysis. 

PE is pine encroachment treatment which is the removal 

of encroaching pine from existing meadows. Flooding 

would not occur as a result of PE treatments. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-34 

I would like to know what will happen to the turtles in my ponds 

from the increase in the water flow and sentiment to Willow 

Creek. This is not addressed but will obviously be an indirect 

impact attributable to exposing so much bare soil. The public is 

left to trust that this is appropriate and legal according to 

BHNFMP and other forest and environmental standards. They 

must also assume that it is safe for their property and homes.

No flooding would occur as a result of proposed actions. 

From observations in the Black Hills, flooding can occur 

when 1) a wildfire burns large portions of the watershed 

and there is no organic material on the ground to hold the 

water on the watershed 2) when a large precipitation 

event occurs over short periods of time or 3) spring rains 

occur frequent enough to fill the watershed with water. 

The Vestal project would retain organic matter on soils 

throughout the project. Past monitoring shows that when 

Forest plan Standards and Guidelines are implemented on 

similar projects, there is very little detrimentally impacted 

soil. (USDA Forest Service, 2008, 2009 & 2010). Design 

criteria is included to re-vegetate any disturbed areas – 

See Appendix B. The proposed action is also predicted to 

retain more mature live trees on the landscape, than the 

No Action alternative. Estimates of structural stages at 

year 2018 are presented in Table 4 in the EIS. 

Flooding from precipitation events can occur in the Black 

Hills when the precipitation exceeds the infiltration rate 

which is dependent on the organic layer over the soil. 

This can occur regardless of whether an area has been 

harvested or not. Organic matter would be retained, as 

noted above, and as described in the Soil and Watershed 

Specialist Report. 

 

No flooding would result from proposed actions. No 

impact to turtles in private ponds would occur. 

2aa The public is also left to trust that the SIO of each site will be 

returned moderate to high within one year after a literal bomb 

will have gone off at the site. That is ludicrous and defies logic 

with no basis in science. It is simply stated as fact because that 

is a BNFMP goal at 5606.

Forest Plan Guideline 5606 is not a Forest Plan Goal. 

The timeframes for meeting SIO criterion, as stated in 

Guideline 5606, vary from 1-4 years following 

completion of a project. The Vestal project includes 

commercial and non-commercial treatments, prescribed 

burning, road related activities and fuel reduction actions. 

Refer to pages 17-24 and the description of alternative 2 

in Chapter 2 of the EIS. There are also substantial design 

features included as part of this project (see Appendix B). 

All of the proposed actions included in this project must 

be completed before the stated timeframes for meeting 

SIOs, under guideline 5606, begin. 

Additional information on the expected scenic integrity 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-35 

resulting from each proposed treatment has been added to 

the EIS. See the Scenery section of Chapter 3. Also refer 

to Map 17 in Appendix A. 

2bb The DEIS does not address the socioeconomic impacts 

associated with implementing the proposed project. I find this 

strange because of the very important recreation, hunting, sale 

of forest products, tourism, real estate and other forms of use 

and employment dependent upon the Custer National Forest's 

scenic beauty, serenity and forest resources. Something as

important and influential as the Vestal Project will certainly 

affect the quality of this aspect of the human environment for 

many years. How can this project ignore the critical discussion 

of the socioeconomic impact for a project alleged to be a 

community collaborative effort? The impact on tourism is 

without question. 

In addition, has anyone assessed the capacity of local mills and 

logging companies to handle the volume or size of material 

likely to be offered over a short harvest window? A reasonable 

economic analysis would have disclosed the interest, availability 

and capacity for handling the forest products. Again, it is absent. 

In the June 25 Custer County Chronicle article, Lynn Kolund, 

admits the timber may not sell. Yet he has apparently tied up the 

Forest Service with the Vestal Project. According to the 

provisions of NEPA the FS is unable to take action on any part 

of the proposed Vestal Project until there is a Record of 

Decision. I assume that means that sanitization is also on hold. 

This is counterproductive to a goal to combat the beetle 

infestation and is further evidence that the No Action 

Alternative should be selected so that we all can get on with a 

sane approach to forest management.

The 1997 Revised Forest Plan FEIS addresses social and 

economic aspects of the Black Hills National Forest 

revised Plan, as amended by Phase 11. Refer to Sections 

3-9 and 3-11 in the FEIS for the Phase II Amendment. 

The Vestal project will be consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Additional information on the socio-economic 

environment in Custer County has been added to the EIS. 

See response to comments 2n, 2aa and 2dd on scenery 

An economic efficiency analysis is not required for 

project level analysis in Region 2, which includes the 

Black Hills National Forest. The 1996 R2 supplement to 

FSM 1970 was removed in 2011. 

Refer to response to comment letters 11 and 40 from 

industry representatives. 

It is correct that implementation may not occur until a 

Record of Decision is signed on this project. 

Your support of the No Action alternative is noted. 

2cc The Vestal DEIS at page 4 professes to respond to three of the 

eleven forest plan multi-use goals and objectives with no 

explanation the DEIS ignores the other nine. Goal4; provides for 

scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and 

protection of heritage resources in response to the needs of the 

Black Hills National Forest visitors and local communities. The 

goal states that the outstanding scenery of the black hills is a 

major attraction for visitors. The forest service will focus its 

management on maintaining this high quality, especially within 

the landscapes seen from road and trail corridors, developed 

recreation sites, administrative sites, and the towns and cities 

The Vestal project does not ignore Forest Plan goals. The 

referenced section of the EIS notes that the Responsible 

official for the project has chosen to propose resource 

management actions that respond to Forest Plan Goals 2, 

4, 10. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-36 

within the forest. The greatest demand and use of the Black 

Hills will continue to be driving for pleasure.

2dd Objective 401. Review all existing projects and areas that do not 

meet the adopted scenic integrity objective (SIO) specified for 

each management area, and set priorities for rehabilitation. 

The DEIS claims to conflict with Goal 4 which requires 

maintaining SIOs for thousands of acres. 

The DEIS ignores this objective and in fact ignores this in terms 

of the example of my property used above in terms of 

PE,GSH,AND CT50. If implemented my property and the 

surrounding environment will lose its high SIO objectives. 

Currently, the property is a beautiful park like setting, located 

on a country road which leads to two main trail heads at 

different junctures. 

If implemented as proposed the Vestal Project will essentially 

mandate that the area be clear-cut under proposed treatments of 

PE, GSH, and CT50; especially once winds have taken their toll 

among the sparse remaining forests. The DEIS states nothing 

about rehabilitation or the destruction of the SIO of these sites. 

Also Goal 420 is ignored in this regard under travel- manage 

Objective 401 deals with rehabilitation of areas where the 

existing condition does not meet the assigned SIO for a 

particular area. The Vestal analysis identified a site 

along 16/385 which does not meet the assigned SIO due 

to the extensive MPB caused mortality. No specific 

rehabilitation actions are proposed. 

The DEIS does not claim to conflict with Goal 4. 

The National Forest lands surrounding the property in 

question were mapped through a Scenery Management 

Analysis Process in the 1996 Forest Planning Process. 

These lands were predominantly assigned a Moderate 

SIO, with a few areas with a Low SIO. The only High 

SIO identified lands, in the surrounding vicinity, are 

approx. 1⁄2 mile to the west. See Map 17 in Appendix A 

which has been added to the EIS. There are no Forest 

Designated System Trails in this area that would have 

been included in the Scenery Analysis. 

No clearcutting is proposed in this project. 

Pine Encroachment treatment does remove all pine trees 

from an area, to return the area to a meadow condition. 

This is a treatment to maintain or restore open meadows 

(Guideline 2107 and Standard 3219).

The GSH and CT50 would both maintain a forested 

landscape, though the larger trees will be more widely 

spaced and smaller trees (less than 9” diameter) will 

remain. The results would borrow from the Prairie-forest 

edge character to create an open landscape with trees 

scattered across it (Guideline 5605). Additional 

information on the effect of treatments to scenic integrity, 

has been added to the EIS. 

See response to comment 2u on blowdown, openings and 

CT50 

See response to comments 2x and 2y on PE and GSH

 

Forest Plan Objective 420 is not a Forest Plan Goal. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-37 

travel corridors for federal, state and county roads which are to 

meet a SIO of high.

During the Forest Planning process, not all County Roads 

were included and assigned a High SIO. As a result, 

Objective 420 does not apply to all County Roads. A map 

showing SIOs has been added to the EIS. See Map 17 in 

Appendix A. The proposed action better moves toward 

this objective than the no action alternative due to 

projected MPB caused mortality. 

2ee The Vestal Project is not site specific in endeavoring to meet 

these goals but instead states they will be compromised but the 

price is worth it with no study of the impact on the socioeconomic values or the tourist economy ingeneral. See also page 

4 of the CWPP draft of 2006 in this regard. Tourism is noted in 

that document as a mainstay of the local economy. Not only will 

the businesses dependent on tourism suffer so will the real estate 

market. This is also noted at page 4 of the CWPP draft of 

2006.The values to the community noted in their draft 

community at risk document are ignored in the Vestal Project. 

These lost values have not been weighed against the alleged risk 

as per Goal4 of the BHFMP

See response to 2bb on socio-economic 

Tourism and the associated businesses are noted as a 

value at risk in the project area. 

The live forest surrounding Custer is an integral and 

desirable character of the community in general, 

including the many businesses and private landowners. 

In general, people prefer to view a live forest rather than 

dead. The effects of the No Action alternative are 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS.

2ff This is significant in terms of the forest plan standard for insect 

and diseases: Standard 4201(b) during scheduled management 

activities minimize susceptibility to mountain-pine-beetle

epidemics by reducing average basal area to 70 or less in pine 

stands, except where denser stands are needed to meet other 

management objectives.

The Vestal project reduces MPB risk by reducing stand 

densities to 70 or less. Denser stands are retained where 

needed to meet other resource objectives. The Vestal 

project is consistent with standard 4201 (b). 

2gg Guideline 4205 considers applying preventive silviculture 

treatments or other integrated pest management strategies to 

National Forest System Land adjoining other land ownership to 

reduce the likelihood of insect and disease epidemics and 

spread. Activities are to be prioritized according to values, risk 

and management objectives. Priority is given to values to be 

protected when exceed the cost of protection such as in adjacent 

to subdivisions, metropolitan areas, etc.).

Not a direct quote of Guideline 4205, but substantially 

correct. This guideline also states, “Plan suppression 

strategies to reduce mountain pine beetle populations in 

pine stands during epidemics.”

The Vestal project is consistent with this guideline 

because it proposes preventive silviculture treatments 

(reducing stand densities) as well as suppression 

treatments (sanitation – removal of beetle infested trees). 

These treatments are proposed on National Forest system 

lands adjoining other land ownerships and are proposed 

to reduce the threat to forest resources from the MPB. 

There are substantial numbers of private structures and 

private lands within the project area. 

2hh Again in this regard the DEIS does not prioritize according to 

values, risk and management objectives. The DEIS violates the 

Forest Plan and HFRA assuming for the sake of argument only

See response to comments 2f and 2l on Vestal as an 

authorized HFRA project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-38 

that HFRA applies, in not conducting this critical analysis on a 

site by site basis. The forest and in particular in terms of its 

many management goals, standards and objectives as well as its

numerous management areas is not a one-size-fits-all, which the 

Vestal Project DEIS unscientifically implies

See response to comment 2d on site specific IDT 

analysis. 

2ii To further this point Guideline 5601 details the scenic integrity 

objectives and 5602 dictates management activities which are 

inconsistent with the scenic integrity will be prohibited unless

a decision is made to change the SIO for the specific area. Such 

decisions will be documented in a site-specific decision 

document. The proposed Vestal Project violates the Forest Plan 

in regard to this guideline as there are no such site specific 

decision documents. In fact there is no site specific document of 

prioritization, impacts, or need. The Record of Decision could

state this but the analyses and disclosure documents need to be 

part of the Administrative Record. They will be absent pending 

a supplemental draft EIS

Guideline 5601 does note SIO by Management Area. 

Refer to Map 17 in Appendix A which displays SIOs in 

the project area. 

Guideline 5602 states, “Management activities which are 

inconsistent with the scenic integrity objectives will be 

prohibited unless a decision is made to change the scenic 

integrity objective.” The activities proposed in the Vestal 

project are not inconsistent with the SIOs. None of the 

proposed treatments would prohibit attainment of SIOs 

and therefore, a change of SIO is not proposed. 

Additional information has been added to the Scenery 

section of Chapter 3 in the EIS. 

2jj This is even further emphasized in Guideline 5610 within the 

immediate foreground of primary travel ways/use areas, manage 

tree stands to enhance the scenic quality and recreational

opportunities. Manage for a variety of scenic quality and 

recreation opportunities. Manage for a variety of scenic 

conditions including areas of large, yellow barked ponderosa 

pine, areas of hiding cover for wildlife, and areas with open 

park-like conditions, except as needed to meet Objective 10-02 

which states the SIOs within the wildland-urban interface will 

be moderate to low for 2 to 4 years after management activities 

have been completed.

The proposed Vestal Project violates this objective as well as 

10-04, 10-06, 10-07, and 10-08 where there is no prioritization 

and pursuant to the forest plan and HFRA as delineated above 

over 5/6 of the project is outside of any statutory or legal WUI. 

This is all violated in the proposed DEIS actions adjacent and in 

close proximity to my property.

The ‘Immediate Foreground’, described in Guideline 

5610, is the Distance Zone of 0-300 feet from a primary 

road way (Forest Plan, Glossary pg. 19). Treatments 

within this Distance Zone are designed to meet this 

Guideline where possible (i.e. large diameter trees are 

already present and they can be emphasized by reducing 

competing vegetation). An SIO map has been added to 

the EIS for clarification. Refer to map 17 in Appendix A. 

Concern levels are assigned to roads based on the degree 

of public importance of the landscape view (Forest Plan, 

Glossary page 10). Concern levels contribute to 

determination of SIO. 

Objective 10-02 states that SIO within the WUI will be 

low to moderate for 2-4 years. This objective 

acknowledges that such management treatments could be 

highly evident in the Wildland Urban Interface and may 

meet a lower SIO after management activities are 

completed, and take 2-4 years to recover. The Vestal 

project contributes to this objective. 

Objective 10-04 is addressed by the analysis of risk, 

hazard and values at risk and the actions proposed in 

Alternative 2. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-39 

Objective 10-06 is addressed through the collaboration 

done as part of the Vestal Project area. See 2b. 

Objective 10-07 is a Forest-wide objective. The Vestal 

project would contribute to this objective by reducing the 

acreage of pine in a high risk for infestation by mountain 

pine beetle. See Table 5 and Figures 5 &6 in the EIS. 

Objective 10-08 is a Forest-wide objective. The Vestal 

project contributes to this objective by reducing the threat 

to forest resources from the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic. 

See response to 2g on WUI

2kk HFRA requires the determination of significant threat to an 

ecosystem component in regard to Sec. 102 (a) (4) as relied 

upon by Vestal Project DEIS at page 9:

Sec. 102(a)(4) of the HFRA authorizes expedited vegetation 

management projects on NFS and BLM lands where anyone of 

three specified conditions is present that poses "a significant 

threat to an ecosystem component or forest or rangeland 

resource, on the federal land or adjacent non-federal land." those 

conditions are: Windthrow...the existence of an insect or 

disease epidemic on NFS or BLM land, the presence of an 

insect or disease epidemic on immediately adjacent land (which 

may be non-Federal land) and the imminent risk that the 

epidemic will spread. 

However the presence of one or more of these conditions does 

not trigger use of HFRA procedures. There must be a

determination that the condition or conditions pose a significant

threat to an ecosystem component or a forest or rangeland 

resource. For example, a stand where conditions rate a high 

hazard of loss or damage to an ecosystem component or forest

resource would not qualify for HFRA procedures unless there 

was an actual insect or disease epidemic or other condition 

listed above. Such stands certainly could be treated to reduce 

risk using other authorities.

This is significant in regard to the Vestal Project impact analysis 

of Alternative 2 because at page 14 and 15 there are 12 

proposed action vegetation treatments for Alternative 2 and 7 of 

these protocols which total over 18,000 acres in very diverse 

See response to comment 2f and 2l on Vestal as an 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under Sec 

102 (a)(4) of the HFRA

The HFRA authority may be used for projects which 

qualify under Sec 102 (a)(4), however, use of HFRA is 

not required in such projects. 

The epidemic determination necessary to qualify projects 

under Sec 102 (a)(4) is not done on an individual site 

level. 

Local Forest Health specialists were consulted in the 

determination of an epidemic within the project area. 

See Appendix H of the EIS which contains the 

determination of an epidemic in the Vestal project area, 

signed by the Forest Supervisor. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-40 

ecosystems are defined as to reduce MPB risk , not active 

epidemic in each site. The sites can be treated to reduce risk 

using other authorities including those in the Forest Plan. 

The use of each of these protocols requires further 

documentation and analysis because resource managers are 

responsible for identifying important ecosystem components 

and resource values that may be threatened by ...insect or 

disease epidemics, and deciding the management actions that 

will be taken to address them. Forest health and other 

specialists, working together with resource managers, should 

provide expert advice whether a significant threat exists to 

ecosystem components or forest or rangeland resources.

The determination of "significant threat" referred to in Section 

102 (a) (4) should not be confused with NEPA requirements to 

determine whether a federal action may significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. A determination of 

"significant threat" under the HFRA does not dictate whether an 

environmental analysis or environmental impact statement

should be prepared. Rather, that determination should be made 

after developing alternative treatments and assessing their 

environmental effects.

The Vestal Project DEIS fails to conduct this critical assessment 

on a site specific basis. Again the one size fits all as applied to 

over 43,000 acres violates HFRA protocol and the Forest Plan.

2ll HFRA requires documentation of threats of wildfire to 

municipal water supplies and infrastructure under Sections 102 

(a) (2) and (3): 

The analysis and documentation for the threat of wildland fire 

reference above should document the factors considered in

determining that a wildland fire likely would have adverse

effects on the quality of the municipal water supply or on 

system maintenance. If possible, this should have been done 

when making the case for adverse effects. The hazards and risks 

should be quantified. The short and long term effects of 

proposed treatments and the effects of taking no action should 

be described as provided for in the judicial review section. The 

Vestal Project DEIS fails in this regard. There is no long and 

short term assessment of the effects of the proposed treatments 

other than the conclusionary logic/controlled sanction approach 

which is unsubstantiated and subjectively written.

The Vestal project is an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project under Sec 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA. It 

qualifies as an authorized project because there is an 

existing mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring which 

threatens to spread onto both private and Federal lands 

and threatens forest resources. Refer to Appendix H in 

the EIS. 

The City of Custer obtains it water from a groundwater 

source from wells drilled into the French Creek alluvium. 

It does not use surface water. The hydrology section of 

Chapter 3 discusses water resources. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-41 

2mm In evaluating the significance of the threat of wildfire on the 

municipality it is a scientific fact that historically, understory 

fire regimes dominated the open ponderosa pine and douglas-fir

forests of the west. There is a distinct difference between natural 

understory fire regimes and stand-replacing fire regimes. 

Annotated Bibliographv for Forest Managers on Fire-Bark 

Beetle Interactions. USFS Western Wildlands Environmental 

Threats Assessment Center and January 18, 2001 at page 2. 

Collectively, studies to date have shown that time-since-beetle 

outbreak is critical in understanding the relationship between 

beetle outbreaks, stand structure, fuel dynamics and fire risk. 

Nonetheless, empirical studies remain relatively few, id at page 

4. There has been no study or assessment in terms of assessing 

the significance of the risk of wildfire in terms of Vestal. 

However, the publication "Yellow Ore, Yellow Hair, Yellow 

Pine" which the Forest Service participated in having published 

in 1973 well documents the changes to the ponderosa

pine /Douglas-fir ecosystems in the Black Hills over 100 years. 

It is obvious that fire has been a major component in this 

system, and the problem today is the result of removing that

component from the system, allowing PB to take its place. For 

that reason, the No Action alternative may be the best 

alternative. It will allow the system to return to a balanced

ecosystem. This is not without risk, but the current and past 

management direction by the Forest Service has created the 

current epidemic and risk. At a minimum, the role of fire must 

be returned to these ecosystems. Fire is something we can count 

on, the Forest Service and one time solutions are not.

I hasten to point out at this juncture that much has been learned 

regarding protecting buildings and other structures when fire is 

imminent and that cutting all the trees down so there won't be

any fuel is only one of many remedies to controlling losses. 

Sprays, fire retardant building supplies, and selective removal of 

fuels in close proximity are available, to name just a few.

Fire hazard specific to this project area was analyzed per 

BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 and associated 

Fire Rating guide, August 2011). 

The risk of a wildfire occurring is discussed in the 

Fire/Fuels section of Chapter 3. The risk of wildfire 

would not change by alternative. 

The coarse scale national data characterizes the Black 

Hills, including the project area, as primarily Condition 

Class III, high relative risk of significantly altering or 

losing key components of the ponderosa pine forest 

system. The impact of fire suppression to forest stand 

structures is recognized and discussed within the Forest 

vegetation section of Chapter 3 in the EIS. 

The projected effects to pine structural stages of the No 

Action alternative are displayed in Table 4 and discussed 

in more detail in Chapter 3. Substantial changes on a 

landscape scale are projected. The decision maker will 

review all environmental analysis, supporting documents 

and public input in making a decision on this project. 

The decision maker may select the No Action alternative. 

The Vestal project includes prescribed burning. 

The Vestal project does not propose to cut all the trees 

down. 

2nn HFRA has requirements in regard to the application of 

silviculture treatments section 404: 

Sec. 404 (a) Assessment Efforts.-For information gathering and 

research purposes, the Secretary may conduct applied 

silvicultural assessments on Federal land that the Secretary 

determines is at risk of infestation by, or is infested with, forestThe Vestal project is an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project under Section 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA. 

Section 404 does not apply to this project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-42 

damaging insects. ........ 

NOTE: this comment quotes additional parts of Sec 404 and 

further states that the Vestal project violates Sec 404. 

2oo The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan at page II 22-26 Defines the Silviculture 

Standards, Goals and Guidelines. Of particular interest and 

concern in this regard is Guideline 2408.The scientifically 

defined silviculture systems shown by forest cover type, which 

meet the management objectives for the landscape or individual 

stands of trees within a Landscape setting, are acceptable as 

defined in said table,see page11-25,especially the Note 

For Aspen. Use of group selection as an appropriate silviculture 

system in aspen is currently under study to determine 

regeneration success but is authorized on a test basis.

c. Tree stand vegetation management treatments are to be 

approved by certified silviculturist. Standard.(Amended 

Regional Guide Silviculture Standard)

The Hardwood Restoration in the Vestal DEIS violates the 

Forest Management Plan and thereby HFRA in that the use the 

of Vegetation Treatments; GSH, HC, PE etc. as delineated 

above are not proposed on a test basis and they violate the forest 

management plan in numerous aspects including vegetative 

diversity, Big Game Habitat Cover both Thermal and Hide, 

Scenic Integrity and many more standards in other areas. In 

particular above The Standard 2408 (c) is violated as there is no 

assessment or certificate that a certified silviculturist has 

approved each treatment totaling over 13,000 acres. Most Forest 

Service Regions are well aware of the needs to regenerate aspen 

and the current condition of many aspen stands resulting from 

the negative effects of removing fire from the ecosystem. There 

is considerable current data and experienced personnel available 

from the Rocky Mountain Research Station that identifies the

specific silvicultural treatments for this area. They should also 

lead any study efforts if they determine they are needed. 

Otherwise you run the risk of permanently removing many of 

these stands from the ecosystem. In the meantime, you can 

spend the time necessary to describe the DFC (desirable future 

condition) that is to be achieved by management practices, 

paying particular attention to historical information and 

determinations dictated by soils.

The referenced Forest Plan pages, II-22 through 26, 

contain standards and guidelines for ‘Silviculture and 

Timber Harvest’. 

Guideline 2408 is met in the Vestal project because; the 

silvicultural systems used in pine stands are the 

Shelterwood and Single Tree Selection systems; No 

group selection is being used in Aspen and No aspen 

cutting is being proposed. The hardwood treatments 

would remove pine, not aspen. Hardwood treatments are 

proposed on a total of 557 acres. Hardwood conversion 

(HC) on 126 acres and hardwood release (HR) on 431 

acres. No GSH or PE are proposed in hardwood stands or 

for the purpose of hardwood restoration. See pages 17-24 

in the EIS. 

No group selection is proposed in the project area. 

Guideline 2408c is met because tree stand vegetation 

management treatments are proposed by a certified 

silviculturist. Please refer to Chapter 4 in the EIS for a 

list of IDT members. Silvicultural prescriptions will be 

written by a certified silviculturist. 

The GSH, HC, and PE treatments promote vegetative 

diversity by:

 GSH – apply all appropriate steps of the shelterwood 

system to stands rather than forcing one of the steps 

inappropriately. The end result is a mosaic of age classes 

and density.

 HC – promotes increase of hardwood species by 

removing pine competition.

 PE – promotes maintenance of meadows by removing 

pine competition.

See response to comments 2s and 2y on big game thermal 

and hiding cover

See response to comment 2n on structural stage 

objectives
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-43 

See response to comments 2n, 2aa and 2dd on Scenic 

Integrity

2pp Regional Silviculture Guideline 2106. Avoid altering more than 

one-third of the edge of a natural opening whenever an 

artificially created opening is adjacent to a natural opening. 

Additional edge should not be created until previously treated 

areas are considered closed, according to standard 2104. This 

guideline does not apply to treatments intended to restore 

meadows to historic conditions. Vestal just states restoring 

meadow when often the site has inappropriate aspect is currently 

treed and is on a rocky hillside with shallow soils and has none 

of the site conditions normally associated with a meadow 

setting. Why?

See response to comment 2x on guideline 2106 and rock 

inclusions within meadows. 

Guideline 2104 is met because no artificially created 

openings are proposed in the Vestal project. 

2qq Guideline 2107. Conifer encroachment on areas that have 

formed over grass, meadow, or hardwood vegetation may be 

treated (e.g. to conserve habitat for threatened, endangered and

sensitive species, management indicator species and species of 

local concern, maintain forage base, and landscape diversity). 

Consider soils that formed under grass or meadow plant

communities and other factors in determining the extent of pineencroachment removal. Again Vestal did not conduct this study 

on any site of PE clear cut in the 1450 acres or in the essential

clear cuts of GSH prescriptions (especially when factoring in 

post-cut windfall).

See response to comment 2u 

See response to comment 2x on guideline 2107. 

2rr Guideline 2406. The landscape should be the primary unit of 

analysis for silviculture. And 2407. Silvicultural standards and 

guidelines should be applied at the watershed and landscape 

level, as well as to individual stands of trees. The standards and 

guidelines must be applied in such a way as to perpetuate a 

range of environmental conditions while supplying goods and 

services to people.

Guidelines 2406 and 2407 are met because the Vestal 

landscape is the primary analysis unit and the proposed 

treatments result in a range of environmental conditions, 

while providing goods and services to people. 

2ss And Guideline 2414. For travel corridors and other places where 

scenic quality is emphasized manage tree stands to enhance the 

scenic quality and recreational opportunities. Manage for a

variety of scenic conditions including areas of large, yellowbarked ponderosa pine in open, park-like conditions, and 

scattered, young ponderosa pine, hardwoods, open meadows 

and grassland conditions. This guideline is ignored by Vestal.

The Proposed action alternative meets this guideline by 

providing for various treatments that result in a variety of 

vegetation conditions along travel corridors. From 

restoring meadows and aspen stands to reducing the 

susceptibility of large trees and forested stands to MPB 

activity. 

2tt Each management area goal and objective has a percentage of 

structural stages in ponderosa pine across the management area 

for instance 5.4-206 applies to Big Game Winter Range. This 

See response to comment 2n on structural stage 

objectives. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-44 

Structural Stage diversity is violated by Vestal with the flip 

response that it applies to the entire forest and not to the areas of 

Vestal. The Goal reads throughout the forest. The flip response 

to disregarding the Goal exemplifies the apparent Vestal Project

attitude toward Following the Forest Plan Standards, Goals and 

Objectives which is essentially we will when it suits our 

obiective which is to cut timber.

See response to comments 2v-6 and 2w on Forest Plan 

consistency

Objective 5.4-206 applies to the entire MA 5.4, forestwide. 

Refer to the purpose and need for the Vestal project in 

Chapter 1 of the EIS. 

2uu The forest plan at page IV-4 states that Hardwood Restoration 

requires more Research and Information Needs Assessment. It is 

a topic where more information would be useful in conducting 

monitoring and evaluation. Yet Vestal presumes to essentially 

clear-cut after factoring in wind throw over 13,000 acres to this 

without verification that aspect, site, soils, moisture regime, 

seed or parental stock are appropriate for hardwoods. How did 

the FS come to this sweeping conclusion?

Page IV-4 of the Forest Plan regards the Forest Plan 

Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. In regard to 

hardwood restoration, it states, “ The Forest has identified 

several research or information needs where additional 

information would be useful in conducting the monitoring 

and evaluation program.” Hardwood restoration is listed 

as 1 of 10 bulleted items. 

The Forest plan does not state that hardwood restoration 

requires more research and information. 

There is no clearcutting proposed in the Vestal project. 

See response to comment 2u on potential for blowdown.

Hardwood treatments are proposed on a total of 557 

acres, not 13,000. Hardwood conversion (HC) on 126 

acres and hardwood release (HR) on 431 acres. Site 

specific field reviews were conducted in the project area 

to develop the proposed action. Refer to pages 17-24 in 

Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

2vv Objective 306. Clear-cutting may only be used to meet 

ecosystem management objectives such as enhancing diversity, 

providing forage for wildlife, reducing insect and disease

infestations, regenerating aspen and birch stands, improving 

visuals and increasing water yield. Patch clearcuts will be 

limited to 10 acres or less. Vestal repeatedly violates this goal.

There is 1,400 plus acres of total clear cut of pine trees under PE 

alone which are far in excess of 10 acres and this is not to 

reduce disease infestation but to reduce potential risk.

This situation is the case in parcel 30305 sites, 70, 71 and 72 

which total 12 acres and adjoin my property.

Objective 306 is met by the Vestal project because no 

clearcutting is proposed.

See response to comment 2y on sites 30305-70, 71, 72

 

2ww Riparian forest objective 215 (d) Design management to 

maintain wet-meadow conditions is violated by Vestal. The 

example of PE alone is key. Pine trees will be clear cut from 

rocky outcroppings overlooking private meadows with wetlands 

Forest Plan objective 215 does not apply to the Vestal 

project. It pertains to rehabilitating stream reaches where 

water tables have receded and plant species composition 

has changed as a result of human activities. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-45 

which can cause a drying affect which is not commented upon 

in the Vestal Project DEIS. See response to comment 2y on rocky outcroppings in 

meadows. 

See response to comment 2z regarding flooding concerns. 

Removing pine from meadows will not have a drying 

effect. Leaving them will have the drying affect. Pine 

trees transpire water, using water from the soil. Less 

water will be available for the wet meadows when pine 

trees are present. When pine trees are removed, these 

trees are no longer using water and that water will be 

available to flow through the wet meadow.

2xx Standard 1302 Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, 

water budgets and flow patterns in wetlands to sustain their 

ecological function per 404 regulations. This is violated

by Vestal. The PE clear cut of 1450 acres next to wetlands and 

streams in meadows is scene in site 30305 70, 71 &72. Also see 

guideline 1303. Vegetative type conversion should only

be done in riparian areas to reestablish riparian vegetation for 

protection and/or enhancement of those ecosystems. This cannot 

be done at the site of a private meadow. The private landowner 

can start a tree farm on said meadow should he choose. In 

addition he or she most likely grazes the meadow with cattle and 

may allow elk to graze as I do. Elk and cattle eat aspen seedling. 

The proposed Vestal Project violates the Forest Plan in this

regard. Same example.

See response to comment 2w on standard 1302

See response to comment 2y on PE in sites 30305-70, 71, 

72

Guideline 1303 is met by this project because no 

vegetative type conversions are proposed within riparian 

areas. 

All proposed treatments would occur on National Forest 

system lands. 

2yy Standard 1301. In the water influence zone next to perennial and 

intermittent streams, lakes and wetlands, allow only those

actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and 

riparian ecosystem conditions. Vestal makes no attempt at this 

determination in regard to any of the hardwood restoration such 

as GSH or PE vegetative treatments which are often next to 

streams and wetlands.

See response to comment 2w on standard 1301

2zz Objective 401. Review all existing projects and areas that do not 

meet the adopted Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) specified for 

each management area, and set priorities for rehabilitation. 

Vestal just says the scenery will have far fewer trees but that's 

life, take it or leave it we are going to do it. But not to worry in 

one year it will be a medium to high SIO. I don't believe that 

statement nor can I fathom how it is calculated or determined to 

be true. The document lacks any scientific data or analysis to 

support the conclusions

See response to comment 2aa on SIO timeframes

See response to comment 2dd on Objective 401

 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-46 

2aaa Standard 2101. The maximum size of openings created by evenaged management will be 40 acres, regardless of forest type, 

with the following exceptions:

a. Where the proposal for larger openings are approved by the 

Regional Forester after a 60 day public review. - Vestal did not 

conduct a public review in this regard yet stands are open 

throughout the project far in excess of 40 acres in just PE alone.

See response to comment 2x on standard 2101

See response to comment 2vv on PE

2bbb Standard 3219. Clearcutting may only be used to meet 

ecosystem management objectives such as reducing fuels and 

fire risk adjacent to known R-2 sensitive or species of local

concern sites, and within the wildland-urban interface, 

enhancing diversity, providing forage for wildlife, reducing 

insect-and-disease infestations, regenerating aspen and birch 

stands, improving visuals or increasing water yield. Patch 

clearcuts will be limited to 10 acres or less unless this would 

make achieving the ecosystem management objective unlikely. 

This critical standard is violated repeatedly by the proposed 

Vestal Project. There is no assessment as to where clear cutting 

of pine in areas over 10 acres which is throughout the project is 

justified by any of the reasons such as known R2, insect 

infestation-not risk, regenerating aspen, requires a lot more 

documentation. The only possible argument or justification 

Vestal can make is the fiction that all of this is in the WUI. Not 

true and so all of the PE, GSH and so on is illegal, excessive and 

destructive to the environment in terms of SIO, big game 

habitat, structural diversity, riparian health, water flows and 

more.

Standard 3219 pertains to clearcutting. The Vestal 

project is consistent with standard 3219 because no 

clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comments 2n 2aa and 2dd on SIO

2ccc Why is there no section and detailed discussion of the 

socioeconomic concerns within the human Environment as 

NEPA requires and as has been laid out in other NEPA 

document? There is exclusion for Categorical Exclusions but 

not for EA or EIS NEPA documents. The Black Hills National 

Forest produces many products that generate trading of funds 

from individuals and companies to the NF and from the

NF to citizens and companies. The BHNF provides an economic 

basis for tourism, recreation, hunting, fishing, watershed 

resources including water and flood protection, as well as logs 

and other forest products.

The BHNF is an important element in the lives of all of the 

citizens who are privileged enough to have the opportunity to 

visit it. For those of us who live here, it is even more important. 

The environment and natural conditions found in the BHNF are 

See response to comments 2bb and 2ee on socioeconomic 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-47 

often the very reasons that we chose to live here. It forms the 

basic fiber of our devotion to preserving it and managing it. The 

proposed action found in the DEIS will have a profound effect 

on all of these categories and resources. I think that leaving out 

this category of disciplines and interests of the analysis was 

unfair and amounts to a fatal flaw in the DEIS because 

socioeconomics is a vital element to aspects of the decisions to 

be made. Making decisions on how and under what conditions 

to implement the Proposed Action in the DEIS without 

reviewing and analyzing socioeconomic concerns and issues 

will lead to capricious and arbitrary management and is not in 

keeping with the intent of NEPA or HFRA. The DEIS either 

needs to be supplemented with an evaluation of the social and 

economic impacts that will occur if the proposed action were 

implemented or another alternative added that is more sensitive 

to these disciplines and areas of interest. The socioeconomic 

considerations alone could drive the creation of another 

alternative. 

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to doing 

something in order to manage the MPB infestation or make the 

community safe from a debilitating wildfire, it is just another 

example of either not disclosing the site specific reasons for 

some of the 'heavy handed" (CT50 or heavier) actions over large 

areas that have already been heavily thinned or which for other 

reasons do not pose a threat of exacerbating the spread

of MPB. 

The CT50 at 30305 site 4 of over 60 acres is not supported by 

science, it is not in a WUI and is excessive thinning which 

depletes the natural environment of many aspects including 

cover for the wildlife and large older growth trees which create 

a wind and fire break for the adjacent home and home owner.

I t also violates the scenic integrity objective for both the 

community at large, Forest Plan Goal 2414, and the homeowner 

endeavoring to preserve the property.

See response to comment 2f on WUI. 

Site 30305 - 4 has approximately half of the unit assigned 

a Low SIO, while the other half has a Moderate SIO 

assigned by the Forest Plan. See Map 17 in Appendix A 

of the EIS. 

See response to Comment 2ss on Forest Plan Guideline

2414 (this is not a Forest Plan Goal). Additional 

information has been added to the Scenery section of 

Chapter 3 regarding expected effects to scenery from 

each treatment. The treatment proposed in site 30305-4 

would meet Guideline 2414.

2ddd In some ways, my concerns regarding this discipline are 

reflected by not having taken into account impacts related to 

social issues. Aesthetics and visual resources are important for 

many reasons but retaining them to the most optimal extent 

possible and still meeting the intent of the Purpose and Need

for this project is possible but will take very site specific 

A landscape architect participated in this analysis as part 

of the Interdisciplinary team (IDT). 

Design criteria relative to scenery resources is included in 

Appendix B of the EIS. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-48 

considerations. Total retention of visual resources may not 

always be possible but cutting more than is necessary or not 

implementing the least offensive methods will needlessly

deleteriously impact scenic views and the general aesthetics of 

the existing forest. The monitoring program affords an 

opportunity to reduce impacts but it is most likely that decisions 

regarding what treatment will be applied to what area will be 

made long before crews arrive to do the work. Therefore, I 

recommend that wherever the Free Selection (FS) treatment is 

used that a person sensitive to maintaining visual resources and 

aesthetic values be present during either the tree selection phase 

(marking of trees) or in some areas during the actual cutting of 

the trees.

2eee Regarding noxious weed control and suppression, it appears that 

most of the forest will be subject to invasion of noxious weeds 

and that control is unlikely or even contemplated. The spread of 

noxious weeds could be a problem similar to the MPB 

infestation and have far reaching, long lasting or even 

permanent impacts. Since use of pesticides, herbicides and other 

common control measures is not allowed under HFRA;I think 

that not doing the control or only doing sanitizing should be a 

real consideration. Noxious weeds reduce the value of available 

forage for both domestic livestock and native fauna. Noxious 

weeds often out-compete native flora following disturbance to 

the extent that species diversity is seriously affected and 

permanent changes in the landscape can ensue. Implementing

the proposed action without a well thought out, proven approach 

to control of the noxious weeds that will find viable habitat from 

the exposed soil should be sufficient concern to not rush into 

this program. I believe that the portions of the DEIS were not 

sufficiently developed to allow for a decision to be made

on whether or under what conditions to implement the Proposed 

Action. The spread of noxious weeds and the resultant losses to 

aesthetic and natural diversity changes will likely constitute a 

significant impact for decades to come. The potential significant 

impact of noxious weeds and the spread of other plants are 

poorly addressed, if at all, and need to be disclosed. Also, 

mitigation in the form of avoidance and post-treatments are not 

clearly developed. Note we have been working with County 

Weed and Pest and then with private business owners to combat 

the leafy spurge in our meadow. We have chosen to use the 

beetle. There is a significant infestation at the edge of our forest 

wherein site 4 as CT50 shall cut all of the old growth and all 

trees essentially at our meadow edge. The noxious weeds shall 

Noxious weeds are expected to increase under the 

proposed action, in the short-term. However, treatment of 

these weeds is planned and design criteria (Appendix B, 

EIS) are included that would limit the spread of noxious 

weeds, consistent with Objectives 230 and 231. There 

are six elements in the Design Criteria that would assist in 

limiting noxious weeds in the project area. These include 

pre-treatment of noxious weeds if feasible, washing 

equipment, post-treatment of noxious weeds, and 

monitoring and retreatment if necessary. See Appendix B 

for a complete list of Design Criteria that would be 

implemented.

There is no restriction for the use of herbicides to treat 

noxious weeds under the HFRA. 

The use of herbicides for the treatment of noxious weeds 

on the Black Hills is covered under the Black Hills 

National Forest Noxious Weed Management Plan, signed 

January 2003.

Additional information on expected spread of noxious 

weeds has been included in the EIS. These estimates 

show that acres of infestation are expected to increase 

short-term, but would be expected to decrease within 4-5 

years with the implementation of design criteria. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-49 

flourish after this proposed DEIS treatment with little or no 

mitigation measures identified.

2fff After reading the DEIS,I was struck with the weakness of the 

logic and the hesitancy to fully disclose the significant impacts 

(as defined by NEPA) that will result in both the long term and 

short term if the Vestal Project were implemented as described 

in the DEIS. If there is one thing about NEPA that has value 

over the long term it is the requirement to fully disclose what 

will happen if an action is or is not taken. The DEIS falls 

pitifully short of fulfilling this obligation. Even if the Vestal 

Project qualified as a HFRA project (which by now you know 

that I seriously doubt), in no way is it excused from identifying,

evaluating, and quantifying the significant impacts that would 

accrue if one or the other alternatives were implemented. This is 

one reason that I firmly believe that either the DEIS should have 

adopted another, perhaps more moderate, alternative or that 

options be added to the proposed action that afford the decision 

maker more latitude in negotiating the serious decisions that this 

project entails. 

I found the approach to mitigating significant impacts if the 

Proposed Action were implemented to be almost totally lacking. 

Again, when a significant impact is identified, NEPA requires 

the lead agency at least identify what can be done to avoid or 

otherwise compensate for the impact. I don't see how the DEIS 

followed this format. It is not exempt from this exercise, even if 

it were to qualify as a HFRA project. I would hope that the FEIS 

has an identifiable mitigation plan for each of the disciplines 

and issues of interest, especially where significant impacts are 

identified or implied.

An EIS is prepared when there is potential that a 

significant impact may occur. The NEPA does not 

require agencies to identify significant effects, but rather 

to disclose the effects of the project. The Vestal EIS 

discloses long-term and short-term impacts resulting from 

the No Action and proposed action alternatives, in 

Chapter 3. It also contains extensive design criteria in 

Appendix B, which are to be implemented to avoid 

significant impacts and to insure consistency with the 

Forest Plan. The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) does not require agencies to identify significant 

effects, but rather to disclose the effects of the project, 

which the Vestal EIS does. 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan and 

therefore, no Forest Plan amendments are necessary. 

See response to comments 2f and 2l on qualifications 

under HFRA

See response to comment 2e and 2o on range of 

alternatives

2ggg The CWPP does not have sufficient depth or status to qualify 

the Vestal project under provisions of the HFRA (HD 1904). 

This is thoroughly outlined above. 

In short it fails to identify a WUI, it fails to identify or prioritize 

fuel reduction and define treatment on Federal and Non-federal 

land. 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comments 2f and 2l on qualification 

under HFRA

2hhh The complexity, size and incongruencies associated with the 

Vestal project dictate that at least another alternative or a fully 

developed option under the proposed action be developed. I 

suggest that in the event that the “No Action Alternative” is not 

selected (my preference at this point) then an option be 

developed that should read as follows, 

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

See response to comments 2e and 2o on range of 

alternatives
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-50 

'The implementation of any proposed treatment on any stand 

will be reviewed on a site-specific basis for that stand in order to 

limit removal of trees to a minimum, with a goal of CT80-70 to 

reduce MPB risk while still meeting all other Goals and 

Standards found in the Black Hills Forest Management Plan and 

based on the best scientific evidence available". Applying this 

option would be in full agreement with standard 4201b and 

would serve to protect many resources. 

Another way of framing my suggested Alternative/Option 

would be to sanction a Sanitation Onlv Option whereby green 

bug trees would be cut and removed from the Forest 

immediately. Based on one of the scoping comment letters these 

could be sold to Nieman's before it is too late and the trees still 

have value. The FS could salvage their opportunity to make 

some money in a timber sale while saw logs are still being 

purchased. You don't need the Vestal Project or the HFRA to 

accomplish this and you have wasted valuable time by not 

acting. 

The FS could also assist the City of Custer in developing a true, 

objective and Legal CWPP for the future. That is your job under 

HFRA Mandate but it has not been carried out.

See response to comments 2d and 2t on leave basal area. 

See response to comment 2ff on standard 4201b

Sanitation as a stand alone treatment would not be 

effective in reducing MPB risk. 

See response to comment 35e on a Sanitation Only 

Alternative. 

 

The Forest Service continues to work collaboratively with 

the City of Custer. 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP

2iii The proposed action in the DEIS is incongruent and in 

opposition to the listed standards for soil disturbance (1110, 

1103), surface water run-off (1112, 1113 AND 1116), stream 

channels (1201, 1209,), riparian areas (1301 AND 1302) 

violating or any deviation from these standards requires an 

amendment to the project or the Forest Plan. This includes not 

mentioning them in the DEIS analysis or simply stating they 

will not be a problem with no scientific basis or study to support 

the conclusion. For example – at page 144, the DEIS states that 

the increase in flow regimes under both alternatives will be a 

positive cumulative effect. That conclusion is not based on any 

study or science and it applies to 16 streams all with very 

different sites within this project area,. There is a distinct 

difference between alternative 1 and 2 in this regard. By design 

2 is not speculative. Yet in regard to each BHNFMP standard 

designated above the public is left to speculate how it is being 

applied and to assume that it is being applied to no adverse 

affect on the public or environment. 

This is a repeat of comment 2w

See response to comment 2w

2jjj The proposed action in the DEIS is incongruent and in 

opposition to the structural diversity standard (2101 and 2106-

This is a repeat of comment 2x
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-51 

7). Openings are too large in many cases and were not submitted 

for review by the Regional Forester., This is particularly true in 

relation to the GSH, HC AND HR, alleged hardwood restoration 

sites, as well as the PE discussed below 

See response to comment 2x

2kkk The proposed action prescribes the 'PE' treatment at places that 

do not have soils associated with meadows, are often rocky 

outcrops, and have elevated, non-flat terrain. A specific

example of this borders my property at 30305 sites, 70, 71 & 72. 

The more reasonable solution would be to treat the area under 

the aforementioned option or simply sanitize it. Such an 

approach would be more in line with standard 2101 and 2106. In 

addition there are numerous PEs throughout the project site that 

clear cut entire stands of pine trees in excess of 80 to 100

acres with no mention that these sites are biologically 

appropriate for PE which again violate standard 2101 and 2106, 

and standard 3219 as far in excess of 10 acres and not in a legal 

WUI, and state nothing about the impact that this will have on 

the cover both to hide and thermal for the big game wildlife 

which utilize the meadow, this violates the theme and goal of 

MA 5.4 wherein which the sample site on my property above 

sits, by providing according to BHFMP "a timber harvest and 

prescribed burn to improve habitat within this key wildlife area 

with hiding and thermal cover and late-successional areas 

provided".

The soils and potential for run-off flooding into private 

meadows and homes, the wetlands within each meadow and the 

effect on its ecosystem, all of this is ignored in each PE analysis. 

I would like to know what will happen to the turtles in my ponds 

from the increase in the water flow and sentiment to Willow 

Creek. This is not addressed but will obviously be an indirect 

impact attributable to exposing so much bare soil. The public is 

left to trust that this is appropriate and legal according to 

BHNFMP and other forest and environmental standards. They 

must also assume that it is safe for their property and homes.

The public is also left to trust that the SIO of each site will be 

returned moderate to high within one year after a literal bomb 

will have gone off at the site. That is ludicrous and defies logic 

with no basis in science. It is simply stated as fact because that 

is a BNFMP goal at 5606.

This is a repeat of comment 2y, 2z and 2aa

See responses to comments 2y, 2z and 2aa

2lll The DEIS does not address the socioeconomic impacts 

associated with implementing the proposed project. I find this 

This is mostly a repeat of comment 2bb 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-52 

strange because of the very important recreation, hunting, sale 

of forest products, tourism, real estate and other forms of use 

and employment dependent upon the Custer National Forest's 

scenic beauty, serenity and forest resources. Something as

important and influential as the Vestal Project will certainly 

affect the quality of this aspect of the human environment for 

many years. How can this project ignore the critical discussion 

of the socioeconomic impact for a project alleged to be a 

community collaborative effort? The impact on tourism is 

without question. 

Custer will without question be adversely affected from tourism, 

recreation, visual and economic standpoint. 

See response to comment 2bb

2mmm Big Game Screening 4201B: goal 217 of the BHFMP is to 

maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state 

objectives in effect in 1996. The Vestal Project is scheduled to 

clear-cut a total of 1,458 acres under implementation of the 

category PE alone. 645 of those 1,458 acres are classified as

MA 5.4 big game winter range. There is no discussion of the 

impact this kind of clear-cut will have on the wildlife using 

these meadows. Big game need to forage and they often forage 

in the ecotone between meadow and forest. They cannot survive 

only in the forest but require a dense canopy for thermal cover 

as well as concealment. In my location, the Vestal Project cuts 

all of the forest surrounding private meadows with no discussion 

of the effect on the wildlife, particularly in the management area 

5.4. I believe that this is in violation of the goals of said area 

and without concern for the necessary concealment and cover 

that the large ungulates require (see Goal 5.4-201). The forest

plan dictates that the FS manage trees for wildlife habitat and 

vegetative diversity. The DEIS does not provide a compelling or 

supportive reason why extensive clear cutting aka thinning is 

necessary or preferred. I have outlined above repeatedly how the 

proposed Vestal Project violates this goal for big game 

management.

See response to comment 2s on thermal cover

See response to comment 2y on hiding cover

See response to comment 2ff on standard 4201b

See response to comment 2y on PE treatment 

“The primary purpose for action in the Vestal project area 

is to reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing 

mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic. This action is 

needed because there is a rapidly increasing MPB 

outbreak occurring within the project area which is 

resulting in substantial levels of pine mortality. Existing 

stand conditions across the project area are largely at high 

risk for MPB caused mortality. 

A secondary purpose of this project is to protect local 

communities and watersheds from large-scale, 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 the project area has 

a fire hazard rating of high to very high due to dense 

stand conditions and dead, dry fuels resulting from MPB 

caused mortality. Approximately 40 percent of lands in 

the project area are privately owned, with an estimated 

3,194 private structures.” 

Fire hazard specific to this project area was analyzed per 

BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 and associated 

Fire Rating guide, August 2011) 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-53 

Forest Plan objective (Not Goal) 217: The Vestal project 

contributes to attainment of objective 217. Refer to deer 

and elk discussions in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

Forest Plan management area goal 5.4-201 states 

“Manage tree stands for wildlife habitat and vegetative 

diversity”. The Vestal project contributes to this goal by 

meeting the purpose and need to reduce MPB risk and 

fire hazard, which threatens habitat. The project also 

incorporates treatments, such as variable density thinning, 

free selection, and hardwood release/conversion, designed 

to increase vegetative diversity. 

2nnn GUIDELINE 5.4-3201 states that temporary openings in the 

grass/forb stage should be between 1 to 10 acres. Guideline 5.4-

3202 notes that consideration be given to adjacent private land 

resources when designing management for isolated forest 

system tracts. I ask that the FS maintain a high SIO for the

area in which my property sits. All of these guidelines are 

violated by the proposed Vestal Project, which is clear-cutting 

the pine trees from the forest adjacent to my meadow which is 

frequented by elk, deer and turkey and where upon they are 

welcome. In terms of 4201 b, stands denser than a basal area of 

70 sq. ft. per acre required throughout the Vestal Project and 

certainly in MA 5.4. Said standard is ignored by the Vestal 

Project.

Management Area Guideline 5.4-3201 states: 

“Temporary openings in the grass/forb stage should be 

between 1 to 10 acres.” The grass/forb stage is structural 

stage 1. It applies to forested stands, not meadows. The 

Vestal project meets this guideline because no temporary 

openings are proposed within timber stands.

 

Management Area Guideline 5.4-3202 says, “Consider 

adjacent private land resources when designing 

management for isolated Forest System tracts.” Adjacent 

private lands and the risk of MPB infestation or wildfire 

are primary considerations in this project. The Forest 

lands adjacent to your property are not isolated tracts.

See response to comment 2n and 2dd on SIO

See response to comment 2ff on standard 4201b 

2ooo FLOOD PLAIN IMPACT -Please see the FEMA charts of my 

property that are included as attachments with this letter. The 

charts clearly depict that my home and buildings are situated

within or adjacent to a recognized floodplain. My home sits only 

93 feet from Willow Creek. Three cabins, a garage, workshop 

and barn are all within feet of Willow Creek. The comment at

page 144 and 135 about the impact on hydrology and 

floodplains from the very extensive pine tree removal within 

Vestal and the fact that it will cause an impact on the flow 

regimes and would have a positive cumulative effect is false and 

ludicrous. I have a huge problem with this. There is a higher 

flow now. Without the trees and ground cover resulting from 

Vestal within the willow creek drainage, I will be facing 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns, and 

ground cover. 

Page 135 in the DEIS discusses existing conditions, not 

project impacts. 

Page 144 in the DEIS discusses cumulative effects of the 

project, and states that both alternatives would have a 

positive cumulative effect on flow regime. It does not 

state that flooding would occur. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-54 

flooding and property loss. The FS is correct in noting that there 

has been an increase in flow in the last two years and if the

Vestal Project as proposed were implemented those flows would 

be even further exacerbated. Please see the pictures attached to 

this letter showing flows during May 2010, the stream is very

high in front of our home. Last spring it was higher to the point 

that we decided to look into flood insurance. We have not been 

successful and regardless our home of 1950 has never flooded 

nor has our homestead cabin of 1898. I do not want the FS 

actions of clear-cutting (aka extensive thinning) of the forests 

within this watershed to contribute to flooding my property. I do 

not consider any increase in the flow of Willow Creek through 

my property beneficial. It is dangerous and will cause our home 

and other buildings to flood. If the FS removes the trees and 

vegetation that detain and mitigate the flows within the 

drainage, the FS will be responsible for any flooding that may 

occur, and you have admitted it at pages135 and 144.TheFS will 

not be allowed to passively flood my property through their 

intended actions as described in the Vestal Project DEIS. I 

hereby serve notice of your responsibilities should you proceed 

with the Vestal Project as proposed in the Proposed Action 

Alternative both north, northwest, east and north east of and

surrounding my property.

Also at page 135 under flood plains the FS makes the statement 

that there are 267 acres of floodplain in the project area and that 

floodplains slow flood velocities and decrease erosion due to

the shallower, wider and slower water. Floodplains provide 

many functions and values such as flood moderation (slower 

discharge),water quality protection, and ground water recharge 

and wildlife habitat, among other benefits. I reiterate, my house 

adjoins a flood plain but it is a narrow floodplain because the 

forest with its existing trees and an understory has performed 

the functions associated with water detention, mitigating 

peakflows, and a host of other benefits. Coincidentally, it has 

also not allowed my house to mingle with Willow Creek. My 

house has peacefully co-existed only 93feet from Willow Creek 

for many decades. Now the FS tells me that implementation of 

their proposed treatments to the surrounding forest will cause 

the water to fan out and become wider which means that it will 

likely enter my house. Thanks so much for your very thorough 

scientific analysis in this regard; boy am I relieved to know that 

I will soon be able to experience the joy of having my living 

room provide the functions and values commonly associated

Past Forest Plan Monitoring shows that when Forest plan 

Standards and Guidelines are implemented on similar 

projects, (USDA Forest Service, 2008, 2009 & 2010)

ground cover will remain intact and there is very little 

detrimentally impacted soils after operations are 

complete. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-55 

with being part of an active floodplain. I can hardly wait to see 

water detention, improvements to water quality, and with luck 

wildlife habitat; all between the TV and my couch-hey with 

really good fortune perhaps my front room can become a 

wetland as well.

2ppp I ask that the FS please review, the effect of MPB infestations 

and implementing salvage harvesting treatments on stream 

flows. This may require a special investigation but that is not 

unusual in a typical NEPA document. In a publication of the 

Forest Practices Board, fpb/sir/16 March 2006 at

page 1, the results of a model study of Baker Creek is discussed. 

The model showed that MPB attack of 75%, of the mature pine 

stands, plus the past conventional harvesting, resulted in annual

peak flood increases of 60% and annual total water yield 

increases of 30%. Salvage harvesting of the dead pine results in 

further increase in annual peak stream flow compared to leaving 

stands, but retaining 20% of the watershed in reserves, increases 

annual peak flows by 92%. Flood frequency also increases: a 

former 20-year interval peak flow discharge will now be 

expected every 3 years. These changes represent a major shift in 

stream flow regime. At page 3 of the above referenced study 

"flooding has changed location. Landowners have experienced 

flooding, channel infilling, change of course and siltation of 

their fields over the past few years" and "flooding has

always occurred in the Baker Creek area, but it is happening 

more now than in the past. In the past, areas would flood 3-4 

times a year but now they are flooding 7-8 times a year. 

Furthermore flooding is more severe and has drainage pattern 

changes..."

At page 4, the standard approach to quantifying hydrologic 

changes resulting from forest disturbances is usually based on 

on-the-ground experiments' conducted at the stand level, or on

monitoring pairs of small watersheds less than a few square 

kilometers in size. The advantage of a hydrological model is that 

existing climate and stream flow data can be used and large 

watersheds can be simulated. In this report, the Distributed 

Hydrological Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM) is

used to simulate stream flow and water yield in Baker Creek 

following past conventional harvest, current MPB attack and 

future Salvage harvesting. Baker Creek is typical of many 

watersheds in the MPB attack zone. At page 13, a shift in 

The article referenced pertains to salvage logging 

following MPB attack. No salvage harvesting is 

proposed in this project. 

The predicted results of this paper are the results of 

modeling. Modeling is good at predicting what may 

happen but the results need to be verified. Also the 

setting of this study is in a different ecoregion (British 

Columbia) and as a result will not be applicable to the 

Black Hills. The types of activities proposed in the 

Vestal project have been implemented on the Black Hills 

in the past with no resulting flooding. 

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns. 

No salvage harvesting is proposed. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-56 

frequency of a flood event: Previous discussion has focused

on increases in the magnitude of floods. However, Figures 6-8 

can also be used to determine the increased frequency with 

which floods of a specified magnitude are exceeded. For 

example, the shift in frequency of a 100m3.s-1 peak flow has 

changed from once in 20 years under baseline conditions to 

once in 3 years under salvage harvesting. Peak flows in Willow 

Creek on my property will rise significantly following 

completion of Salvage Harvesting. With regeneration, the 

second growth will eventually reduce the peak flow hazard but 

this process can take 40 years. If grey-attack trees are not 

harvested, then the peak flow hazard may not rise much higher 

as the processes of dead pine fall-down over time may be 

matched by the growth of residual and a regenerating 

understory.

At page 14-Management Implications: The results of this model 

show that decisions to harvest MPB-affected forests must be 

based on achieving the optimum mix of achieving timber supply

targets, biodiversity objectives and maintaining stream flows. 

Salvage clear-cut logging of greyattack forest will affect peak 

flows and water yield significantly more than leaving the greyattack forest standing. The grey-attack forest continues to play a 

role in snow interception, in reducing incoming solar radiation 

and reducing wind speed across the snow pack. As a result, the 

annual peak flows in the stream are delayed and will be of less 

magnitude than in clear-cut watersheds. Leaving the MPB grey 

attack forest standing will result in lower peak flows than 

salvage harvesting the watershed. The No Action Alternative for 

the Vestal Project would achieve this condition.

At page 16, more consideration of the hydrological effects of 

MPB is needed operationally. Priorities should include 

watershed planning, harvest scheduling, riparian retention, and

assessment of adequacy of drainage structures.

No salvage or clearcut logging is proposed. 

We agree that the No Action alternative would result in 

standing dead trees across the watersheds. The Vestal 

project does not propose to cut MPB killed trees. Please 

refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

2qqq In regard to this Forest Practices Board Study which you 

certainly have access to and I hope you are aware of, The Vestal 

DEIS proposes far more than salvage harvesting. To quote Lynn 

Kolund in the January 25, 2011 Chronicle article, the goal is to 

reduce the number of pine trees to at most on average one tree 

every 30-40 feet. After being subject to the strong South Dakota 

winds, wind throw will reduce that to no trees. Regardless there 

is more than 1,400 acres of PE on hillsides as example in parcel 

30305 70, 71 and 72 where all trees above a stream system shall 

See response to comment 2ppp on the study referred to. 

The Vestal project does not propose any salvage logging. 

The article you are referring to was printed in the Custer 

County Chronicle on January 25, 2012, not 2011. The 

article does state that trees will be thinned to 30-40 feet 

apart, however, this is not presented as a quote and it is 

not correct. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-57 

be removed.

This is so far in excess of a salvage harvest and so against the 

priorities mentioned in the study above that it defies science and 

guarantees flooding. The GSH harvest you propose above my

house and buildings guarantees flooding will occur in Willow 

Creek. I fear the affect and the hazards that the Vestal Project 

will cause to my property in terms of flooding far more than I 

fear the possibility of fire. Your actions are scientifically proven 

to cause a flood to my property as you state at Page 144 and at 

page 135.

I think that the statements made on page 144 of the Vestal 

Project DEIS are false and misleading. A 60% increase in flow 

will affect riparian habitats, lead to channelized streams, move 

soil and rock into the ecosystem thereby contributing to stream 

flow, sedimentation, habitat destruction, and erosion problems. 

Further on pages 144 and 145, I am to take solace in knowing 

that the FS will implement BMPs and WCPs. Those BMPs and 

monitoring were meant for normal harvesting and even then the 

expected results do not guarantee that impacts will be avoided. 

What the Vestal Project proposes is far, far more severe and 

drastic that normal harvesting activities. You can't expect to 

essentially clear-cut the watershed and expect BMPs and 

monitoring to protect the soil, streams, and other values from 

horrific consequences. I will repeat the FS will not flood my

property. I will hold the FS responsible for its actions. The 

Vestal Projects defies science in terms of the impact on 

hydrology, stream flows, riparian habitats, soil conservation, 

erosion impacts, and associated functions and values. It also 

creates human and private property hazards associated

with creating conditions conducive to the flooding of private 

property within the proposed Vestal Project area.

It is incorrect to state that the Vestal project has a goal to 

reduce the number of pine trees to at most on average one 

tree every 30-40 feet. The proposed treatments have a 

target density described in terms of Basal Area, not tree 

spacing. See pages 17-24 in the EIS for definitions of 

the proposed treatments. 

See response to comment 2u on blowdown

See response to comments 2x and 2y on PE 

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns 

The Vestal project analysis does not predict a 60% 

increase in flow. 

The vegetation treatments included in the proposed 

action, are accepted silvicultural systems on the Black 

Hills National Forest – See Forest Plan 2408 at page II-25 

in the Forest Plan for accepted silvicultural systems. 

Refer also to timber stocking chart on page H-2 of the 

Forest Plan. 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

2rrr Please note, I would like to be considered as a monitor under 

your program for at least those properties which I am intimately 

familiar. I hope that the FS will take all of my comments to 

heart as I desire and require what is best for the physical 

environment, ecosystems, wildlife and the folks who live and 

play within the Custer area. I require this within the meaning 

and perimeters of the law. May you make the right choices so 

that you can get on with following your own Forest 

Management Plan and participate immediately with the State 

and local community in resolving a pressing and current issue.

Comment Noted
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-58 

2sss I have attached a table (Table1 of attachments) which delineates 

the alternative I would like to see implemented in regard to the 

vegetative treatment in the forest surrounding my property 

which due to the extreme run-off water danger is sanitation 

only. This sanitation alternative for all of the vegetative 

protocols proposed around my property is based upon my 

extensive study of the forest plan, numerous other forest service 

studies mentioned and my intimate knowledge of the flora, 

fauna, wetlands and streams and waterways i.e.the ecology and 

health of the forest both surrounding my property and

Impacting my property.

Each site from the Table attached to this comment letter 

is addressed individually under 2ttt. 

2-tttTable 

Commentor provided a table at the end of her letter titled: 

“Site Specific Summary of Concerns and Suggested Treatments 

for Specific Sites and Stands adjoining the Tennyson/Bainbridge 

Properties”

 

Each specific Site is responded to separately in this table 

Each listed site is addressed individually in this table. 

Refer to the following Maps in Appendix A of the EIS: 

Map 6 – Tile 4: Proposed Vegetation Treatments

Map 7 – Tile 4: Proposed Fuel Treatments

Map 11 - MPB Progression Map 2005-2011

Map 12 - MPB Risk - Existing

Map 13 - MPB Risk Alt 2 at year 2018

Map 14 - Fire Hazard - Existing

Map 15 - Fire Hazard Alt 2 at year 2018

NOTE: Maps 6 and 7 also show location of structures 

and private land boundaries

30304-44: 26 acres, proposed for PE – Suggest Sanitation 

Only 

This site is located NW of my property and is poorly

suited for hardwood development. Implementing the PE 

treatment will increase flows/sedimentation and drainage into 

Willow Creek and cause flooding of my property and buildings.

This site is a meadow. The PE treatment is the removal 

of pine from Meadows. It is correct that this site is not 

suited to hardwood development – it is not proposed for 

hardwood development – it is a meadow. 

Sanitation removes beetle infested trees. Meadows, by 

definition, are not forested but may have large trees 

which have encroached over time. 

Upon further review of this meadow – there is relatively 

few pine trees which have encroached. 

A perennial stream flows through this meadow. 

See Map 6 – Tile 4 for Proposed Veg Treatments And 

existing Structures in the Vicinity

30304-23: 68 acres, proposed for GSH – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This constitutes excessive thinning of the pine forest NW of my 

property. This treatment would increase the flows/drainage of 

This is a pine site – SS 4B. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). It is bounded on 2 sides by 

meadow, either private or National Forest. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-59 

Willow Creek and cause flooding on my property.

There are approximately 21 structures within 1⁄2 mile of 

this site, Highway 89 is also within 1⁄2 mile. 

The proposed treatment in this site would not result in 

increased flows/drainage nor cause flooding to your 

property. 

See response to comment 2z on increased flow and flood 

risk 

30305-70: 5 acres, proposed for PE – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

The proposed treatment would result in total removal of the pine 

stand east of my property. It is on a rocky outcropping poorly 

suited to creating a meadow but well suited for a pine forest. 

Moving these trees to the extent proposed will increase the flow 

of Willow Creek and cause flooding on my property. It will also

remove all cover for the wildlife, big game and other species 

that use the meadow for forage but seek concealment and cover 

in the adjoining forest. It will destroy the high SIO of this 

country road for no scientific reason. It violates the Forest Plan 

in all of these regards as well as the Plan's provisions for

structural diversity. Mature trees shall be cut for no good reason, 

trees that create fire and wind breaks. There is no scientific 

study or conclusion that this rocky outcropping is appropriate 

for this treatment and this site is not in a WUI.

This 5 acre site is designated as meadow. This meadow 

site is an extension of your private meadow. The PE 

treatment is the removal of pine from Meadows. A rock 

outcrop occurs as an inclusion within this 5 acre site. 

Removing pine from rock outcroppings is not part of a PE 

treatment, since rocks are not meadows. This inclusion 

would be avoided in a PE treatment. 

Sanitation removes beetle infested trees. Meadows, by 

definition, are not forested but may have large trees 

which have encroached over time. 

In scoping for this project, the Forest Service received 

input from another landowner in this general area who is 

in favor of maintaining this meadow. 

The proposed treatment in this 5 acre site would not result 

in increased flows/drainage nor cause flooding to your 

property. 

It is correct that wildlife cover will be available in the 

adjoining forest. Meadows generally do not provide 

cover, rather they provide forage. 

Forest Plan provisions for structural diversity are applied 

in several ways. Objective 205 would apply to this 5 acre 

site because it pertains to meadows. A PE treatment here 

would contribute to meeting this objective. Structural 

stage objectives in MAs 4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 apply to pine 

sites only – refer to objective 5.4-206. 

See responses to comments 2n, 2aa and 2dd on scenery 

and SIO. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-60 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comments 2v-6 and 2w on Forest Plan 

consistency

See response to comment 2z on increased flow and flood 

risk

30305-71: 5 acres, proposed for PE – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

The proposed total removal of the pine stand east of my 

property on a rocky outcropping will increase the flow of 

Willow Creek and cause flooding on my property. It will also 

remove all cover for the wildlife, big game and other species 

that use my meadow for forage and the pine stand for cover and 

concealment. Removing it will destroy the high SIO of this 

country road for no scientific reason. It violates the Forest Plan 

in all of these regards as well as goals for structural diversity. 

Mature trees would be cut for no reason. This stand has not been 

scientifically determined to be appropriate for a the proposed

silviculture treatment. The proposed project area is not in a 

WUI.

This 5 acre site is designated as meadow. All responses 

for site 30305-70 above also apply to this meadow with 

the exception that this meadow does not adjoin your 

property. It does, however, adjoin a neighboring property 

and Forest Service Road 344.1A.

30305-72: 2 acres, proposed for PE – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

The total removal of the pine stand east of my property on a 

rocky outcropping is not justified for reasons stated for parcels 

30305-72 and 30305-71 noted above.

This 2 acre site is designated as meadow. All responses 

for site 30305-70 above also apply to this meadow with 

the exception that this meadow is only 2 acres and it does 

not adjoin your property. It does, however, adjoin a 

neighboring property. 

30305-67: 24 acres, proposed for GSH – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This extreme thinning of the forest directly adjacent north of my 

property and NE of my home and buildings is not justified. The 

site is located on rocky outcroppings and a hillside. Removing 

extensive amounts of trees will cause increased flows into

Willow Creek as well asand water-runoff down the hill behind 

my buildings, the water will pool at the buildings, seep inside 

and cause flooding. The increased flows will also transport silt, 

soil and debris which will fill up my pond and adversely affect 

the wildlife that use it. This area has not been studied or 

determined to be appropriate for this silviculture

treatment. 

The off-site, indirect, and cumulative impacts have not been 

adequately disclosed. Aspen are scares in this stand, even 

though it is relatively open. Aspen seedling will survive because 

of shallow dry soils. The stand does provide cover and

This is a pine site – SS 4B. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). It does not adjoin other private 

lands besides the commentor’s meadow. There are 

approximately 7 structures within 1⁄2 mile of this site. 

There are rock outcroppings in a very small percentage of 

this site. 

Site specific field reviews have been conducted by the 

IDT, including a certified silviculturist. Refer to Chapter 

4 for a listing of IDT members and their qualifications 

and experience. 

The proposed treatment in this site would not result in 

increased flows/drainage nor cause flooding to your 

property. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-61 

concealment for large ungulates and other wildlife that use the 

meadow and meadow/forest edge habitat. If the proposed 

treatment were implemented, all of the cover and concealment 

for the big game wildlife using the meadow for forage would be 

removed. This violates the Forest Plan. HFRA would also likely 

be violated as mature trees in excess of 160 years may be part of 

an Old Growth Forest. These old trees would be removed for no

good reason.

See response to comment 2z on increased flow and flood 

risk

See Chapter 3 for a discussion of direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts. 

This stand does provide some hiding cover for big game. 

The smaller dense trees are the major components of 

hiding cover in this stand. Hiding cover would continue 

to be provided in this stand following treatment. There is 

no Forest Plan requirement for hiding cover in this stand. 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

The GSH treatment would remove mature trees where 

regeneration has been established. Some of these trees 

may be over 160 years old however, this is not an old 

growth stand. The proposed action does not violate 

HFRA. See response to comment 2m on large trees and 

2y and 38h on late succession (old growth). 

30305-66: 16 acres, proposed for GSH – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This forest is already thin, it is infested with green bug trees 

which need sanitation immediately. All of the reasons above as 

to why this stand should not be overly thinned apply as does the 

fact that it will be entirely devoid of trees if not sanitized 

immediately. This would have the effect of increasing the flows 

into Willow Creek and cause flooding.

This is a pine site – SS 4B. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). It does adjoin commentor’s 

meadow for a short distance, but is adjacent to another 

private property for at least 50% of its western boundary. 

This private property has a year round residence and 

small farm as well as an animal boarding business on site. 

Sanitation is included with the proposed GSH treatment. 

30305-5: 22 acres, proposed for GSH – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This previously thinned forest is directly east of my home and 

buildings on rocky outcroppings and a hillside. If the non-bug 

infested trees are removed as well as those with bugs, the result 

will be increased flows into Willow Creek. This area has not 

been studied or determined to be appropriate for the proposed 

silviculture treatment. It is not appropriate because the riparian 

features are in a privately owned meadow which is grazed and 

hayed. No aspen seedling will survive without special efforts 

such as fencing, individual tree protection, and other heroic

measures. All of the cover and concealment for the big game 

and other wildlife using the meadow for forage would be 

removed. This violates the Forest Plan. HFRA shall also be 

violated as old growth trees shall be removed for no good 

reason. The high SIO of this property in MA 5.4 on a country 

This is a pine site – SS 4B. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). This site adjoins a small portion of 

commentor’s meadow, but is adjacent to about half the 

eastern boundary of another landowner. In addition, it 

also is adjacent to FSR 344.1A which is a narrow, windy 

road which is the sole access to 2 residences. This access 

road is the only escape route for these other residences. 

One of these landowners provided scoping comments 

noting they are very concerned with fire hazard adjacent 

to their property and to their access road, 344.1A. 

No treatment on private lands is proposed. 

See other responses to Site 30305-67 above, which 

applies also to this site. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-62 

road leading to trail heads shall be violated. The Forest Plan and 

HFRA shall be violated.

30305-69: 5 acres, proposed for GSH – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

Extreme thinning of the forest directly east of my home and 

buildings will cause increased flows into Willow Creek. This 

area is on a rocky hillside with shallow soils and has not been 

studied or determined to be appropriate for this silviculture 

treatment. I believe that the site is not appropriate because the

riparian features and soils suitable for hardwood species are 

located in a privately owned meadow which is grazed and 

hayed. No aspen seedling will survive without implementing 

fencing and other heroic measures. All of the cover and 

concealment for the big game and other wildlife using the 

meadow for forage shall be removed. This violates the Forest 

Plan. HFRA may also be violated as mature trees shall be

removed that might qualify as Old Growth Forest and for no 

good reason. The parcel located in MA 5.4 has a high SIO and is 

located on a country road leading to trailheads. The SIO shall be 

violated. The Forest Plan and HFRA shall be violated. The 

structural diversity requirement and goal of the Forest Plan for 

MA 5.4 shall be ignored. This site is suitable for sanitation

but not GSH.

This is a pine site – SS 4A. Therefore, it has a low risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). It is bounded on 2 sides by 

meadow. 

No treatment on private lands is proposed. 

See other responses in this section on resource concerns 

noted in this comment. 

Sanitation is included with the proposed GSH treatment

30305-4: 69 acres, proposed for CT 50– Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This acreage is not in a WUI. The proposed thinning treatment 

is excessive and violates the Forest Plan and HFRA, old mature 

trees are cut with no concern for structural diversity, wind and 

fire breaks and the concealment and cover for the wildlife in this 

MA5.4 big game winter range. The cover is destroyed in 

violation of the Forest Plan. The Scenic integrity of objective of 

this forest is high and destroyed. The cutting of the forest at the 

meadow edge will create conditions conducive to the spread of 

leafy spurge and other noxious weeds. The erosion and soil loss

from this excessive thinning will increase water flow into the 

Willow Creek drainage and cause my land and home to flood.

This is a pine site – SS 4B. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). Site is bounded on 2 sides by 

meadow. This site adjoins commentor’s meadow, it does 

not adjoin other private lands. There are approximately 8 

structures within 1⁄2 miles of this site, most of which are 

commentor’s. 

See response to comment 2w on soils

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns

See response to comment 2eee on noxious weeds

See other responses in this section on resource concerns 

noted in this comment.

30305-65: 8 acres, proposed for GSH– Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This stand is bug infested and needs to be sanitized 

immediately. If not it shall become devoid of trees and 

resemble a total clear cut which will increase the flow of water 

into the Willow Creek drainage.

This is a pine site – SS 4A. Therefore, it has a low risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). It is surrounded by National Forest 

lands 

Sanitation is included with the proposed GSH treatment. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-63 

The active MPB infestation within this stand is indicative 

of what will occur within other pine stands, especially if 

not thinned. Therefore, this project proposes to 

implement a landscape approach to reducing MPB risk by 

combining prevention thinning with sanitation of infested 

trees. 

30304-24: 8 acres, proposed for GSH– Suggest Sanitation 

Only

This stand has not been studied or determined to be appropriate 

for the proposed silviculture treatment and should be treated 

with sanitization only per my discussion above for parcel 

30305-69.

This is a pine site with a high fire hazard. 

It is located between Willow Creek Road (CTY 344) and 

Commentor’s property. It is part of an approximately 20 

acre patch of National Forest land, nearly surrounded by 

commentor’s private land. Sites 30304-15, 20 and 24 are 

part of this patch. It is bounded on 3 sides by meadow or 

road. 

30304-20: 6 acres, proposed for CT50 – Suggest Sanitation 

Only

A CT50 treatment for this parcel is far too severe and 

unnecessary. Violations to HFRA because of the presence of 

old, mature trees shall be removed for no good reason. The high 

SIO for the Country Road shall be violated which is not in 

compliance with the Forest Plan. The structural diversity 

standards of the Forest Plan shall be violated by this excessive 

thinning. This stand is not in a WUI. Cover and concealment for 

the wildlife in this MA5.4 shall be destroyed for no reason.

This is a pine site – SS 4C. Therefore, it has a high risk 

for MPB infestation (See Map 12). It has a very high fire 

hazard (see Map 14). 

This site is part of the 20 acre patch of National Forest 

noted in the response above. 

Some screening cover is provided by this site due to the 

understory trees. 

See responses to other comments in this section 

30304-15: 6 acres, proposed for PE – No Suggested 

Treatment

This total removal of the pine stand will remove all cover and 

concealment for large ungulates and other wildlife which use the 

land for forage. It will destroy the high SIO of this country road 

for no scientific reason. It violates the Forest Plan in all of these 

areas including structural diversity. Old, mature trees shall be 

sacrificed for no reason. It has not been scientifically studied or 

determined to be appropriate for a silviculture treatment and it is 

not appropriate because Elk forage in this MA5.4 area and eat 

all aspen seedlings.

This 6 acre site is designated as meadow. This meadow 

site is an extension of your private meadow. 

This site is part of the 20 acre patch of National Forest 

noted in the 2 responses above. 

30304- “at the number 18 on the A-16 map”. – Needs 

Immediate Sanitation 

This land in 30304 has not been marked for vegetative 

treatment it is in the forest and needs immediate sanitation 

to stop the beetle from spreading to private property from 

the forest. I don't know what mistreatment the FS 

It is unclear which site commentor is referring to. All 

forested sites are proposed for sanitation treatment in this 

project area. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-64 

proposes for this parcel.

3 Nancy 

Hilding

Prairie Hills 

Audubon 

Society

We attach Chad Hanson's (of the John Muir Project, Cedar 

Ridge, California) comments on Vestal and incorporate his 

comments by reference into our own comments, which will 

follow later.

See response to comment letter 34 

4a Richard 

Stumpf 

Mr. Stumpf is a landowner in the Vestal project area in T3S, 

R4E, Section 10 – on the south side of the Mickelson Trail.

Mr. Stumpf is in favor of the proposed actions, including 

mechanical treatments and prescribed burning.

He inquired about treatment in an existing meadow to the south 

of his property, site # 30403-9. This meadow is proposed for 

maintenance by removal of encroaching pine – Mr. Stumpf is in 

favor of this treatment in this site. However, he requested that 

slash piles/landing sites not be placed in the meadow between 

his property and the Mickelson trail. His main concern is the 

visual impact of piles which may remain in place for several 

years.

Forest plan guideline 4111 states that piles scheduled for 

burning should be located outside of meadows. This 

project includes this guideline as design criteria. In some 

instances, piles are placed in meadows when topography 

or other resource concerns exist. 

The meadow in question has few trees to be removed. 

Therefore, no large piles are anticipated from pine 

encroachment treatments. However, it is possible that 

some material from surrounding treatments may need to 

be landed at this meadow site due to the steep slopes in 

some stands. This will be avoided if possible, as stated in 

guideline 4111. 

There is a currently a thinning contract to the north in site 

30403-4. This thinning was approved in a separate 

NEPA analysis, the Goat EA, This contracted activity 

may need to use this meadow for a landing due to the 

slope falling down toward the meadow and skidding up 

hill would be difficult. This thinning will be highly 

beneficial to preventing beetle attack.

4b The other concern expressed about this project is maintenance 

of the Forest Service road (FSR 407). Mr. Stumpf has a permit 

to plow and maintain this road as an access to his property. He 

is concerned that the road may be damaged during logging 

operations and that his investment would be impacted. In 

particular, he is concerned about the loss of gravel placed on 

this road, and rutting which may occur.

Timber contractors are legally bound by the timber sale 

contract to perform specified road maintenance. 

Performance of road maintenance work by Purchaser may 

be required prior to, during, or after each period of use. 

(B 5.3 & C5.31) Purchaser is required to protect Specified 

Roads and other improvements. Purchaser shall make 

timely restoration of any improvements damaged by 

Purchaser’s Operations. (B6.22), including gravel 

replacement, as needed.

5a Dan O’Brien Mr. O’Brien is a landowner who accesses his property through 

the Vestal project area on the Custer-Limestone road (FSR 284). 

He received a copy of the DEIS and came in to provide 

comment. 

Mr. O’Brien is in support of the project. He mentioned that 

FSR 284 (Custer-Limestone road) is a County Road. 

The option of clearcutting 100-150 feet along the south 

side of FSR 284 was considered, but not in detail. 

Planned treatments along this road will open the forest 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-65 

recent thinning near his property has been effective in reducing 

mountain pine beetle mortality in that area. 

His main concern regards treatments along the CusterLimestone road (FSR 284). Timber stands along this road are 

relatively dense and close to the road. In the winter time, very 

little sun reaches the road, creating a slippery and icy condition. 

He suggested that daylighting of FSR 284 be considered in this 

analysis. Suggested daylighting would include clearcutting of 

100-150 feet from the roads edge on the south side of the road. 

This would also address another concern regarding difficulties 

in seeing along this road in the summer time when the sun is 

bright, due to the quick transition from sun to shadow all along 

this stretch of road.

and provide additional sunlight, which will improve the 

daylighting effect. 

5b One other comment is that the Elliott road should be 

straightened because it is a safety hazard. Traffic has increased 

since this road was constructed and the current traffic levels and 

types are creating a hazard. Several times he, or his family, have 

been run off the road by on-coming truck traffic. 

The Elliott road is outside of this project area. The 

request that this road be straightened has been forwarded 

on to the Forest Engineering Staff. 

6a Dann 

Detwiler & 

Monica 

Fiveash

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the VESTAL project.

This project directly affects us. We urge you to commence the 

project ASAP. Our property will be devastated by Pine Beetles 

in the Forest directly across Saginaw Rd from our property if the 

forest isn't cleared this season.

One concern is that there could be excessive thinning and 

logging. By excessive, we mean thinning beyond what which is 

neccessary to clear the beetles and provide healthy forest 

conditions. We understand the need to make the project 

attractive to logging companies so what we are asking for is a

careful balance that takes no more trees than is necessary.

Your support of the Vestal project is noted. 

Time is of the essence in this project. Implementation 

may begin following completion of the NEPA analysis 

and signature of the project decision. 

The proposed action was developed to reflect the 

recommendations from Forest Health Entomologists to 

reduce MPB risk. 

See response to comment 2d 

6b Another concern is the condition of the forest floor after the 

logging is completed. When we look at the mess left at the 

intersection of Saginaw Rd and Black Granite, following the 

logging in that area, we are concerned about the "finished 

product."

This project will impact our lives and be in our view so we hope 

that the completed project will provide an attractive healthy 

forest as opposed to what we see down the road where it looks 

like a bomb exploded.

We believe you are referring to sites 30507-19 and 20. 

These sites were Unit 1 under the recently harvested 

Atlantic Bug sale. This particular area was heavily 

infested with MPB when it was harvested. The sanitation 

treatments removed the beetle infested trees during 

harvesting and consequently resulted in a very thin stand. 

Were those infested trees not removed, this stand would 

contain an abundance of standing dead trees which would 

fall within 5 years. In addition, the benefit of removing 

infested trees is that beetle larvae were removed from the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-66 

Please proceed!! forest, reducing the actual beetle populations there able to 

infested surrounding trees and the fire hazard was 

lowered. 

Slash treatment in these units was whole tree harvesting 

which means whole trees were skidded to a landing and 

the slash piled there. Harvest operations address only 

activity created slash, not any naturally occurring down 

material. 

7a Katherine 

Montague

To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to submit this letter publicly.

Because language is so crucial in identifying and addressing the 

scope of forest management, I am basing my primary concerns 

on the original language of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) of the Vestal Project in Hell Canyon Ranger 

District, of the Black Hills National Forest in Custer County, 

South Dakota. I have briefly looked at the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PElS), and while some of my 

concerns may be mitigated there, I base my letter on the DEIS, 

so that those more familiar with the PElS may compare and 

address the language and intent in comparison to Alternative 1 

and 2 listed in the DEIS.....

To those in charge of the Vestal Project, what is your intent?

Page 173 of the DEIS states:

"An act declaring a national policy to encourage productive 

harmony between people and their environment; to promote 

efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and the biosphere and simulate the health and 

welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological

systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to 

establish a council on Environmental Quality."

A forest is a living, breathing organism; it is more than the sum

of its parts - it is also- more than some of its parts – 

It is made up of countless, interdependent eco-systems, which 

we, as a species, still do not in our own evolvement, understand 

a fraction of how diverse and complex they truly are.

It is unclear what the “Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS)” is. 

The Purpose and Need is included in the Vestal Project 

EIS on page 10, the Proposed Action is included on pages 

10-11. 

This is an accurate quote for the Vestal EIS Glossary 

definition of NEPA, in Chapter 5. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-67 

We do know that the Black Hills is suffering from the Mountain 

Pine Beetle epidemic. It has been my suggestion that this 

epidemic is part of a biological agreement between the forest 

and the MPB- in order to provide more "duff”' to keep the forest 

from drying out during times of drought.

At the very least, you cannot take something away - without 

putting something back - as evidenced by the Dust Bowl in the 

1920's - when farmers over-farmed crop land, turning it to dust. 

In those days, they did not let the soil "rest," nor did they use 

"cover crops" to put nutrients back into the soil, nor did they 

rotate their crops, all of which contributed to their starvation and 

great exodus in vast numbers, leaving "useless" land behind.

Though that was nearly one hundred years ago, I would be 

willing to venture that there may be areas today from that era 

that are incapable of sustaining a food crop.

Therefore, it makes no sense to harvest healthy timber from an 

ailing organism "seeking to right itself."

It makes it hard to believe that your intent as an agency is to 

promote forest health when you have allowed - even promoted - 

so much clear-cutting already in the Black Hills. I have seen 

instances where you have marked healthy trees to be cut even in 

areas where the trees have already been noticeably "thinned."

Your suggestion is noted.

The proposed action is summarized on pages 10-11 in the 

Vestal Project EIS. Chapter 2 includes the comparison of 

alternatives. There are no proposed clear cuts in the 

Vestal Project. 

7b As for these "at risk" communities, it has been known since the 

beginning of time - that forests have fires. 

Some people build with brick and stone in high-risk fire areas 

with roofs of clay tiles or metal. Some even install hidden 

sprinklers on their trees, run by generators to pump their wells 

when fire danger is near, due to the loss of electricity during 

such an occurrence. That method did save a man's home and 

property during a forest fire years ago.

With new technology, we now have "green" roofs – those 

composed of plants - and are much more impervious to the 

threat of fire.

At-Risk-Communities are defined in the Vestal EIS 

Glossary on pages 165-166. The Forest Service only 

manages National Forest lands; it cannot dictate what 

private land owners do on their property or their own 

buildings. 

Existing and projected fire hazard is displayed in the EIS. 

Approximately 84% of the project area is in a High to 

Very High fire hazard. Given the extent of private lands 

and structures (approximately 3,200), reducing fire 

hazard is part of the purpose and need for action. 

7c The NEPA of 1969 did not say to "exploit" the natural resources 

- it said to "understand" them, which I believe should not seek to 

include further mining, also mentioned in the DEIS. There is a 

balance to all things. 

The Vestal Project EIS does not propose any mining. 

There currently are 74 active mining claims in the project 

area. An active mining claim may not have active mining 

operation. The area is open to potential exploration and 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-68 

Because of what I believe to be your mis-management of 

current resources, I do not believe that you are capable of 

making good decisions to ensure the health and sustainability of 

the Black Hills Forests.

Due to your current and obvious clear-cutting practices, I 

believe in times of great precipitation, we may suffer great 

erosion and floods in the years to come, even landslides, which 

may have an even more devastating effect on our forests and 

private property than the threat of fire itself.

The mountain pine beetle is a simple composter of sorts, seeking 

to put back which you have taken so much of, and to put 

nutrition back into the forest for future generations of healthy 

trees. Man cannot do better, what nature does best.

development of mineral resources as required under the 

General Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral Material Act of 

1947, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the associated 

regulations. 

Please refer to Chapter 4 for a summary of qualifications 

and experience for all Interdisciplinary team members 

responsible for completing NEPA analysis on the Vestal 

project

There is no proposed clearcutting in the Vestal Project.

As stated in the Soil and Watershed Specialist Report, 

there are no soils with the Vestal Planning Area with 

slope stability concerns. 

As addressed in comment 2z, no erosion or sedimentation 

is expected as describe in the Soil and Watershed 

Specialist Report

Trees that have been killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle 

will be left on the landscape because there is not market 

for this material. This material will work its way back 

into the soil over time.

The proposed action is summarized on pages 10-11 in the 

Vestal Project EIS. Chapter 2 includes the comparison of 

alternatives.

7d What is most telling, though, is on page 11 of the DEIS:

"The deciding official will review the environmental analysis, 

all supporting documents and public input, in order to make the 

following decisions:

• Whether or not active management is appropriate in the 

Vestal project area at this time and if so, what actions 

should occur, and

• Whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to 

make a reasoned decision.

If the proposed action is selected, project activities could begin 

as early as spring 2012."

What "proposed action"? Could it be the one that the Forest 

Service is currently marking healthy trees for harvesting? Could 

it be that the "deciding official" has already made a decision?

The proposed action (Alternative 2) is described in detail 

in Chapter 2 of the EIS. There has not been a decision on 

the Vestal Project. 

Painting of trees consistent with the proposed action is 

occurring within the Vestal project area. This activity is 

not an irreversible action and may be altered if the 

Decision maker should choose a modified version of 

alternative 2 or the No Action alternative. For instance, if 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-69 

Not even the President of the United States has that power - 

given the sole authority to decide the fate of the Black Hills 

Forests.

Not the consensus- of thousands of Native American tribal 

members with spiritual and cultural roots spanning hundreds of 

years who are connected with the Black Hills; not the 

conservation groups, not the watchdog groups - just the 

authority of one - who we are to trust? - to have the spiritual 

and intellectual comprehension to make a decision based on a 

plan that is already flawed.

the decision maker chooses No Action – no treatment 

would occur, regardless of whether trees are painted or 

not. Should the Decision maker select a modified version 

of the proposed action, paint marks may be modified by 

timber presale personnel prior to implementation. 

The Deciding Official reviews the analysis, all supporting 

documents, and public input in order to make a decision. 

See response to comment 2b on tribal consultation and 

collaboration. 

7e I disagree with the "Other Required Disclosures" on page 147 of 

the DEIS that:

''The project does not involve impounding or diverting water, or 

adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species, therefore, 

formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not required."

Whether it's the current "clear-cutting" management practice 

being allowed to continue under Alternative 1, or the more 

aggressive clear-cutting management practice "chosen" under 

Alternative 2, water will be diverted, and there will be adverse 

impacts to threatened or endangered species.

Formal consultation should have been required with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service under the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act.

See the Wildlife and Fish section of Chapter 3 of the 

Vestal EIS for effects. A Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) was 

completed for the Vestal project to determine impacts of 

the alternatives to federally listed species or sensitive 

species listed by the Rocky Mountain Region. A 

Summary of the BA/BE is in Appendix G of the EIS. 

Both the fauna and flora BA/Bes are in the project file, in 

their entirety. There are no Federally listed wildlife 

species in the Vestal project area. 

There are no proposed clear-cut treatments in the Vestal 

EIS. 

See the Soils and Hydrology section of Chapter 3 for 

effects to these resources. No water impoundments or 

diversions are proposed. 

7f What I want to know is this:

Is this a series of charades of simulated "going through the 

motions" legally to continue doing "business as usual" - 

violating the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, or 

is it to "pave the way," literally and figuratively speaking, to 

make the Black Hills more "resilient" to "deforestation?"

The statement on page 147 of the DEIS may be interpreted by 

some as "man-made deforestation."

The statement this comment is referring to on page 147 of 

the Vestal EIS is in reference to the mission of the USDA 

Forest Service and guidance the agency has taken in 

recognition to climate change. The “Strategic Framework 

for Responding to Climate Change (USDA Forest Service

2008c) provides this guidance. The word “deforestation” 

is used as a synonym for natural disaster/catastrophic 

loss. 

Please refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 

1 of the EIS. 

7g I do disagree with one design flaw of the Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement; it is democratically wrong to 

base a decision affecting millions of people on the judgment of 

Again, it is unclear what the “Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement” is that the commentor 

refers to. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-70 

one person - "the deciding official."

"That" decision- or decision(s) - are better made by a "team" - 

and that should include local Native American representation. 

Your "deciding official" cannot get that kind of input - "from a 

book!"

The Deciding Official reviews the analysis, all supporting 

documents, and public input in order to make a decision. 

See page 11 of the Vestal EIS for “Public Involvement” 

and Chapter 4: “Consultation and Coordination” for lists 

of individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, 

and other organizations, groups, and business that were 

scoped for input during the analysis process.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement. 

7h Furthermore, not only have you failed to meet the requirements 

of H.R.1904,Sec(f) by not involving the community in your 

planning criteria, you have in fact, violated H.R.1904,Sec(f).

The deadline for scoping comments was on May 31, 2011. On 

page 11 of the DEIS, it states;

"The project was presented at the Tribal Consultation meeting 

on 6-22-11."

By your own admission, by the time the project was presented 

for "Tribal" consideration, the deadline was already over – 

Of the many tribes listed on page 153 of the DEIS, you do not 

specify which tribe(s) were represented.

Unless these notices were posted in all tribal offices listed on 

page 153 of the DEIS and on their websites; and these notices 

were published in local "tribal" or "reservation" newspapers, 

and meetings were announced on local "tribal" radio stations 

with publically-held forums on the reservation(s) of all of these 

tribes, then you have violated H.R.1904,Sec(f),and your Vestal 

Project DEIS- is invalid.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration

8 Robert F. 

Stewart

The Department of Interior has reviewed the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Vestal Project, Black 

Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Custer, 

South Dakota, and offers the following comments provided by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

COMMENTS

Pg. 134: The last paragraph references USGS, 2008, but the 

reference is not listed in the list of references. We suggest the 

Thank you for your review of the Vestal EIS. 

The citation of USGS 2008 has been replaced with USDA 

NRCS 2009. This has been added to the reference list in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-71 

Final EIS include the referenced document in the list of 

references.

Pg. 137: The third paragraph references USGS, 2011, but the 

reference is not listed in the list of references. We suggest the 

Final EIS include the referenced document in the list of 

references.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 

DEIS.

the Final EIS. 

The citation of USGS 2011 has been added to the 

reference list in the Final EIS. 

9 Matt Lewison Mr. Lewison is a landowner in the Vestal project area, on Glen 

Erin Road. 

Mr. Lewison is supportive of timber treatments in this area to 

reduce the potential mountain pine beetle caused mortality. 

Comment noted

10a Timothy 

Tennyson 

My wife, Deidre J. Bainbridge and I own a ranch on Willow 

Creek Road that is 130.96 acres. It is within the area of the 

proposed Vestal Project. We have owned this particular

property over 8 years. I visit our ranch numerous times each 

year. I spend time upgrading and caretaking our ranch property

and buildings and also relaxing and enjoying our beautiful place 

with family and friends. I am a Custer native. As a child I rode 

my pony through our ranch to Harney Peak in what is now

the Norbeck. I grew up in our forest. I have good common sense 

and a life--time experience as to what makes for a healthy 

BHNF.

I have reviewed the Draft Vestal EIS in order to submit specific, 

substantive comments on that document and what I believe 

about it lacks in terms of science and its numerous violations of 

the Forest Management Plan. I am grateful for the NEPA 

process, which grants me this right to comment. Following is 

site specific information and data on the issue of how my 

property and the plans that I have for it will be adversely 

affected under implementation of Alternative 2 (Proposed 

Action) of the DEIS. My comments cover concerns that relate 

both specifically to my property and also the Hell Canyon

Ranger District as a whole.

I read the Draft EIS, portions of the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act (HR1904), the Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (BHFMP, as amended). The 

scoping documents, all 27 scoping letters and comments on the 

See response to comment 2a – Bainbridge
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-72 

DEIS, the "Content Analysis" of those letters prepared by the 

USFS, December 2011, Forest Practices Board document 

FPB/SIR/16 of March 2007 titled "The Effect of the

Mountain Pine Beetle Attack and Salvage Harvesting on 

Streamflows, Special Investigation".

It is important to note my property and the properties around it, 

i.e. the BHNF have already been thinned on several occasions 

from Timber Sales. The forest surrounding my property is not a 

thick or dense forest. It is sparse. This is obvious from any aerial 

view including google - earth. It is also a wildlife sanctuary. 

Our property is home to many, many white tailed deer, turkey, 

and elk. I preserve my property for the MA5.4 in which it sits. 

Consequently you will see that I am asking for an approach that

is more sensitive to specific sites rather than the one-size-fits all 

that is being proposed under implementation of the silvicultural 

treatments discussed in the DEIS.

See response to comment 2t

10b Scoping – NOTE: this comment is a repeat of 

comment 2b – the comment is not repeated here. 

See response to comment 2b - scoping

10c Alternative to the Proposed Action - NOTE: this majority of 

this comment is a repeat of comment 2d and therefore, not 

repeated here. 

Of course also in this regard immediate sanitation by FS to curb 

the spread of an active infestation is an essential component of 

this alternative.

See response to comment 2d

Sanitation is included as a treatment for all pine sites in 

the project area, in the proposed action. Implementation 

of the project may occur once a decision has been signed. 

10d Purpose and Need - NOTE: this comment is essentially a 

repeat of comment 2e – the comment is not repeated 

here. 

See response to comment 2e

10e WUI Defn – Sec 101 (16): NOTE: This Definition not 

repearted here – see comment 2j for definition. 

See response to comments 2j and 2g

10f I see no CWPP in the DEIS. One is alleged, but it is not 

included. This could be included in the appendix as is the letter 

alleging the Beetle Epidemic. I see nothing, which defines that 

Custer has a CWPP in place, which is valid, or that it designates 

a WUI. Should this be a fact the documents supporting such an 

important fact should be included in the DEIS for my review.

A copy of the Custer County CWPP is in the project file. 

This CWPP was emailed to you, by request of Deidre 

Bainbridge, on January 6, 2012. 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP and 2g on WUI

10g WUI – NOTE: Comment is a repeat of the last paragraph in 

comment 2g – therefore, not repeated here.

See response to comment 2g

10h Certainly all of the proposed vegetative treatments surrounding 

and adjacent to my property are not in a valid WUI and do not 

fall under the special consideration and short cuts of 

HFRA.Science is required in the proposal of another alternative 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP 

See response to comment 2g on WUI
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-73 

to the treatments surrounding my property. See response to comments 2f and 2l on qualification of 

Vestal under HFRA

10i Forest Plans and Policies – NOTE- Comment a repeat of 2k See response to comment 2k

10j Hazardous fuel reduction project 102(a)(4) – NOTE –

Comment is a repeat of 2l. 

See response to comment 2l

10k Old Growth Sec 102 (e) and Large Tree Retention Sec 102 (f) –

NOTE: Comment is a repeat of 2m – with the following 

exception: All of the proposed excessive thinning of large, 

mature trees around my property violates the Forest Plan and

HFRA

See response to comment 2m

10l NOTE – Comment is a repeat of comment 2n See response to comment 2n

10m NOTE – Comment is essentially a repeat of comment 2m – 

with the following addition: The Vestal Project DEIS either 

needs to be supplemented with another full analysis, including 

appropriate scoping and another action alternative, or it should 

be scraped and rather than the No Action Alternative selected 

the USFS should immediately conduct business pursuant to 

its own forest plan and sanitize the forest to prevent the 

spread of the beetle epidemic and to protect the local 

community from the potential risk of fire. You have the tools 

in your own forest plan to combat this epidemic immediately 

and effectively by sanitizing the forest and reducing the fire 

risk potential.

See response to comment 2m

See response to comment 2b on scoping

See response to comment 2e and 2o on range of 

alternatives

See response to comment 55d on sanitation only

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

10n NOTE: Comment is a repeat, in part , of comment 2r See response to comment 2r

10o NOTE: Comment is a repeat of comment 2s See response to comment 2s

10p In fact the GSH and PE prescription results in a clear cut and 

virtual clear-cut of all pine trees. There is a very dense forest of 

small trees, which provides thermal cover for the deer in 30305-

70, 71,72. The Vestal DEIS ignores this essential forest 

component in clear -cutting this forest without comment upon it.

See response to comment 2s on thermal cover

See response to comment 2u on GSH

See response to comment 2y on sites 70, 71, and 72

10q It also states in response to scoping that certain squirrel cache 

trees shall be left. There is no science in that cursory change. 

What is the use of a squirrel- cache tree for a squirrel if there is 

nothing left in the forest for the squirrel to cache? 

Design criteria to retain squirrel cache trees is included in 

Appendix B of the EIS. 

Please refer to Table 4 in the EIS for projected pine 

structural stages remaining in the Vestal area in year 2018 

for both the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives. 

10r If the forest stands abutting my property had not been 

previously thinned by commercial cuts and if the MPB 

infestation were high, where the Vestal Project proposes 

excessive thinning, I could perhaps support such a drastic action 

in the interest of long term benefits. However, given that the 

Repeat of comment 2t

See response to comment 2t 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-74 

area has been thinned and MPB are not a big problem to the 

immediate north, west/north west and east/north east of my 

property; a much more reduced effort such as sanitization and a 

cut that leaves at least 80 sq. ft. /acre should be supported. It is 

supported by science and the forest plan for MA5.4. Except 

where a more dense forest is needed for thermal cover, this 

requires a scientific analysis lacking from the DEIS.

10s If I read the DEIS at face value..........NOTE: This is a repeat 

of comment 2u

See response to comment 2u

10t Compliance with Standards and Goals of the BHFMP - NOTE: 

Repeat of comment 2v

See response to comment 2v

10u HFRA Sec 104(e) – NOTE: repeat of comment 2v-2 See response to comment 2v-2

10v HFRA Sec 104(f) – NOTE: repeat most of comment 2v-3 See response to comment 2v-3

10w Again, the DEIS does not include the CWPP that it references 

nor does it include any document designating that Custer has 

adopted a WUI. WUI is defined as – NOTE: WUI Defn 

omitted here for brevity – is in full at comments at 2g and 2j.

See response to comment 2f on CWPP

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 10f on CWPP in DEIS

10x Consequently, pursuant to ..Sec 101 (3)(A)(B)(c) and Sec 101 

(16).....NOTE: Repeat of comment 2v-5

See response to comment 2v-5

10y HFRA mandates that the project comply with the Forest 

Management Plan....NOTE: repeat of comment 2v-6

See response to comment 2v-6

10z The proposed action ...is incongruent and in opposition to the 

listed standards for soil disturbance...NOTE: repeat of 

comment 2w

See response to comment 2w

10aa The proposed action ...is incongruent and in opposition to the 

structural diversity standard...NOTE: repeat of comment 2x

See response to comment 2x

10bb The proposed action prescribed PE treatment at places that do 

not have soils associated with meadows......NOTE: The 

remainder of comment is a repeat of comment 2y, with the 

exception of the following: 

The DEIS intends to clear-cut a rocky outcropping/hillside 

adjacent to my property to PE. There is no discussion of what 

the erosion of this soil will do to my meadow and its wetlands, 

the increase in water flow to Willow Creek is not addressed, the 

loss of wildlife habitat in terms of cover ignored. The SIO 

ignored based on the erroneous theory this is in a WUI, etc.

See response to comment 2y and 2z

10cc The soils and potential for run-off flooding.....NOTE: repeat 

of comment 2z

See response to comment 2z

10dd The public is also left to trust...NOTE: repeat of comment 

2aa

See response to comment 2aa

10ee The DEIS does not address the socioeconomic 

impacts....NOTE: The remainder of comment is a repeat of 

See response to comment 2bb
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-75 

comment 2bb with the exception of the bold text in the 

following: 

This is counterproductive to a goal to combat the beetle 

infestation and is further evidence that the No Action 

Alternative should be selected or a new sanitation only option 

immediately proposed so that we all can get on with a sane 

approach to forest management. Which is sanitation now.

See response to comment 35e and 55d on sanitation only 

alternative

Your support of the No Action alternative is noted. 

10ff I have significant personal concerns in regard to the 

socioeconomic impact of this project: I have read the DEIS very 

carefully and particularly in terms of water run-off and flood 

plains because my home sits only 93 feet from Willow Creek 

and is in a designated flood plain. I found your scientific

Assessments at pages 144 and 135 particularly disturbing. While 

my property has never flooded as of record and to my 

knowledge, I am a building contractor, and there is no indication 

of water damage or flood in any building including the 114 year 

old homestead cabin, I now fear flooding to my property and 

home will be a very real and imminent by product of the Vestal 

Alternative 2, vegetative treatments surrounding and North, NW 

and East, NE of my property. I am concerned that there are no

mitigation programs or procedures in the Vestal DEIS in regard 

the to very real threat of flood imposed by the Vestal Project on 

my home and property. With no factors in mitigation or 

remediation of this very real and apparent risk to me I must ask: 

where is the money from this extensive and dangerous timber 

sale designated to go? Will there be money in escrow or on 

reserve to pay for the following costs to me? 1..Flood to my 

home and buildings, which will cover full replacement value of

my home, buildings and all personal item including antiques, 

carpets etc; 2. Flood to my property, which will cover my very 

old, historic stone bridge and its repair and replacement as well 

as my road and other infrastructure including all culverts; 

3. Flood to my ponds and the corresponding build up of

silt and other sediment. I expect my two ponds to be dredged at 

the government's expense following the inundation of water and 

other refuse. Also in terms of noxious weeds, I expect to be 

reimbursed by the federal government for all cost of further 

remediation of all weeds including leafy spurge and nettles 

following the inundation of water and soil disturbance and 

erosion of the land immediately adjacent to my property and on 

my property. 5. Property values; how shall I be reimbursed for 

the loss in the value of my property when the federal 

See response to comment 2z on runoff and flooding 

concerns.

 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-76 

government shall destroy the scenic integrity of all that

surrounds me in violation of the forest plan? What have you 

done to socio-economically determine this loss to me and the 

other property owners in our community within this project and 

how shall you reimburse me. I do not consider any of your 

alleged risks and alleged remediation value worth my loss

in value or the risk of my losses due to flood.

10gg The DEIS professes to respond to Goal 4....NOTE: repeat of 

comment 2cc

See response to comment 2cc

10hh Objective 401 – NOTE: Repeat of comment 2dd See response to comment 2dd

10ii The Vestal Project is not site specific in endeavoring to meet 

these goals but instead states they will be compromised but the 

price is worth it with no study of the impact on the sociaeconomic values or the tourist economy in general. 

The real problem is the Vestal project does not have the 

authority to violate the “SIO’s” of the various MA’s and Forest 

area standards. It does this by stating the entire project is within 

a WUI and thereby exempt from the SIO’s in the WUI. This is 

not true. The Vestal project is not operating in a legal WUI and 

it is not authorized to destroy the SIO’s of the various sites 

which violate the requirements and visual integrity of the Forest 

Plan standards and goals. The Vestal project does not have 

permission to violate the Forest Plan because it operates outside 

of a legitimate WUI, All of the lost economic and personal 

values are not warranted, legal scientifically sound or mandated. 

They are illegal and in violation of the Forest Plan. 

The proposed action is site specific. The Interdisciplinary 

Team (IDT) developed the proposed action after review 

of the entire project area. Extensive field work preceded 

development of the proposed action. 

See response to comment 2bb and 2ee socio-economics 

See response to comments 2v-6 and 2w on Forest Plan 

consistency

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comments 2n, 2aa and 2dd on Scenery 

and SIO’s

The Vestal project is not exempt from SIO in the Forest 

Plan. 

10jj This is also significant in terms of the forest plan standard for 

insect and diseases....NOTE: repeat of comment 2ff

See response to comment 2ff

10kk Guideline 4205 considers.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2gg See response to comment 2gg

10ll I personally have no value in the loss of the "SIO" around my 

property by your alleged fire and beetle mitigation. What the 

Vestal Project proposes is overkill of the forest which violates

numerous forest plan standards and is not commensurate with a 

corresponding value. The value is all hypothetical and not 

scientifically proven. The best value would be to sanitize the

forest immediately. This is a sure value in beetle remediation 

and the least detriment to the forest and contiguous property 

owners.

See response to comment 2n, 2aa and 2dd on Scenery. 

See response to comments 2v-6 and 2w on Forest Plan 

consistency

See response to comment 35e and 55d on sanitation only 

alternative

10mm The DEIS does not prioritize according to values, 

risk.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2hh

See response to comment 2hh

10nn To further this point Guideline 5601........NOTE: Repeat of 

comment 2ii

See response to comment 2ii
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-77 

10oo This is further emphasized in Guideline 5610.......NOTE: 

repeat of comment 2jj with the exception of the following 

addition: 

HFRA requires documentation of threats of wildfire to 

municipal water supplies and infrastructure under Sections 102 

(a) (2) and (3):

See response to comment 2jj

The Vestal project is an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project under Section 102 (a)(4) of the HFRA

10pp The BHNF LMP at page II-22-26 defines the Silviculture 

Standards, ......NOTE: repeat of comment 2oo

See response to comment 2oo

10qq Regional silviculture guideline 2106........NOTE: repeat of 

comment 2pp

See response to comment 2pp

10rr Guideline 2107.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2qq See response to comment 2qq

10ss Guideline 2406.......NOTE: repeat of comment 2rr with the 

exception of the following addition: 

Flooding my property is not a good or service I choose to 

receive

See response to comment 2rr

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns

10tt Guideline 2414....NOTE: repeat of comment 2ss with the 

exception of the following addition: 

This guideline is ignored by Vestal and certainly in the 

prescriptions at my property boundary.

See response to comment 2ss

10uu Each management area goal and objective has a percentage of 

structural stages........NOTE: repeat of comment 2tt

See response to comment 2tt

10vv The Forest plan at page IV-4 states hardwood 

restoration.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2uu

See response to comment 2uu

10ww Objective 306 clearcutting......NOTE: repeat of comment 2vv See response to comment 2vv

10xx Riparian forest objective 215 (d) ......NOTE: repeat of 

comment 2ww

See response to comment 2ww

10yy Standard 1302......NOTE: repeat of comment 2xx See response to comment 2xx

10zz Standard 1301.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2yy with the 

exception of the addition of the following: 

In fact Vestal at page 144 draws a flip conclusion that all 

increase in stream flows are beneficial. No so. Again, I am very 

concerned that you are about to flood my home and destroy 

valuable, irreplaceable property. For no reason based on science 

and with no legal authority such as HFRA

See response to comment 2z and 2yy

10aaa Objective 401....NOTE: repeat of comment 2zz with 

exception of the addition of the following: 

Again, it fails to advise me of how my losses will be monitored 

See response to comments 2zz

See response to comment 10ff
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-78 

and replaced economically.

10bbb Standard 2101...NOTE: repeat of comment 2aaa See response to comment 2aaa

10ccc Standard 3219.....NOTE: repeat of comment 2bbb with 

exception of bold text in following sentence: 

Not true and so all of the PE, GSH and so on is illegal, 

excessive and destructive to the environment in terms of

SIO, big game habitat, structural diversity, riparian health, 

water flows and more including flood risk.

See response to comment 2bbb

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns

10ddd The CT50 at 30305 site 4 of over 60 acres is not supported by 

science, it is not in a WUI and is excessive thinning which 

depletes the natural environment of many aspects including 

cover for the wildlife and large older growth trees which create 

a wind and fire break for the adjacent home and home owner. It

also violates the scenic integrity objective for both the 

community at large, Forest Plan Goal 2414, and the homeowner 

endeavoring to preserve the property. 

Again the value to the property owner of the SIO is not 

assessed nor is the loss to the owner compensated. Similarly 

what is the value to the community, society, the United States as 

a whole for the loss of the big game? How is this evaluated? We 

will lose big game from the imposition of Alternative 2. They 

will lose their habitat. They cannot survive in the forest alone. 

Especially one that is deforested. Do we value that loss in terms 

of a trophy bull and the cost of that bull to game and fish or in 

terms of the loss of food for the hunter's family? This is not

assessed by any socio-economic standard.

See response to comment 2ccc 

See response to comments 2s, 2y and 2mmm on big game 

habitat. 

See response to Comment 2ss on Forest Plan Guideline

2414 (this is not a Forest Plan Goal).

See response to comment 2n, 2aa and 2dd on scenery and 

SIO.

10eee Weak disclosure of significant impacts and disclosure of a 

conceptual mitigation plan....NOTE: repeat of comment 2fff, 

with the exception of addition of the following sentence: 

I have outlined above my very significant concerns in this 

regard in terms of flood to my home and property, noxious 

weeds, loss of "SIO", property value, and wildlife. 

See response to comment 2fff

See response to comment 10ff

10fff The CWPP if any is not included in the Vestal DEIS to qualify 

the Vestal project under provisions of the HFRA (HD 1904). 

This is thoroughly outlined above. 

See response to comment 10f

10ggg The complexity, size and incongruencies associated with the 

Vestal project......NOTE: repeat of comment 2hhh

See response to comment 2hhh

10hhh Big Game Screening 4201B.......NOTE: repeat of comment 

2mmm

See response to comment 2mmm

10iii Guideline 5.4-3201......NOTE: Repeat of comment 2nnn See response to comment 2nnn
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-79 

10jjj Flood Plain Impact.......NOTE: repeat of comment 2ooo, in 

most part - with exception of the follow sentence> 

Last the floodplain water stood 23 feet from my house.

See response to comment 2ooo

10kkk I ask that the Forest Service review....NOTE: repeat of 

comment 2ppp

See response to comment 2ppp

10lll In regard to the Forest Practices Board study.......NOTE: 

repeat of comment 2qqq

See response to comment 2qqq

10mmm I hope the FS will take my comments to heart....NOTE: repeat 

of comment 2rrr

See response to comment 2rrr

10nnn I have attached a table which defines the alternative I would like 

to see implemented...NOTE: repeat of comment 2sss

See response to comment 2sss

11a Josh Van 

Vlack

Neiman Timber Co., L.C (NTC) would like to thank you for the 

opportunity to submit the following comments on the Vestal 

Project. 

First, Neiman Timber Company would like to express its' 

support of Alternative 2, the proposed alternative. We feel that 

the appropriate actions are being proposed to address the 

mountain pine beetle epidemic and resulting hazardous fuels 

within the project area. 

Our primary concern is the lack of an overall, forest wide MPB 

strategy. It appears the Forest Service is not sufficiently 

adapting the 5-year plan to respond to high-priority projects.

Your support of Alternative 2 is noted

The forest-level MPB strategy is outside the scope of this 

project. Your concerns have been forwarded to the Forest 

level timber and planning staffs. 

11b As we stated in our scoping document, we feel the following 

items are critical to achieve the stated purpose and need for the 

Vestal Project. 

Treat all stands with high MPB risk within the project area. 

Skipping infested stands will only re-infest treated stands. 

The alternative of treating all high risk stands to a low 

risk was not considered in detail. See chapter 2 of the 

EIS. 

Our landscape strategy is to treat pine stands in the 

project area to result in 87% of the pine stands at a low 

risk for MPB. Approximately 4% will be treated and 

reduced to an average of 80 BA, but remain as high risk. 

The remaining 9% of pine stands are proposed for 

sanitation only and would remain as high risk. Those 

sites proposed as sanitation only are either inaccessible 

2% or are strategically located to provide for specific 

wildlife purposes, such as for cover or for bird habitat 

(7%). Retaining high risk stands adjacent to private 

lands was avoided, particularly where dense stand 

conditions occur on those private lands. In addition, 

stands which currently have heavy infestation were not 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-80 

selected as cover stands. A consolidated list of rationale 

for each site with a sanitation only treatment is available 

in the project file. 

Based on experience in other project areas, such as the 

Bugtown area directly west of the Vestal project, as well 

as recommendations from the project entomologist 

(Allen, 2011), it is possible to retain some denser stands 

in MPB outbreak areas if stands are thinned to low risk in 

large areas surrounding these sites. The stands which 

would remain denser and at high risk are scattered across 

the landscape, not consolidated. Sanitation is included in 

these sites to allow for suppression treatments if needed. 

This strategy worked well in Bugtown, high risk stands 

that were surrounded by stands treated to a low risk have 

survived the outbreak in that area. The infestation is 

more advanced in Vestal, however we still believe it is 

possible to maintain some denser stands with timely 

sanitation. Furthermore, those denser stands will provide 

for elements of wildlife habitat on this landscape into the 

future. 

In addition, we were also able to successfully sanitize a 

nest stand in the Lightning timber sale west of the Vestal 

area that was surrounded by preventive treatments which 

reduced MPB risk to low.

11c Establish a cut-to-waste program for all high MPB risk stands 

that are not commercially treated. 

The Hell Canyon District has a cut-n-chunk (cut-towaste) program. 

11d Thin stands to 60-70 BA, rather than 50 BA. This will allow 

more acres to be treated annually, without reducing stand 

volumes to an unsustainable level. 

A small percentage of all proposed thinning would be to a 

50 BA. Only about 1,831 acres (7% of pine stands) are 

proposed for commercial thinning (CT) to a 50 BA. This 

treatment would reduce fire hazard adjacent to private 

lands where there is high risk and values and where the 

potential for high intensity wildfire exists. 

The group shelterwood (GSH) treatment would also 

implement thinning to a 60 BA (10,044 acres). 

Variable density thinning is to a density of 60-80 BA 

(1,072 acres). 

The 60 BA target for commercial thinning would reduce 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-81 

MPB risk to low. 

Commercial thinning to 50 BA is sustainable. It is within 

the Timber management zone for the Black Hills National 

Forest – see Timber Stocking Chart on Page H-2 in the 

Forest Plan.

11e Concentrate POL thinning on previously untreated stands. 

Removing POL from commercially thinned stands reduces

stocking to unsustainable levels. Lightning creek and North Pole 

are prime examples of over thinning. 

Any POL treatments proposed in commercially thinned 

stands would only occur where necessary to reach the 

target basal area for the stand. The POL thinning would 

not leave a stand under-stocked. The North pole road 

units are not representative of the treatments proposed 

here.

11f Carry the sanitation treatments forward into the FEIS, sanitation 

is critical to control MPB. 

The sanitation treatment in the proposed action is 

unchanged from that in the DEIS. 

11g Establish explicit priority areas within the project area. The 

Forest Service must realize that a well composed strategy is 

necessary for controlling MPB. Randomly treating areas with no 

overriding strategy wastes the Forest Services' time, and 

industries efforts. 

This comment pertains to implementation. Your 

concerns have been forwarded to timber sale preparation 

staff. 

11h Additionally, imposing artificial timing restraints and delaying 

implementation for fear of overachieving the ASQ is both 

inappropriate and wasteful. 

At Neiman Timber Company we are pleased to be involved in 

project planning, and wish to continue providing useful and 

productive comments. Should you have any questions, please 

feel free to contact us.

The Hell Canyon Ranger District and Black Hills 

National Forest intend to implement this project as soon 

as possible to meet the stated purpose and need. 

12 Mike Carter I have received numerous inquiries from individuals and 

organizations as to the applicability of the project as it relates to 

the Custer County Wildfire Protection Plan. I will state that the 

basic tenants of the document are paralleled with the overall 

objectives of the county plan. No planning document is perfect 

which is why we always include options a ,b ,c, and d along 

with the infamous “no action.” In the case of the current health 

of the forest in Custer County [ as it relates to the Mountain Pine 

Beetle epidemic and subsequent fuel loading] we simply cannot 

sit back and let nature take its course. In that light, the Vestal 

project affords opportunities to combine synergies of successive 

levels of government in an attempt to utilize the tools at hand to 

lessen the impact of catastrophic wildfire.

Thank you for the comments and your support of the 

Vestal project to reduce MPB risk and fire hazard 

surrounding the community of Custer. 

The Forest Service appreciates working together with the 

County and City of Custer to reduce MPB risk and fire 

hazard within this community. These collaborative 

efforts will better protect the community on both public 

and private lands. 

13a Gary Lipp We have reviewed the Vestal Project Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement and have the following comments:

Thank you for your comments and support of the project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-82 

1) We support the need for an aggressive forest management 

option for the area.

The Forest Service appreciates working together with the 

County and City of Custer to reduce MPB risk and fire 

hazard within this community. These collaborative 

efforts will better protect the community on both public 

and private lands. 

13b 2) The mountain pine beetles are of high concern to us and the 

timing of the project is an issue. We hope it will be implemented 

in a timely manner to help as much as possible to slow down the 

mountain pine beetles from advancing and increasing the 

problem.

Time is of the essence for this project. Once the project 

decision is made, implementation may occur. It is 

expected that implementation may begin early summer 

2012. 

13c 3) Based on the existing bug infested areas our concern is the 

fire and fuels issue. Any untreated area will create a very high 

potential for wildfire threat to the city and area residents. We 

hope that additional treatment options will be evaluated to 

reduce or mitigate this issue.

The purpose and need for action in this project includes 

protecting local communities and watersheds from largescale high intensity wildfire. The proposed action would 

have a substantial effect on reducing fire hazard in this 

project area. Currently approximately 84% of the project 

area is at a high to very high hazard. Following treatment 

only 13% would be at a high to very high hazard. These 

stands are scattered throughout the project area and 

generally not adjacent to private lands. 

See response to comment 11b on landscape strategy and 

deferred stands. 

The proposed action would defer treatment, other than 

sanitation, on approximately 3,655 acres (~15%) for a 

variety of reasons. A consolidated list with rationale for 

why each site was deferred is available in the project file. 

A map of existing and post-treatment fire hazard has been 

added to Appendix A of the EIS (see Maps 14 and 15). 

These maps display that the majority of area surrounding 

Custer would be at a low-moderate risk (~91%) once 

treatments are completed. 

13d 4) We understand that safety is not an environmental concern 

but it is an issue that needs to be addressed. We have a great 

concern with the number of dead standing trees that are visible 

at this time and how much the areas have expanded from last 

year. With the projected increase in the future, our concerns are 

how you will respond to this ongoing problem.

Thank you for requesting our comments. We hope this project 

can be implemented and make a positive difference.

The Forest Service agrees that safety of the public as well 

as fire fighter safety is an important aspect of this project. 

Protecting the community of Custer, including all the 

values at risk, is absolutely pertinent in this project. In 

fact, this is part of the purpose and need for the project 

(see Chapter 1). The proposed action was designed to 

respond to this purpose and need. Approximately 40% 

of the area is private lands with an estimated 3,200 

structures to protect. All evacuation routes for the 

community of Custer travel through the Vestal project 

area, and there is substantial infrastructure in place, 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-83 

including municipal water supply. 

 

The existing conditions of dense forest throughout much 

of the project area create the high to very high fire hazard. 

These dense stands are also the ones with high MPB risk. 

Mountain pine beetle killed trees will fall, generally 

within 5 years, and add to the fire hazard. Therefore, this 

project includes treatments to reduce both mountain pine 

beetle risk as well as fuel hazard. 

The proposed Dead Fall treatment (see page 22 in the EIS 

for a Definition) is proposed throughout the whole project 

area. It would be implemented in areas of MPB caused 

mortality where the trees have broken or fallen to the

ground. No standing dead trees would be felled. This 

would help in reducing the dead ladder fuels due MPB 

mortality. 

In addition, Sanitation, or the removal of beetle infested 

trees, is included on all pine stands in the project area. 

Trees infested with MPB are actually dying, but have not 

yet turned brown. This treatment removes beetles, as 

well as eventual dead trees, from the area. 

14a Carson 

Engleskirger 

On behalf of the Black Hills Forest Resource Association and 

it’s members, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the Vestal Project. 

Overall we support the use of HFRA Authorities and the 

resulting action alternative (Alternative 2).

We spent many hours preparing comments during the scoping 

phase and by the looks of it, few of our comments were 

incorporated into the Draft EIS. Below are some of the 

comments we feel are still important when planning the Vestal 

Project. 

• We would like to see an emphasis on treating all acres at high 

risk or at-risk of being infested by mountain pine beetles. 

Your support of HFRA and Alternative 2 are noted. 

All scoping comments were considered. Documentation 

of how each comment was addressed is available in the 

project file. 

This was an alternative not considered in detail. See 

response to comment 11b

14b We support the broad use of sanitation throughout the project. In 

areas that are overstocked, we would like to see commercial 

treatments, where practical, to address stocking levels, rather 

than relying on sanitation. These areas are becoming infested for 

a reason. Commercial treatments, just by nature, conduct 

Your support of sanitation treatments is noted. Sanitation 

is included as treatments on all pine stands in the project 

area. 

See response to comment 11b on sites deferred from 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-84 

sanitation along with thinning. commercial treatments. 

14c Generally speaking, on all the commercial thinning treatments, 

we support thinning to a 60-70 BA. In areas where heavy 

infestation is occurring, or in those areas at imminent risk of 

being infested, we would support a lower target, such as 40-50 

BA. Overall, we support treating the maximum number of acres 

possible to reduce future infestation. 

See response to comment 11b on sites deferred from 

commercial treatments. 

See response to comment 11d on Commercial thinning 

BAs

14d We support the use of overstory removal but, but given the 

current state of the epidemic, we would rather see these types of 

intensive treatments shelved for a few years until the epidemic 

has subsided. Assuming the infestation has not advanced in 

these stands, and given the available resources we have, it seems 

appropriate to delay these types of treatments for now so efforts 

can be focused in thinning the maximum number of acres. 

There are approximately 1,255 acres of OR proposed in 

this project. Additional ORs are included as part of the 

GSH treatments. Overstory removals are prescribed to 

remove overmature trees and release immature trees. 

This action leaves healthier, more vigorous trees on the 

landscape that are more resistant or generally too small in 

diameter to be preferred for attack by MPB. This creates 

more diversity on the landscape i.e. creating a mosaic of 

age classes. Some of the overstories are well above 

60BA and/or have dense understories of susceptible trees. 

We are observing MPB attack in these stands. Other 

OR’s adjacent to heavily infested stands are receiving 

“bleed over” attack. Those OR’s which are less 

susceptible (low overstory BA and/or seed/sap 

understory’s) could be harvested last in timber sales.

14e We would like to see more information pertaining to prescribed 

burning in the DEIS. Would you please provide RX burn goals, 

objectives, parameters, and mortality limits? We support the 

proposed 10% limit on 9” trees and greater as an upper limit. 

We would also support RX burning to follow commercial 

treatments to the largest extent possible. In the DEIS, we would 

like to see a breakdown by stand (number) outlining the 

prescriptions, for each stand similar to how silviculture 

Prescribed burn plans are site specific and have not yet 

been developed for the Vestal project area. The burn 

plans are prepared prior to implementation to account for 

site specific conditions at the time. Burn plans must be 

approved by a certified silviculturist, as well as other 

resource specialists. Site specific burn parameters may 

vary greatly dependent on the specific on-site conditions 

and the manipulation those fuels needed to accomplish 

the identified goals and objectives of that area. As a 

result, these areas will be further assessed prior to 

implementation and burn parameters which will be 

required to meet these goals and objectives will be 

included as part of the burn plan. (Forest Guideline 4108)

The objective of prescribed burning in the Vestal project 

is stated on page 23 – “..to reduce fire hazard by reducing 

surface fuels.” 

Design criteria is included in Appendix B which states 

that prescribed burning would occur after mechanical 

treatments are completed and after the MPB epidemic has 

passed through the area. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-85 

prescriptions are done.

14f Maximize the Sale Area Boundaries to allow greater flexibility 

in conducting future sanitation efforts. 

We would like this project to be implemented before the coming 

MPB flight in August of 2012 to be most effective. We also feel 

it is important to coordinate and communicate with potential 

purchasers throughout the planning and layout stages. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward 

to the decision on the Vestal Project.

Specific sale area boundaries are outside the scope of this 

analysis. This comment has been forwarded to the 

District Presale Foresters. 

Potential purchasers were contacted during the scoping 

and draft phase of this project. Presale personnel may 

contact potential purchasers during any presale activities, 

however, that is outside the scope of this project. 

We agree that time is of the essence for this project. The 

Hell Canyon Ranger District and Black Hills National 

Forest intend to implement this project as soon as 

possible to meet the stated purpose and need. It is 

anticipated that implementation may begin in early 

summer 2012. 

15a June Johnston I would like to submit the following comments on the Vestal 

DEIS. For reference regarding some of the comments, my legal 

location is T4S R5E Sec 5, Lot 3. Thank you for providing me 

the opportunity to make comments. 

First I am very happy to see that some work is proposed in the 

Vestal area to stop the MPB infestation. I have no problems 

with reduction of the stands to a low BA to accomplish that 

goal. I do have some other comments and concerns that may not 

be so positive.

Your support of thinning to reduce MPB risk is noted. 

15b 1) Road closures. I understand that there will be only one road 

closure in the project area at this time. I am very opposed to any 

road closure in any area of the forest. In my opinion, the roads 

were built with my tax dollars and I should be able to use them. 

Because I live within the BHNF, my property taxes are higher to 

support local schools, etc as the FS pays a small pittance for the 

land within the district. Even though I pay higher taxes to live in 

the NF, I am not allowed to use it unless specified. Someone 

else has made the decision that I can only use the areas 

designated by them. In addition I am “permitted” or “allowed”, I 

don’t remember the exact word on the carsonite posts, to 

WALK on NF land. In the good old days, the land was referred 

to as “public” land. Talk to anyone on the street, it is now 

“government” land and we as citizens are only allowed entrance 

where someone has decided to let us go. I have not seen abuse 

in any of the areas that are now closed. I don’t have a problem if 

the area is being abused but let us be fair about the whole thing. 

There is 1 closure of a system road (FSR 345.1C) 

proposed. This road is already partially closed and the 

proposal is to close the remaining 0.6 mile for wildlife 

habitat purposes. This is a dead-end road which does not 

connect to another system road. 

The road closure does not preclude public use of the land 

although it would restrict motorized access on that 0.6 

mile of road. 

The decision maker will determine whether this road 

closure will be implemented. 

Your support of no road closures is noted. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-86 

15c 2) Brown Creepers. I do have a brown creeper/s that comes to 

my backyard. I feed suet and seeds year long. I have not seen it 

at the feeders but it does come to run up, down and around the

tree. I can not say if there is more than one but I have only seen 

one at a time. 

Your observation of brown creeper is noted-thanks 

The brown creeper is Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) known to occur in the project area. The expected 

impacts to this species are discussed in the wildlife 

section of Chapter 3 in the EIS. 

15d 3) Flying squirrels. In my time in the woods, I have seen 8 

flying squirrels. Two of them have been dead, trapped by a barb 

in the flying flap in a fence. Of the other 6, three have been in 

pine, yellow barks or snags and the other 3 including one right 

in my pasture have been in ASPEN. The DEIS states that flying 

squirrels were never in aspen and birch. That conflicts with the 

local knowledge that I have gathered. In addition to my own 

observations, I checked with several local long time loggers. 

They stated that the flying squirrels were in the yellow barks, 

snags or ASPEN. I cut an aspen tree in the grove in my pasture. 

The flying squirrel rode it to the ground where upon, it jumped 

out and ran. I put a wild life tree sign on a little aspen in Don 

Baldwin’s pasture east of Moon. When I hit the tree, a little 

flying squirrel popped out of the hole in the tree. My crew and I 

also observed a flying squirrel in an aspen along the road into 

Red Bank Spring CG. When I was in charge of aspen regen on 

the old Elk Mtn district, my contractors told me that I might find 

standing aspen left in the grove. They left them because of holes 

and flying squirrels. Local knowledge seems to contradict the 

“expert” knowledge on this subject. It would seem logical to 

expect flying squirrels in aspen as the decadent trees provide 

excellent opportunity for cavities. Woodpeckers are the main 

cavity creators in my aspens and that is what I have observed in 

other places. Not only do the flying squirrels move in but I have 

seen the mountain blue birds also taking advantage of those 

cavities. 

Thank you for the information on flying squirrels. 

The flying squirrel discussion in the FEIS has been edited 

to incorporate local observations. 

15e 4) Tracts set aside for wild life cover. I have some real problems 

with this. Under normal circumstances, I would think this was 

fine. However, in the present climate, I think it is a terrible idea. 

Before I go further, I would like to ask, where are the trees that 

are removed in the sanitation cut going to go??? The DEIS 

states that the trees with live larvae will be removed from the 

area. What are you going to do with these trees that are potential 

bug bombs?? If you take them to the mill, will they be processed 

in a timely manner so you are not just moving the bugs from one 

area to another and setting them loose on the timber there???? 

I understand that in any area of a TS, there will be areas that are 

See response to comment 11b on deferring high risk 

stands

Trees infested with MPB are removed from the area and 

processed in the Mill as soon as possible, prior to beetle 

emergence. In general, the mountain pine beetle flight 

occurs in July/August. 

Sanitation treatments remove infested trees from the site. 

Sanitation is included for all pine stands in the project 

area, including those not proposed for thinning due to 

wildlife habitat concerns. Beetle infested trees in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-87 

considered inoperable. If those areas contain bugs, am I to 

understand correctly that even with sanitation treatment, they 

will be left?? If the previous statement is true as I would assume 

it would be with the definition of inoperable area, then the bugs 

will be left in those areas. If one of the inoperable areas was 

within a stand that was scheduled for treatment, it would seem 

that the bugs would not do as well when they flew as the trees 

with a reduced BA would be healthier and more able to pitch 

out the bugs or the bugs would not even hit them. BUT, if the 

inoperable area was in a stand that was set aside for wild life, it 

would seem that sanitation would not be possible and a bug 

farm would set up. The bugs would find easy picking in a stand 

that was overstocked and ripe for bug infestation. If the area is 

for wild life it seems to me that the entire area is going to be a 

“sacrifice” area for the bugs. What is going to be left for wildlife 

in 5 years??? As a land owner near one of these areas, I am not 

pleased at all. In these times it would seem that even the wild 

life contingent would give a little to save the rest. There won’t 

be much cover for the wild life when the bugs get done. There 

probably will be a lot of forage though!

inoperable areas would be removed if they can be 

accessed. For instance, trees may be felled in such a way 

as to be reached by logging equipment. 

It is correct that reducing stand density surrounding more 

dense areas may provide some level of protection against 

MPB infestation. 

Sites near your property which are proposed for sanitation 

only are: 

31305-4 – 46 acres, SS 4B stand. Was identified as 

important for wildlife cover. A fuelbreak is proposed 

where this site is adjacent to private land. It does not 

appear that this site is directly adjacent to commentor’s 

property

31306-11 – 78 acres, SS 4B stand. Was identified as 

important for wildlife cover. Is adjacent to site 29 

discussed below. A fuelbreak is proposed where this site 

is adjacent to private land. Site is not directly adjacent to 

commentor’s land. 

31306- 29- 30 acre, SS 4B stand. Was identified as 

important for wildlife cover. Is adjacent to site 11 

discussed above. Is not directly adjacent private land, 

but does straddle an open FSR road, 337. 

The projected structural stages of pine at year 2018, for 

both the No Action and Proposed Action are displayed in 

Table 4 of the EIS. These projections are based on 

information provided by the project entomologist. The 

changes presented for the No Action alternative are those 

anticipated to occur from MPB caused mortality. See the 

effects analysis for wildlife in Chapter 3 of the EIS.

16a Sylvia 

Lambert

Dear Forest Service Folks,

Not so hasty, please!

Burning and logging intensifies pine beetle infestation. Pine 

beetles don't cause forest fires.

Acres of MPB risk levels as presented in the EIS are 

based on information from Forest Health Entomologists 

and others. The proposed action was developed in 

respond to the purpose and need for action. 

It is correct that pine beetle do not cause forest fires. 

However, trees killed by MPB add to fire hazard and 

intensity if a fire were to start in the area. 

Prescribed burning may stress trees and make them more 

susceptible to MPB. Therefore, all prescribed burning 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-88 

proposed in the Vestal project would be delayed until the 

MPB epidemic has passed through the proposed burn 

areas. 

16b The Forest Service needs to protect the forest and all the various 

species living there, and a specific EIS exploration of all the 

sacred landscape of the Okawita Paha National Monument area 

is needed.

Please do this first.

Chapter 3 of the EIS discloses effects to resources and 

species for all alternatives. There is no National 

Monument within the Black Hills National Forest named 

Okawita Paha. Until a designation under the Antiquities 

Act is made by the President of the United States, this is 

outside the scope of this project. Such a designation is 

not reasonably foreseeable.

17a Denise Breton We wish to register our deepest concerns about the plans of 

the U.S. Forest Service to log and/or burn 43,516 acres in the 

Hell Canyon Ranger District. This acreage is a small, last 

wilderness area in the Black Hills. Most of this acreage is

National Forest land and therefore this project is of concern 

to all people in the United States.

The Vestal project area is 43,516 acres total, however this 

includes approximately 40% private lands which are not 

proposed for any action under this project. All proposed 

actions are on the 25,823 acres of National Forest System 

lands. 

There is no designated Wilderness area within the Vestal 

project area. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement

17b We request that the following comments on the Draft 

Environmental Study be submitted for the record:

1) The northeast portion of the Project Area (north of US 

Highway 16A and east of US Highway 16) should be analyzed 

under a separate EIS that explores designation of this area as 

part of the Okawita Paha National Monument. 

There is no National Monument within the Black Hills 

National Forest named Okawita Paha. Until a designation 

under the Antiquities Act is made by the President of the 

United States, this is outside the scope of this project. 

Such a designation is not reasonably foreseeable. 

Therefore, this project will not be separated into 2 

different analyses as suggested. 

17c 2) This northeast portion of the Project Area contains critical 

habitat for the Bear and Needles mountain goat groups, and 

corridors for the sensitive pine marten, a tiny bird, must be 

protected not logged or burned.

Refer to Chapter 3 of the EIS to review the effects 

analysis for mountain goats. 

Mountain goat is a species of local concern (SOLC), in 

the Forest Plan. There is habitat for mountain goat in the 

Vestal project area, as described in the wildlife section of 

Chapter 3. The Forest Plan does not identify critical 

habitat for mountain goat in the Vestal project area. 

See response to comment 35c on critical mountain goat 

habitat.

The American marten (formerly known as pine marten) is 

a mammal on the Black Hills R2 Sensitive Species list. 

Refer to the Wildlife BA/BE, the summary for the BA/BE 

in Appendix G and the effects analysis in Chapter 3of the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-89 

EIS. 

Forest Plan Standard 3215 provides direction on 

management in areas identified as important connectivity 

corridors for marten. Areas that were identified by 

Fecske (2003) as important habitat are mainly in spruce 

sites that are close to water. Tenderfoot Creek offers 

portions that may be important marten corridor/habitat. 

Cutting of spruce is not proposed. The Vestal project is 

consistent with Standard 3215. 

17d 3) This northeast portion of the Project Area has been proposed 

for sacred landscape designation and management under the 

Okawita Paha National Monument. The proposed logging and 

burning would desecrate this sacred landscape, which is sacred 

to many Native American nations across North America.

See response to Comment 17b on Okawita Paha. 

The Black Hills National Forest consulted with affiliated 

Native American tribes and the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the effect of the 

project on Traditional Cultural Properties in fulfillment of 

requirements specified in the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA), EO 13175 “Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” 

(2000), and EO 13007 “Indian Sacred Sites” (1996). The 

sacredness of the Black Hills and the specific spiritual 

locations are recognized in the Heritage section of the 

EIS. 

17e 4) More than half of the Vestal Project Area under federal law is 

supposed to have wildlife (big game winter range) or recreation 

(Buckhorn Mountain limited motorized use area) objectives. 

Logging every acre in these forest management areas will 

prevent achievement of these objectives to the detriment of 

wildlife.

Management area 5.4 is to be managed for big game 

winter range. There are approximately 10,723 acres 

(42%) of the project area (National forest lands) in MA 

5.4. 

Management area 4.1 is to be managed for limited 

motorized use and forest products. There are 

approximately 4,472 acres (17%) of the project area 

(National Forest lands) in MA 4.1.

The Vestal project does not propose to log every acre in 

MAs 5.4 and 4.1

See responses to comment 2s, 2y and 2mmm on big game 

winter range

Forest Plan objectives for MA 4.1 include structural stage 

objectives for ponderosa pine sites. Refer to response to 

comment 2n on structural stage objectives. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-90 

No change to open roads would occur within the 

Buckhorn mountain, limited motorized use area (MA 

4.1). During project implementation, associated vehicle 

traffic would occur, which is consistent with the theme 

and objective of this area. There would be short-term 

impacts while activities are being implemented. Longterm recreation affects would be a thinner, healthier 

forest. 

Extensive design criteria, including recreation and 

scenery related criteria, is included in Appendix B. 

17f 5) The rationale used by the Forest Service that there is a 

"mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring within the project 

area" calls the proposed actions into question. Logging and 

burning could intensify the insect outbreaks, rather than contain 

them. (Our resource for this information: Pine Beetles and Fire 

Hazard in the Black Hills.)

See Appendix H of the EIS. The Forest Supervisor 

determined that a MPB epidemic is occurring in the 

project area and that this epidemic threatens forest 

resources on National Forest and private lands. This 

determination is based on information from Forest Health 

reports. 

17g 6) The Project relies on a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

for Custer, SD, that may not have been properly adopted. We 

ask the following question: Was a so-called Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan the underlying reason for this project, 

rather than the protection of the Forest and all the species living 

there, and the protection of all the sacred places in the proposed 

area?

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to register our 

opposition to this logging/burning plan. We believe this 

proposed project is a major public concern. It affects all people, 

hence it warrants a much more in-depth analysis and review, 

including extensive public input and dialogue as well as 

independent research.

See responses to comments 2f on CWPP

Your support of the No Action alternative is noted. 

See response to comment 2b on public involvement

18 Elizabeth 

Dimond 

It is not ok to log and burn here!!!! The land is sacred. We say 

NO!

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

19 Ann Yellott Please listen to the input of Native American groups and 

individuals from this Black Hills area and do no further damage 

to this sacred area.

Take the time needed for a more thorough analysis of what is in 

the best interest of the land and the cultural traditions most 

closely aligned with this land.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-91 

20 Nancy Reid Let' make sure that this really is the best action to take for this 

priceless wilderness area, before we go and destroy what cannot 

be replaced in our lifetime !

The District Ranger is the decision maker for this project. 

The Ranger will determine what is the best action to take, 

based on information in the project file, including public 

input. 

The Vestal project area does not include any wilderness. 

The project area surrounds the City of Custer with 40% 

private lands. Actions are only proposed on National 

Forest Lands. 

21 Jon Block To Whom It May Concern:

By this comment, I ask that you at least undertake more 

extensive study of the Vestal Project area impacts before going 

forward for the following reasons:

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

I have been to the Black Hills and driven around the Mount 

Rushmore area. I have seen the devastation that logging has 

already done to this protected Wild Life Area.

Please, consider the sacredness of this area and take prudent 

steps to stop the destruction and desecration of this sacred site.

Thank you for consideration of this comment.

See responses to comments 17a-17g

22 Mary Robbins I'm writing to you today to strongly urge you to stop the "fast 

track" implementation of this project and launch a much more 

in-depth study of it's environmental impact. My concerns 

include the facts that:

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

It is an outrage to me, a white middle American that, for quick 

profit and without concern for the environmental impact of these 

actions, and even without proper study of the environmental 

impact or the legality of it, our country's remaining pristine 

areas can be ravaged. These lands are sacred to many 

Americans; the first and the new and I am outraged at the lack 

of respect for the environment and the spiritual concerns of us 

all that is being demonstrated by the fast tracking of this project. 

I demand, as should all Americans, that an in depth, 

comprehensive study of this proposed project and it's impact on 

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) does provide 

for expedited administrative procedures for authorized 

projects, such as Vestal. This, however does not change 

the required resource analysis of project impacts under 

NEPA. Chapter 3 of the EIS discusses the effects of 

alternative implementation. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. In summary, it is to reduce the threat to forest 

resources from the existing mountain pine beetle 

epidemic and to protect local communities and 

watersheds from large-scale high-intensity fire. Refer to 

Appendix F for a summary of past, present and future 

actions within this area. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-92 

all American's and our country, be implemented. involvement. 

23a Deborah 

Hochhalter

As a native of the Black Hills I would like to voice my concerns 

over the Vestal Project.

I currently live in the mountains of Colorado and have observed 

the plight of our forests for several years. I have witnessed 

millions of acres of trees die due to the infestation of the 

Mountain Pine Beetle. It is a known fact that logging will NOT 

control their spread, and in fact will make it worse. The cutting 

or damaging of green trees draws beetles into the area, 

producing heavy infestations. Even minor root damage attracts 

the beetles in heavy numbers and happens within hours of the 

damage occurring. Areas in the Colorado forests that were 

thinned prior to the Pine Beetle outbreak have been just as 

heavily hit as those areas not thinned.

In the Black Hills, thinning stands to reduce density has 

been proven as an effective method to reducing MPB 

caused mortality, as noted in Schmid et al 2007“ the 

implication of these results is that partial cutting 

unmanaged ponderosa pine stands can minimize MPBcaused tree mortality.”

The Colorado epidemic is affecting both lodgepole pine 

and ponderosa pine species which differs from that on the 

Black Hills. 

See response to comment 35e on effectiveness of 

treatments in reducing MPB risk

23b Prescribed burning also weakens live trees, thus making them 

vulnerable to beetle attack. Neither of the options you have 

presented in your EIS will protect the forest and will in fact lead 

to a far greater outbreak of beetles.

It is correct that burning may stress trees and make them 

vulnerable to MPB infestation. Therefore, the Vestal 

project would delay burning until after the MPB outbreak 

moves through an area. Appendix B of the EIS lists 

design criteria that states, “Prescribed burning shall be 

delayed until the MPB epidemic has passed through the 

proposed burn areas”, page B-2. Prior to prescribed fire 

implementation a burn plan will be completed and signed. 

A certified Silviculturist must review and approve burn 

plans. The site specific conditions at the time of burning 

would be reviewed. This will reduce the potential for 

non-desirable effects resulting from prescribed burning.

23c The northeast portion of the Project Area (north of US Highway 

16A and east of US Highway 16) should be analyzed under a 

separate EIS that explores designation of this area as part of the 

Okawita Paha National Monument. This is a sacred area and 

should not be destroyed by logging. In fact, the DEIS fails to 

address the impacts to traditional spiritual uses of the sacred 

landscape of the Okawita Paha area, in violation of the

CERCLA act.

See response to comment 17b and 17d on the proposed 

Okawita Paha National Monument. 

Refer to page 4 of the Heritage Specialist’s Report (in the 

project record): Through consultation with Native 

American tribes in fulfillment of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) the Black Hills National Forest 

has undertaken a reasonable effort to identify locations of 

traditional spiritual use within the project area. No 

Traditional Cultural Properties have been identified 

within the project area by the consulting tribes. 

See response to comment 35h on CERCLA

23d This northeast portion of the Project Area contains critical 

habitat for the Bear and Needles mountain goat groups, and 

corridors for the sensitive pine marten, that must be protected, 

not logged or burned. Nearly 60% of the Project Area are to 

See response to 2y and 2mmm on big game winter range

See response to comment 17c on marten
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-93 

have wildlife (big game winter range) or recreation (Buckhorn 

Mountain limited motorized use area) objectives; logging every 

acre in these management areas will preclude attainment of 

these objectives.

See response to comment 17e on recreation, MA 4.1

See response to comment 35c on mountain goat

The Vestal project does not propose to log every acres of 

these management areas. Refer to proposed action maps 

in Appendix A. 

23e The Vestal Plan will not help to increase tourism and will only 

benefit the logging industry. With demand and prices at record 

lows for lumber, very little is to be gain. In reality, logging and 

prescribed burning will deter tourism in a very beautiful area of 

the Black Hills that attracts thousands of tourists each year.

Increasing tourism is not part of the purpose and need for 

this project. The purpose and need is stated in the Vestal 

EIS in Chapter 1. The proposed action was designed to 

fulfill the purpose and need. Effects to scenery and 

recreation are disclosed in the EIS. 

24a Brigitte de 

Perrot

This comment has been prepared considering the Hell Canyon 

Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest proposed 

action to reduce mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard on 

National Forest lands surrounding the City of Custer, SD. I will 

address the first section of the proposed action concerning fire 

hazard. There has been very little data that supports any form of 

fire suppression as beneficial and effective. Many studies have 

found that controlled clearing or burning of forest actually leads 

to more severe fires. Typically a forest grows in one age range 

with a top canopy, however, when routine burns are 

implemented, you stager the age of the forest to a point that it is 

multigenerational. This leads to a ladder effect, thus allowing 

fires to reach the top canopy, which is not the path a fire would 

normally take. More information is needed in to determine what 

plans and actions are going to be taken in order to reduce the 

fire hazard on the National Forest lands surrounding the City of 

Custer, SD.

The DEIS does not debate the effectiveness or benefits of 

fire suppression. 

Currently, there are three general types of fire regimes in 

the Black Hills; Frequent Low-Severity, Infrequent High 

Severity, and Mixed Severity. 

 

The Fire Regime Condition Class rating can be used to 

describe the degree of departure from the historic fire 

regime. The coarse scale national data characterizes the 

Black Hills, including the project area, as primarily 

Condition Class III, high relative risk of significantly 

altering or losing key components of the ponderosa pine 

forest system. These conditions significantly increase 

the probability of a surface fire transitioning into a crown 

fire with increased burn severity and tree mortality. 

Approximately 84% of the project has a Fire Hazard 

Rating of high to very high. The high fire hazard that 

exists in the Vestal project is a result of the disruption of 

the historic fire regime. 

Please see: A Comprehensive Guide to Fuels Treatment 

Practices for Ponderosa Pine in the Black Hills, Colorado 

Front Range, and Southwest (Evans, et al. 2011). 

Fire hazard would be reduced utilizing mechanical 

treatments and prescribed burning, by decreasing ladder 

fuels, reducing the surface fuel loading, and breaking up 

the continuity of the fuels. 

Please see DEIS pg. 97-107
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-94 

No cites to any studies were provided in this comment. 

24b Secondly, I will address the second aspect of the proposed 

action- to reduce mountain pine beetle risk. There has been 

minimal evidence that anything but consecutive freezing days 

can kill off or reduce the occurrence of the mountain pine beetle 

(MPB) in a permanent and sustainable fashion. 

In fact, weak trees such as those that have been burned, are 

primary targets for the mountain pine beetle. 

It is also concerning that you plan to use vegetation treatment as 

a means to reduce mountain pine beetle risks, as there is no 

current labeled pesticides for the MPB. In order to properly 

asses the issue of the MPB, it would be absolutely necessary to 

expand on your exact plans for how you are going to “treat” the 

vegetation. If the plans require the application of chemical 

pesticide, then the cost does not outweigh the risk. Not only are 

pesticides costly to purchase and apply, they are a short-term 

solution to a long-term problem. Not to mention the amount of 

damage that could be done to other endemic species in the area; 

no chemical or treatment is specific enough to only kill the MPB 

and could therefor have severe repercussions.

It is true that very low temperatures have the greatest 

impact when they occur in October or April, before or 

after the beetles have cold hardened. During winter 

months, sustained temperatures of -20 to -30 F are needed 

for 24 to 48 hours straight (Schmid et al. 1993). In the 

Black Hills such extreme conditions over extended 

periods are rare. 

MPB are less attracted to stressed trees than many other 

bark beetles. Once an epidemic has started, as is the case 

here, trees stress has little to do with beetle attack for 

MPB. Stressed trees, including those which have been 

burned, are more susceptible to infestation by other bark 

beetles. For this reason, the Vestal project includes 

design to delay any prescribed burning until after the 

MPB epidemic passes through this area. (See Appendix 

B of the EIS). 

No pesticide use is proposed to reduce MPB risks. 

Vegetation treatments regard mechanical thinning of 

stands. Refer to pages 17-24 in Chapter 2 of the EIS for 

definitions and acreages of proposed vegetation 

treatments. In the Black Hills, reducing stand density is 

a proven method for reducing susceptibility of stands to 

MPB caused mortality. 

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of treatments

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk

24c Two Alternatives have been given for this project; Alternative 1 

being no action and Alternative 2 is the proposed action 

including vegetation treatments to reduce mountain pine beetle 

caused mortality. I strongly stand by Alternative 1; I do not 

believe that any of the proposed actions should be taken for all 

reasons previously stated in this comment.

Your support of the No Action alternative is noted

25 Mary Rose 

Kaczorowski 

& Jane Mary 

Lang

ECCOTERRA 

We were informed that:

The US Forest Service is planning on logging and-or burning 

43,516 acres in the Hell Canyon Ranger District under a project 

called the Vestal Project. Sixty percent of the area is National 

Forest acres and and almost all of that area will be logged. More 

detailed information is available at the Friends of the Norbeck 

website: FotN VESTAL Project Webpage

The Vestal project area is 43,516 acres total, however this 

includes approximately 40% private lands which are not 

proposed for any action under this project. All proposed 

actions are on the 25,823 acres of National Forest System 

lands. 

See response to comment 22 on HFRA analysis
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-95 

INTL

The Project is being done under the "Healthy Forests" Act, 

which greatly rushes and simplifies the environmental analysis 

and public participation process. In this project, the rush is due 

to the alleged need to reduce and preclude impacts from 

mountain pine beetles. The reason given is to stop wildfires in 

the Forest. However, a recent scientific look at all the data for 

the last 100 years shows that the mountain pine beetles are not 

the cause of wildfires. For that complete report, go to Friends of 

the Norbeck at http://friends-ofnorbeck.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

On behalf of our over 30,000 members and supporters, who are 

U.S. citizens, we demand:

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

We like to file the above as comment, official injunction and 

legal complaint on behalf of our members, who hold U.S.

Citizenship.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement

The purpose and need for action is presented in Chapter 1 

of the Vestal EIS. It does not include the purpose of 

stopping wildfires. It does, however include protecting 

communities from large-scale high intensity fires by 

reducing fire hazard. 

It is correct that pine beetle do not cause forest fires. 

However, trees killed by MPB add to fire hazard and 

intensity if a fire were to start in the area. 

See response to comment 35e-1 and 35f on the referenced 

document from Friends of the Norbeck website. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

This is comment on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vestal project. There is no decision on 

this project and no legal action in process. 

26a Lon Ball Please send more information as it is impossible to review the 

impacts of such a widespread project as the Vestal Project 

#35919 with so little information from your website pages. 

Please do a complete EIS as the cumulative effects and effective 

alternatives are legion. Natural and localized conrolled fires of 

very small nature on strategic boundaries may be the best 

managment tools. Past pine beetle control efforts and snag

managment has been quite a wild card in the Pacific Northwest 

and in Colorado. The best protection for commuities and for 

towns like Custer are normative fuel clearing around the 

environs of the town as well as in the town itself. Just what are 

the details?

The full Draft EIS is on the Forest website. 

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the Vestal EIS. 

The use of prescribed burning is included in the proposed 

action. 

The Vestal project proposed action is detailed in Chapter 

2 of the EIS. It includes reducing fuels surrounding the 

community of Custer. The proposed action reduces fire 

hazard across the project area from an existing 84% to 

13%, high to very high fire hazard. 

26b Salvage logging near Boulder CO 15 years ago represented an 

economic loss and a loss of soil humus. Pine beetle of 

Ponderosa pine is a very short window that does not lend itself 

to generalized burning. Blue stain sets in very quickly and rot is 

quick and the revenues of logging do not justify the cost. In 

addition, the logs are slow burning fuel compared to the 

branches and needles that are left as detrius. What percentage 

damage is there in these forests; and what is the death rate or is 

No salvage logging is proposed within the Vestal project. 

It is correct that bluestain of MPB infested trees occurs 

quickly, however, it does not cause rot, nor affect the 

performance or strength of lumber. 

“Ground surveys in the fall of 2011 in the Vestal area 

were done to assess the beetle conditions. In this area the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-96 

that yet to be realized?

These are concerns raised that are not nearly complete nor 

understandable as I have edited from my mail recieved recently.

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

ratio of green to red attack (2011 attacks vs. 2010 faders) 

was approximately 6 to 1. So for every red tree that is 

seen now, there are 6 new green attacks that will fade 

next summer. This equates to over 80% of the trees 

killed by mountain pine beetle as ones that are currently 

infested and have beetle brood maturing in them now. 

The increase in currently infested trees compared to those 

killed in 2010 indicates a still rapidly growing infestation 

in this area. There is almost a 40-fold increase in trees 

that are currently infested compared to what was killed in 

2009, again indicating a rapidly expanding beetle 

situation.”(Kurt Allen, Dec. 7, 2011)

See responses to comments 17a-17g

27a Wendy Roth Dear Sirs,

Please include my comments on the Vestal Project.

The first six points of concern of this comment letter addresses 

the same six points of concern as Comment #17.

See responses to comments 17a-17g

27b 7) Large fires in the Black Hills tend to move from south to 

north, due to prevailing winds during severe fire weather 

conditions. The primary winds in Custer, SD, during JulyAugust are east-west. Tell the Forest Service they need to stop

focusing on pine beetle chimeras, and start collection systematic 

weather data for as many stations in the Black Hills as they can

fund.

Historically large fires in the Black Hills have moved in 

all directions. There are five weather factors that impact 

fire behavior: temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric 

stability, wind speed and direction, and precipitation. 

The Forest Service utilizes remote automated weather 

stations (RAWS) along with meteorologist from the 

National Weather Service to monitor and track daily 

weather observations. One RAWS site is located within 

the project area with 7 RAWS sites located within the 

Black Hills Forest Fire Protection District. 

A wind rose, which identifies wind direction and velocity 

was modeled for the Custer RAWS station located within 

the project area. Forty-six percent of the winds averaged 

from 2000 to 2011 during the months of July and August 

are from the South, Southwest or Southeast. Less than 

6% were from the West. Wind rose is located in the 

project record. 

27c 8) The DEIS fails to address the impacts to traditional spiritual 

uses of the sacred landscape of the Okawita Paha area, in 

violation of the CERCLA act.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration. 

See response to comment 17b and 17d on Okawita Paha 

National Monument. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-97 

See response to comment 23c on traditional uses and the 

CERCLA Act. 

28 Waziyatawin The Vestal Project must be stopped. The Black Hills is a sacred 

area to Indigenous people and must be protected from logging 

and burning and there are multiple reasons for this:

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17.

These concerns should be taken seriously.

Your support of the No Action alternative is noted. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

29 Joanna 

Hamlin

Please reconsider the decision for The US Forest Service to 

engage in logging and-or burning 43,516 acres in the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District under a project called the Vestal 

Project.

In this project, the rush was due to the alleged need to reduce 

and preclude impacts from mountain pine beetles. The reason 

given is to stop wildfires in the Forest. However, a recent 

scientific look at all the data for the last 100 years shows that the 

mountain pine beetles are not the cause of wildfires. The 

following issues must be considered.

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17.

Also, please consider the sacredness of this area. The 

destruction and desecration of sacred sites must be stopped.

There has been no decision made for the Vestal project. 

These comments are accepted as comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. A Final Environmental 

Impact Statement will be prepared and made available to 

the public. The decision will follow. 

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) does provide 

for expedited administrative procedures for authorized 

projects, such as Vestal. This, however does not change 

the required resource analysis of project impacts under 

NEPA. Chapter 3 of the EIS discusses the effects of 

alternative implementation. 

See response to comment 25 on beetles and fire

See responses to comments 17a-17g 

30 Nate Meyer Don't Destroy the Black Hills! I firmly believe that you should 

consider these 7 reasons why you must not go forward with this 

plan:

Some of the following points that can be used in your comments 

are:

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17.

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

31 Sam Hellberg Please leave the Black Hills alone. We do not need wood that 

badly.

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

32 LaDonna No 

Neck

This is a petition to stop the Vestal Project from logging and or 

burning 43,516 acres in the Hell Canyon Ranger District under 

the Vestal Project. This is outrage towards natural wildlife 

habitats and sacred sites of the indigenous peoples of North 

America.

There has been no decision made for the Vestal project. 

These comments are accepted as comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. A Final Environmental 

Impact Statement will be prepared and made available to 

the public. The decision will follow. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-98 

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

I oppose any logging or burning in the Black Hills National

Forest of this magnitude. 

The effects to wildlife are presented in Chapter 3 of the 

EIS. 

See responses to comments 17a-17g

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

33 Alexandra 

Myhal

Please rethink destroying this sacred area that Native Americans 

cherish. Instead work with the local tribes to come up with a 

plan of action. Do not continue the injustice that we as a 

Indigenous nation have endured since the colonization of 

America.

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration. 

See response to comment 17b and 17d on the Okawita 

Paha National Monument. 

See response to comment 23c on traditional uses and the 

CERCLA Act. 

34a Chad Hanson

John Muir 

Project

I have been in communication with staff at the Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance (BCA) in Laramie, Wyoming regarding 

some large proposed logging projects on the Black Hills 

National Forest (BHNF)—projects that would severely impact 

the habitat and populations of the Black-backed Woodpecker (a 

Sensitive Species in U.S. Forest Service Region 2) by not only 

substantially reducing forest basal area and potential for mixedseverity fire (including large high-severity fire patches), but also 

by removing beetle-affected trees in areas of high current or 

projected tree mortality from native bark beetles (“salvage” 

logging, a.k.a., “sanitation” logging). 

These comments supplement BCA’s 9/7/11 scoping comments 

on the MPB project, wherein BCA discussed (p. 13) the threat to 

Black-backed Woodpecker viability posed by that project. 

As I discuss in detail below, the BHNF population of the Blackbacked Woodpecker is genetically distinct at the level of a 

subspecies, and is isolated from the Rocky Mountain 

population, which extends through the northern Rockies and 

into the boreal forests of Canada. As I also discuss below, the 

enormous scale and intensity of your current proposed logging 

projects, including but not limited to the Mountain Pine Beetle 

(MPB) project and the Vestal project, will likely threaten the 

viability of this extremely rare and isolated species—the Black 

Hills population of the Black-backed Woodpecker—by 

removing the habitat features and forest structure upon which 

they depend.

The black-backed woodpecker is a Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) as well as an R2 Sensitive Species. 

Salvage logging is not proposed in the Vestal project. 

The Pine Beetle Response (PBR) is outside the scope of 

this project, but is however considered in cumulative 

effects analysis. 

Species viability was analyzed for the Phase II Forest 

Plan amendment. This project is consistent with the 

Forest Plan. As discussed in the effects analysis of the 

Wildlife Report and Wildlife BA/BE (and in the DEIS 

pgs.89-90), there would be impacts to the black-backed 

woodpecker. In the short-term, populations would 

increase because conditions are favorable. Then, blackbacked woodpecker densities would be expected to 

decline after a few years. Yes, there would be fewer 

future snags, which is stated in the effects analysis 

(Wildlife Be pgs. 29-30), but the proposed action is 

consistent with the forest plan. The purpose and need for 

the project is to reduce mountain pine beetle risk and fire 

hazard. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-99 

I write these comments as a service to BCA, and to inform 

management on the BHNF with regard current science 

pertaining to the at-risk BHNF population of the Black-backed 

Woodpecker. I have a Ph.D. in Ecology, with a research focus 

on fire ecology, fire history, and wildlife dependent upon areas 

of high tree mortality from natural ecological processes, 

especially fire and beetles. One of the species upon which I have 

focused in particular is the Black-backed Woodpecker, the 

adverse effect of “salvage” logging on which was the focus of 

my doctoral dissertation. My curriculum vitae is included below 

these comments. For the following reasons, I strongly urge you 

to withdraw the current plans to log several hundred thousand 

acres in the BHNF through the MPB and Vestal projects (and 

some smaller, but similar, projects), and prepare a Conservation 

Assessment for the BHNF population of the Black-backed 

Woodpecker—one that would institute substantive protections 

and ensure viable populations of this rare species:

The Vestal project contains 25, 823 acres of National 

Forest System lands, not several hundred thousand acres. 

Preparing a Conservation Assessment for the blackbacked woodpecker is outside the scope of the Vestal 

project. A conservation assessment for woodpeckers was 

completed for the Black Hills in 2003 (Anderson, 2003). 

This assessment, along with recent literature, was 

considered in the project analysis.

See other responses to comment letter 34

34b Genetic Isolation and Distinctiveness of the BHNF 

Population of Black-backed Woodpeckers

A recent genetic study, using samples from Black-backed 

Woodpeckers in various locations across North America, 

determined that the Black Hills National Forest population of 

the Black-backed Woodpecker is genetically isolated, with very 

low levels of gene flow with the Rocky Mountain/boreal 

population (Pierson et al. 2010) (see Fig. 1 below). Pierson et al. 

(2010) (pp. 5-6) concluded that the BHNF population is at 

significant risk due to small size, low genetic diversity and high 

degree of genetic isolation, and the threat of habitat loss from 

logging. Specifically, Pierson et al. (2010) found that haplotype 

diversity and nucleotide diversity were “lowest in South 

Dakota”, [a]llelic richness was lowest in South Dakota”, and 

“South Dakota had the lowest levels of heterozygosity”. Pierson 

et al. (2010) (pp. 7-8 and Fig. 4) also found that three 

genetically distinct populations of Black-backed Woodpeckers 

exist—one in the eastern Oregon Cascades (likely connected to 

the Sierra Nevada), one in the northern Rockies and boreal 

forests, and one in the Black Hills of South Dakota, each 

separated by “[g]eographic barriers to gene flow” (large 

expanses of unforested area). The level of genetic 

distinctiveness between the other populations and the Black 

Hills was found to be a level consistent with “those documented 

Whether or not black-backed woodpeckers in the Black 

Hills National Forest are a distinct population is outside 

the scope of the Vestal project. The US Fish and Wildlife 

Service is responsible for making determinations as to 

‘distinct population segment’ and listing of species. 

Listing of the Black Hills black-backed woodpeckers as a 

distinct population segment (DPS) has not been proposed. 

Regardless of whether the Black Hills population is 

distinct, the Black Hills NF strives to maintain biological 

diversity on the Forest per the National Forest 

Management Act. 

Pierson et al. 2010: This cite discusses genetic 

differences in black-backed woodpecker, and that there’s 

potential for distinct population segment in the Black 

Hills. This is not pertinent to the project, and that 

determination is not up to the Forest Service.

A viable population is one that has enough individuals 

that produces enough offspring for long-term persistence 

and adaptation of the population in a given place (the 

ability to reproduce, adapt, and sustain itself through 

time). The minimum black-backed woodpecker 

population needed to sustain itself is unknown and 

probably varies through time depending on climate, 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-100 

among subspecies” (Pierson et al. 2010, p. 11). The authors (at 

p. 12) noted that the Black Hills population of Black-backed 

Woodpeckers “is likely quite small”, given the small area of 

forest occupied by the population (about 15,500 square 

kilometers, or a little over 600,000 acres), and given the bird’s 

large territories of dense forest with very high tree mortality 

(about 50 to 700 hectares, or 124 to 1,729 acres per pair). 

Pierson et al. (2010) (p. 13) concluded that, due to the small and 

isolated nature of the Black Hills population, it warrants a 

“higher priority for conservation”, noting the particular threat of 

“salvage logging”, and warning that such logging practices 

could cause population declines, and “recolonization of the area 

by females is unlikely”, given that females were found to 

disperse far less frequently, or less far, than males.

In summary, the Black Hills population of the Black-backed 

Woodpecker represents a genetically distinct subspecies in a 

very small population with low genetic diversity and perilously 

few, if any, protections from logging.

weather, disease, predation, and other factors. A 

population viability analysis (PVA) has not been done on 

black-backed woodpeckers in the Black Hills. A PVA 

requires detailed data on reproductive rates, survival 

rates, mortality rates, immigration, emigration, etc. This 

detailed information is not currently available for blackbacked woodpeckers on the Black Hills. However, an 

analysis was done for the Phase II Forest Plan 

Amendment to determine if enough habitat would be 

available to sustain black-backed woodpeckers. The 

Phase II analysis determined that there will be sufficient 

habitat on the Forest to sustain black-backed 

woodpeckers if the Forest Plan objectives, standards and 

guidelines are implemented 

Population trend or viability of species is not considered 

at the project level. However, the 2008 Forest Monitoring 

report has addressed population and habitat trend for 

black-backed woodpecker. The recent data from that 

report was added into the BA/BE for this project. 

Species viability was analyzed for the Phase II Forest 

Plan amendment. This project is consistent with the 

Forest Plan. 

No Salvage logging is proposed in the Vestal project. 

See other responses to comment letter 34

34c Black-backed Woodpecker Suitable Habitat 

The Black-backed Woodpecker depends upon large areas—at 

least hundreds of acres in size for a single pair—of dense mature 

forest in which fire or beetles have recently killed most or all of 

the trees (or have killed a substantial minority of trees in those 

rare stands with exceptionally high basal area), creating stands 

with, generally, at least 80-100 square feet per acre of snag basal 

area, or at least 100 to 200 snags per acre over 9 inches in 

diameter, and preferably even higher snag basal area and density 

in even larger trees (Goggans et al. 1989, Hutto and Gallo 2006, 

Russell et al. 2007, Bonnot et al. 2008, Hanson and North 2008, 

Hutto 2008, Saab et al. 2009, Cahall and Hayes 2009, Bonnot et 

al. 2009). The tree mortality must be relatively recent (generally 

within the past 7 years or so for fires, and within the past 5 years 

or so for beetle-killed areas) in order to provide adequate habitat 

See responses to comments 34a and 34b on black-backed 

woodpecker. 

See the effects analysis to black-backed woodpecker in 

the Wildlife BE (pgs. 29-30), and summarized in the EIS 

in Chapter 3 wildlife section, including Tables 36 & 38. 

The Vestal project is consistent with the Forest Plan. The 

purpose and need for action in this project is to reduce 

mountain pine beetle risk and fire hazard to protect the 

community.

All of the noted literature citations were reviewed: 

Goggans et al. 1989 does not present any new 

information. 

Hutto and Gallo (2006) discuss the effects to blackbacked woodpecker of salvage logging. No salvage 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-101 

for the Black-backed Woodpecker’s prey: beetle larvae (Saab et 

al. 2007, Bonnot et al. 2009). 

The Black-backed Woodpecker is highly vulnerable to, and is 

typically locally extirpated by, even partial salvage logging 

(Hanson and North 2008, Cahall and Hayes 2009), and Blackbacked Woodpecker presence in salvage logged areas drops to 

near zero, based upon radiotelemetry data (Goggans et al. 1989). 

Specifically, Goggans et al. (1989) conducted a radiotelemetry 

study of Black-backed Woodpeckers in an area with about 400 

square feet per acre of basal area (total) in which 28% of trees 

were killed by beetles, i.e., about 100-120 square feet per acre of 

recent beetle mortality basal area (Goggans et al. 1989, pp. 33-

34). They found that home range size in these areas averaged 

430 acres per pair (see p. 25, Table 7), and salvage logged areas 

eliminated habitat for this species, with 99% of all 

radiotelemetry locations found in unlogged areas (Goggans et 

al., p. 26, Table 8). 

In a recent study of forests with high beetle mortality in the 

Black Hills, Bonnot et al. (2009) found that Black-backed 

Woodpeckers used areas with an average of 268 snags per 

hectare, or 109 per acre, for nest areas (see p. 224 of Bonnot et 

al. 2009). The birds used areas of somewhat older beetle kill (3-

5 years old), mixed with aspen, for nesting, and selected such 

areas where they were within 50-100 meters of large patches of 

even higher levels of beetle kill (Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 226 and 

Fig. 4). If patches of very high beetle mortality were more than 

150-200 meters away from a given potential nest site, territory 

selection probability dropped to near zero, due to lack of 

available and accessible food, indicating that Black-backed 

Woodpeckers need well-distributed large patches of very high 

beetle mortality to establish successful territories and maintain 

viable populations (Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 225, Fig. 2). 

Exhaustive analysis of historic U.S. government surveys circa 

1900 found that large expanses of high beetle mortality, and 

high-severity fire, are a natural part of the ecology in the Black 

Hills National Forest (Shinneman and Baker 1997, Bonnot et al. 

2009), with high-severity fire typically occurring in intervals of 

less than 100 years in a given area (Shinneman and Baker 

1997). Current rates of high-severity fire are substantially lower 

than this, as the current “occurrence of large scale fires is 

logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No new 

information pertinent to this project is presented.

Russell et al. (2007) use modeling for habitat in a postfire 

landscape. The Vestal project area is not a post-fire 

landscape. No new information pertinent to this project is 

presented.

Hanson and North (2008) discuss black-backed 

woodpecker habitat and salvage logging. No salvage 

logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No new 

information pertinent to this project is presented.

Hutto (2008) discuss wildfire and the importance to 

black-backed woodpecker. No new information is 

presented. 

Saab et al. (2009) discuss salvage logging. No salvage

logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No new 

information pertinent to this project is presented.

Cahall and Hayes (2009) discuss salvage logging. No 

salvage logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No 

new information pertinent to this project is presented.

Saab et al. (2007) discuss salvage logging. No salvage 

logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No new 

information pertinent to this project is presented.

None of these cites listed above present any new 

information that would impact the effects analysis. We 

cannot just manage for black backed woodpeckers. In 

either alternative, in the short-term, there would be 

sufficient habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. 

Bonnot et al. (2008) and Bonnot et al. (2009) pertain to 

preferred habitat and nesting habitat for black-backed 

woodpeckers. Both of these references have been added 

as literature cited in the Wildlfie BA/BE. 

Shinneman and Baker (1997) do not present any new 

information pertaining to black-backed woodpecker. It is 

recognized that MPB and fire are a natural part of the 

system. The importance of MPB to black-backed 

woodpecker is discussed in the BA/BE.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-102 

infrequent compared with natural disturbance regimes” and, in 

the relative “absence of fire”, the “beetle outbreaks might serve 

as the only substantial source” of food for the Black-backed 

Woodpecker (Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 227). Bonnot et al. (2009) 

(see Abstract) concluded that, “given the relatively infrequent 

occurrence of large-scale fire in the Black Hills, management 

should recognize the importance of beetle-killed forests to the 

long-term viability of the black-backed woodpecker population 

in the Black Hills”. The authors noted that current snagretention guidelines only account for snag densities sufficient 

for the individual nest trees themselves, but do not account for 

the snag densities necessary for foraging—i.e., to provide 

enough food for the survival of the Black-backed Woodpeckers, 

and the authors stated that guidelines “need to be revisited” 

(Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 226). A similar criticism was made, 

based upon review of dozens of scientific studies, by Hutto 

(2006). Therefore, the current snag retention standards for the 

BHNF, which only require retention of 3-4, or fewer, snags per 

acre, are not capable of maintaining viable populations of the 

Black-backed Woodpecker, based upon current science.

Hutto (2006), discusses the effects of salvage logging. 

No salvage logging is proposed in the Vestal project. No 

new information pertinent to this project is presented.

34d Threats to the Population Viability of the Black-backed 

Woodpecker in the BHNF

The Black-backed Woodpecker is listed as a Sensitive Species 

in U.S. Forest Service Region 2, which includes the BHNF. 

Sensitive Species designation means that there is a concern 

about the population viability of the species within the region. 

The BHNF is the only national forest in U.S. Forest Service 

Region 2 that has resident Black-backed Woodpeckers. As 

discussed above, Black-backed Woodpeckers depend upon large 

patches of very high, and recent, tree mortality from fire or 

beetles, and post-mortality salvage logging eliminates habitat 

for this species. As Bonnot et al. (2009) conclude, the pervasive 

salvage logging, and lack of protections for Black-backed 

Woodpecker foraging habitat at the nest-stand and territory 

scales, represents a current threat to the population viability of 

this species in the Black Hills National Forest.

The scale and intensity of the MPB and Vestal projects (as well 

as other similar smaller projects currently proposed) represent a 

forest-wide effort to largely eliminate suitable Black-backed 

Woodpecker habitat from the Black Hills National Forest. These 

projects, covering several hundred thousand acres, would 

intensively log most of the forested acreage in the entire BHNF, 

See response to comments 34a, b, c
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-103 

including most of, or the great majority of, the stands that 

currently provide suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat 

(dense stands wherein many/most trees are affected by beetles), 

as well as targeting denser (in terms of basal area) pine stands 

that would otherwise offer the best potential for future Blackbacked Woodpecker habitat across the forest. All told, these 

current logging projects would log about 400,000 acres in a 

national forest with only a little over 600,000 acres of forest in 

which the Black-backed Woodpecker can potentially reside. 

Together these logging projects represent a serious threat to the 

population viability of an entire subspecies (a subspecies is 

considered a “species” under the Endangered Species Act—e.g., 

the Northern Spotted Owl and the Mexican Spotted Owl are 

subspecies of the same species).

Specifically, these logging projects threaten the viability of the 

Black-backed Woodpecker in the Black Hills in three ways. 

First, the projects plan to focus logging activities in areas of 

high beetle mortality or projected mortality (areas with 

moderate to high levels of current/recent beetle activity in trees), 

thus directly removing most of the current suitable Blackbacked Woodpecker habitat (especially live trees with signs of 

active beetle larvae presence, with regard to both the MPB and 

Vestal projects, and possibly recently dead trees, in the case of 

the MPB project).

34e Second, the projects have the explicit goal of reducing stand 

density, and tree spacing, to such an dramatic degree that the 

potential for both future beetle mortality (from competition 

between trees) and future fire (except perhaps the lowest 

intensity fire that kills few trees) are precluded, or greatly 

reduced, for decades, due to extremely wide proposed spacing 

between trees, thus preventing future habitat from occurring on 

these areas for decades to come—a serious adverse impact to a 

species whose habitat is ephemeral, and which depends upon a 

constantly replenished supply of such habitat to maintain viable 

populations (Bonnot et al. 2009, p. 227).

See response to comments 34a, b, c

34f Third, by reducing stand density to such low levels through 

thinning, even if extreme fire weather did allow some moderateseverity or high-severity fire to occur after thinning and fuels 

treatments (unlikely but possible), there would not be enough 

snag basal area to provide suitable habitat for the Black-backed 

Woodpecker. 

See response to comments 34a, b, c 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-104 

For example, the Vestal project Draft EIS states (pp. 14-15) that 

the prescriptions across tens of thousands of acres will generally 

reduce live tree basal area to less than 60 square feet per acre in 

order to prevent competition between trees and essentially 

preclude future beetle mortality for decades. A small proportion 

of the acreage (less than 10%) would retain up to about 80-90 

square feet per acre, and 0 to 120 square feet per acre would be 

retained on 1,054 acres, but the Draft EIS does not specific how 

much of this would be near 120 square feet per acre. In all, the 

great majority of the area (about 25,000 acres proposed for 

logging) would be reduced to 60 square feet of basal area or 

less, and live trees with signs of beetle larvae (i.e., trees that 

currently provide habitat, and food, for Black-backed 

Woodpeckers) would be actively removed. As discussed above, 

Black-backed Woodpeckers depend upon areas with higher 

basal area density of beetle-killed trees than the basal area 

density that would be retained in the Vestal project. 

The Vestal project proposes about 25,000 acres of intensive 

logging, which would remove or preclude Black-backed 

Woodpecker habitat, and the Proposed Action is the only action 

alternative—the project Draft EIS does not contain a single 

action alternative that would accomplish home protection by 

thinning only within narrow zones of a few hundred feet from 

property boundaries or structures (which is the only effective 

way to achieve fire protection for homes, according to the 

science on the subject—see Cohen and Butler 1996, Cohen 

1999, and Cohen 2008), while protecting Black-backed 

Woodpecker habitat in the areas not immediately adjacent to 

homes. Scientists have recently criticized the Forest Service for 

focusing fuel reduction, thinning, and fire management activities 

far from homes where such activities have little or no relevance 

to home protection (Schoennagel et al. 2009).

The Vestal project would reduce stand density in the 

project area to reduce MPB risk. 

Species viability was analyzed for the Phase II Forest 

Plan amendment. The Vestal project is consistent with the 

Forest Plan. 

It is correct that an alternative which only reduces fuels 

within a few hundred feet of homes in the project area, 

was not considered. Such an alternative would not meet 

the purpose and need for action in a meaningful way. 

Cohen and Butler 1996: This research found that 

creating a defensible space surrounding structures is most 

important to reduce ignitability. It does not state that 

creating defensible space is the only way to protect 

homes. 

Cohen 1999: states “To be effective, given no 

modification of home ignition characteristics, wildland 

vegetation management would have to significantly 

reduce firebrand production and potentially extend for 

several kilometers away from homes.” (pg. 192). 

Therefore, Cohen (1999) is showing a need for vegetation 

management to reduce firebrand ignitions in the WUI.

Cohen 2008: This literature was reviewed in response to 

the attachment 11 of comment letter 39. Cohen 

advocates concentrating efforts in fuel reduction to 

protect homes in WUI, rather than fire suppression.

Schoennagel et al 2009: This paper advocates for 

implementation of fuels reduction treatments, under 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-105 

HFRA, within WUI areas, rather than outside of WUI. 

The Vestal project is within WUI – see response to 

comment 2g. 

34g Similarly, the MPB project proposes to focus logging in the 

denser stands (the ones most likely to otherwise provide future 

Black-backed Woodpecker habitat from beetles, or fire), as well 

as in areas of active beetle presence, but proposes to do so on a 

staggering 325,000 acres spread across the entire national forest 

(MPB Scoping Notice, pp. 1-3, and map). The project map in 

the Scoping Notice identifies, and targets for logging, the areas 

in the entire BHNF that either have active beetle presence or 

have denser forest stands. 

It is unclear how much suitable, or potential, Black-backed 

Woodpecker habitat would remain if the MPB and Vestal 

projects, as currently envisioned, are completed, but it is clear 

that it would be very, very little. The MPF Scoping Notice (p. 2) 

claims that large intense forest fire have “seen a dramatic 

increase” since 1980, citing several fires that cumulatively total 

225,554 acres since 1980. However, the Scoping Notice cites no 

scientific sources to support its claim that this represents a 

“dramatic” increase, and, as discussed above, the scientific data 

is clear that, in the natural historical rate and pace of fire, highseverity fire alone occurred typically in intervals of less than 

100 years (Shinneman and Baker 1997, Vierling et al. 2008). 

This, of course, does not include low-severity and moderateseverity fire, which occurred with substantially greater 

frequency. The 225,554 acres of fire since 1980 in the BHNF 

represents a rotation interval for all fire severities of about 90-

100 years. However, even in the most severe of these fires, the 

majority of this has been low-severity and moderate-severity 

effects (see, e.g., Lentile et al. 2006). Thus, the high-severity 

rotation interval is at least 300 years currently—i.e., 

corresponding to substantially less high-severity fire (and, 

therefore, less Black-backed Woodpecker habitat from fire) than 

these forests experienced historically (Shinneman and Baker 

1997, Bonnot et al. 2009). 

Recent data from Hutto (2008) illustrates the severe adverse 

impact of thinning to reduce stand density on the Black-backed 

Woodpecker when such areas burn subsequently. Hutto (2008) 

found that pre-fire thinning substantially reduced Black-backed 

Woodpecker occupancy if the areas later burned in wildland 

The Forest Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project is 

outside the scope of this project, but is however 

considered in cumulative effects analysis. 

Species viability was analyzed for the Phase II Forest 

Plan amendment. The Vestal project is consistent with the 

Forest Plan. 

Shinneman and Baker 1997: This was cited in the Phase II 

Amendment FEIS. See response to comment 34c. 

Lentile et al 2006: Paper is titled: ‘Remote sensing 

techniques to assess active fire characteristics

and post-fire effects’. The objective of the present paper 

is to provide a comprehensive review of current and 

potential remote sensing methods used to assess fire 

behavior and effects and ecological responses to fire.

Vierling et al 2008: objectives were to examine nesting 

densities, reproductive parameters, and species-specific 

habitat selection of woodpeckers in a recently burned 

region of the Black Hills in South Dakota, USA, between 

2001 and 2004. Postfire nesting densities were greatest in 

areas dominated by high prefire canopy cover. 

See response to comment 34c on Bonnot et al, 2009 and 

Hutto 2008. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-106 

fire, relative to no pre-fire thinning—even if no post-fire salvage 

logging occurred (see Fig. 2 below).

34h One of the greatest concerns is the fact that the BHNF does not 

present data from any analyses showing the quantity and quality 

of habitat necessary to maintain viable populations of Blackbacked Woodpeckers across the BHNF, or the minimum viable 

population size that such quantity and quality of habitat would 

represent. Thus, the BHNF is managing blindly. This 

would be of less concern if the scale and intensity of planned 

logging was minimal. Under the circumstances, however, it is a 

major concern, especially given the extremely small proportion 

of protected forest (Wilderness or inventoried roadless areas) in 

the BHNF. 

In summary, the proposed MPB project and Vestal project, if 

implemented, represent a serious risk of extinction of an entire 

species: the isolated BHNF population of the Black-backed 

Woodpecker. I urge you to reconsider both projects. Please feel 

free to contact me if you have any questions, or if you would 

like additional information.

35a Brian 

Brademeyer

To Whom It May Concern: 

Friends of the Norbeck submits the following comments on the 

U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to log virtually every acre of the 

Vestal Project on the Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black 

Hills National Forest. This Project needs to be split into at least 

two smaller projects, so that impacts to the Proposed Okawita 

Paha National Monument can be properly addressed, i.e., 

outside of HFRA fast-track measures. 

The Vestal Project on the Hell Canyon Ranger District proposes 

to log and burn a huge 26,000-area near Custer, SD. The 

43,516-acre Project Area contains 25,726 National Forest acres 

(60%). Of these federal acres, logging is proposed on 25,449 

acres (99%), slash treatment on 24,290 acres (94%), and 

prescribed burning on 1,761 acres (7%).

I. The Vestal Project Will Adversely Impact the Proposed 

Okawita Paha National Monument

The Project proposes to log virtually all (99%) of the federal 

forest acres within the Project Area, including in the Sylvan 

Peak, Calamity Peak, and Buckhorn Mountain areas of the 

proposed Okawita Paha National Monument and International 

See response to comments 17b on Okawita Paha. 

There are actually 25,823 acres of National Forest system 

lands in the Vestal project area. The proposed action 

includes sanitation treatments on all forested acres within 

the project area. However, the 25,449 acre figure also 

includes 1,458 acres of pine encroachment (PE) removal 

from meadow sites, 126 acres of hardwood release (HR) 

and 431 acres of hardwood conversion (HC). In total, 

not including possible sanitation treatment, there is 

19,779 acres of treatment proposed in pine stands. This is 

84% of pine stands in the project area. 

Clarification has been added to the description of the 

Proposed Action in Chapter 1. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-107 

Peace Park (shown in yellow shading on the map at left).

The Vestal Project treatment units include acres proposed for 

inclusion in the Okawita Paha National Monument, a requested 

designation of a sacred landscape and wildlife sanctuary to be 

managed by the National Park Service. 

This Project will be done under the HFRA, which greatly 

expedites and simplifies the environmental analysis and public 

participation process. This is due to alleged need to reduce and 

preclude impacts from mountain pine beetles.

The presence of the proposed National Monument within the 

Vestal Project Area raises questions about the appropriateness 

of pursuing this Project pursuant to the expedited procedures of 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. This proposed National 

Monument designation would be adversely impacted by the 

proposed logging and burning of this sacred landscape. 

The map on the following page shows the area of overlap of the 

Vestal Project (outlined in black) cutting units with the proposed 

National Monument (yellow shading with red border).

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) does provide 

for expedited administrative procedures for authorized 

projects, such as Vestal. This, however does not change 

the required resource analysis of project impacts under 

NEPA. Public involvement is encouraged. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement

See response to comment 17d on sacred landscape

35b Also of concern is that the project proposes logging virtually 

every federal acre within the Project Area, leading to severe 

soil, water, and wildlife impacts. To properly assess these 

impacts, the northeast portion of the Project Area (north of US 

Highway 16A and east of US Highway 16) should be analyzed 

under a separate EIS that explores designation of this area as 

part of the Okawita Paha National Monument.

See response to comment 17b on Okawita Paha

See response to comment 35a 

Impacts to soil, water and wildlife are discussed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

35c II. Mountain Goat Critical Habitat Will Be Adversely 

Impacted 

This northeast (Okawita Paha) portion of the Project Area 

contains critical habitat for the Bear and Needles mountain goat 

groups (shown as yellow areas A and F on the map below), and 

corridors for the sensitive pine marten, that must be protected, 

not logged or burned. This is the only “critical habitat” for big 

game that has ever been identified on the Black Hills National 

Forest, and this map is referenced in the Forest Plan. This 

creates an exceptional situation completely inappropriate for the 

HFRA fast-track procedures.

Mountain goat is a species of local concern (SOLC), in 

the Forest Plan. There is habitat for mountain goat in the 

Vestal project area, as described in the wildlife section of 

Chapter 3. The Forest Plan does not identify critical 

habitat for mountain goat in the Vestal project area. 

The 1989 Norbeck EIS contained a critical habitat map 

for deer, elk and mountain goat. However this critical 

habitat was not incorporated into the Forest Plan as such. 

With one exception, the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, 

Management Area 5.4A, has an objective (5.4A-3205) 

regarding season of operations within areas defined as 

critical habitat in the 1989 Norbeck EIS. The Vestal 

project is not within MA 5.4A and therefore, this 

objective does not apply to the Vestal project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-108 

HFRA does provide for expedited administrative 

procedures, but does not reduce or eliminate the need for 

thorough analysis of impacts. In addition, HFRA requires 

that projects are consistent with the Forest Plan. This 

project is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

See response to comment 17c on pine marten 

See response to comment 2s, 2y and 2mmm on big game. 

35d III. Big Game Winter Range Will Be Adversely Impacted

Nearly 60% of the Project Area has wildlife (big game winter 

range) or recreation (Buckhorn Mountain limited motorized use 

area) objectives under the Revised Forest Plan; logging every 

acre in these management areas will preclude attainment of 

these objectives. 

The road density in the area is already too high to provide 

quality winter range habitat without overstressing big game 

animals. No additional open roads should be established in the 

Project Area, and additional roads should be closed.

The project contributes to meeting objectives of MA 5.4 

and MA 4.1. See response to comment 2n on structural

stage objectives in MA 4.1 and 5.4. 

See response to comment 2s on thermal cover

See response to comment 2y on hiding cover

See response to comment 2mmm on big game objectives

The Vestal project does not propose to log every acre in 

MA 4.1 and 5.4. See response to comment 35a regarding 

extent of proposed action

See response to comment 17 e on MA 4.1 objectives

The No Action alternative would not create any new 

roads in the project area, nor would it close any roads. 

The Proposed action does include 0.1 of new road 

construction to access a portion of National Forest land 

where the existing road crosses private land, but no rightof-way to the Forest Service is in place. This new 

construction is behind a yearlong closure gate. This new 

construction is on road 344.1T. The proposed action 

also would close approximately 2.0 miles of system road. 

Existing seasonal road closures in MA 5.4 minimize 

disturbance to big game in these areas. 

35e IV. Assumptions that Proposed Treatments will Lessen the 

Severity of Beetle Infestations are Overstated 

The entire Vestal Project appears to be premised on the 

assumption that treatment will reduce the risk of beetle 

infestation. The efficacy of treatment to slow or stop beetle 

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, in even and uneven aged stands (Schmid et al. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-109 

infestation is far from certain. The Forest Service has repeatedly 

failed to acknowledge the multitude of factors that influence the 

spread of the beetle, instead taking it as a given that there is a 

direct correlation between the number of “treated” acres (by 

thinning, cutting and/or burning of trees) and the percentage of 

acres that will be at a decreased risk of beetle infestation. This 

appears to be an overly simplistic conclusion, one that the Forest 

Service must fully document in some programmatic NEPA 

analysis before proceeding further with sanitation treatments on 

the Black Hills National Forest. 

2007 and Negron et al. 2008).

Please see Forest Plan FEIS page III-385 and Appendix 

B-14 Table B5. Less dense stands are more likely to be 

resilient to mountain pine beetle outbreaks than dense 

stands. Please see: 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

The factors of average tree size and stand density are 

those used to estimate risk of infestation. Other factors 

which include beetle populations in a given area, may 

impact the potential for infestation. 

Treatments proposed to reduce MPB risk include both 

suppression and prevention treatments. See entomology 

report – “Mountain Pine Beetle Conditions in the Vestal 

Area”; Allen, March 2011. 

Suppression treatments directly reduce live beetle 

populations in an area. Sanitation harvesting involves 

the removal of green trees that have live beetle brood in 

them. These green trees are already dead, however, the 

foliage will not change color until the following summer. 

Trees removed in a sanitation harvest are treated; either 

moved to at least one mile from the nearest live host type 

or processed at the mill, prior to beetle emergence. While 

this is an effective method to reducing beetle numbers in 

an area, it does nothing to change stand conditions which 

are highly susceptible to MPB. Furthermore, given the 

expanse of this epidemic, from both a landscape scale as 

well as the high beetle population, it is not possible to 

insure or assume that all infested trees would be removed, 

each year, from National Forest and non-Forest lands. 

Sanitation alone would not be effective, and therefore, a 

Sanitation only alternative is not considered in detail for 

the Vestal Project. 

Prevention treatments on a landscape scale are also 

proposed to reduce overall MPB risk in Vestal. This 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-110 

Moreover, there is a "mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring 

within the project area" already, calling the proposed actions 

into question; logging and burning under these conditions could 

intensify these insect outbreaks, rather than contain them. 

project would result in 87% of pine stands with a low risk 

for MPB. Reducing stand density through thinning and 

other stated treatments will reduce the potential for MPB 

caused mortality within these stands as well as within the 

Vestal landscape as a whole. 

This landscape contains a significant amount of private 

lands and tremendous values at risk. The MPB epidemic 

is an imminent threat to those values. Therefore, 

substantial landscape level suppression and prevention 

treatments are proposed. These treatments were designed 

by Entomology and Silviculture professionals with 

extensive experience in these fields (refer to Chapter 4), 

including extensive local experience. These treatments 

have been shown to be effective, especially when 

conducted together on a landscape scale. 

MPB are less attracted to stressed trees than many other 

bark beetles. Once an epidemic has started, as is the case 

here, tree stress has little to do with beetle attack for 

MPB. Stressed trees, including those which have been 

burned, are more susceptible to infestation by other bark 

beetles. For this reason, the Vestal project includes 

design to delay any prescribed burning until after the 

MPB epidemic passes through this area. In addition, 

prior to any burning, a certified Silviculturist must review 

and approve a site specific burn plan (see Appendix B). 

Conditions at the time of the proposed burn would be 

considered in this review. (See Appendix B of the EIS). 

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk

35e-1 A recent “white paper” commissioned by Friends of the 

Norbeck and performed by a professional statistician to analyze 

fire hazard on the BHNF, entitled A Pine Beetle Infestations and 

Fire Risk on the Black Hills (pdf attached to these comments), 

also looked at possible causes of the current beetle outbreak on 

the Black Hills National Forest, including environmental 

parameters. It is widely known that a “hard freeze” can be 

influential in disrupting beetle outbreaks. Temperature data 

from the Black Hills region was examined to determine whether 

there had been a change that might be related to the most recent 

outbreak.

Monthly averages of mean temperatures in the 21st century have 

The MPB is a native insect with a long history in the 

Black Hills. Extreme weather events are necessary to 

have a large impact on beetle populations. Throughout 

this epidemic we have seen no evidence of weather 

conditions, wet, dry, hot, cold, playing a part in beetle 

population increases or decreases. In fact some of the 

largest increases and expansions of this epidemic have 

come during cold and wet years. The single largest factor 

driving MPB attack and increase in the Black Hills is 

stand conditions, particularly stand density. The best way 

to reduce, not eliminate, beetle caused mortality is 

through reducing stand densities across large areas. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-111 

shown considerably less extreme cold during winter months 

than 20th century data, and especially fewer very cold Januaries 

since about 1980 and much less January cold since 1998 

(Figures 14 and 15). This was captured by a measure of 

“persistent overnight hard freeze” capturing below-zero degreedays. 

The result (Figure 16 from the report) is reproduced below, with 

the statistician noting that the “lack of persistent hard freeze 

since 1998, compared to prior years, is nothing less than 

remarkable,” and adding: 

By no means does this prove that the recent [pine beetle] 

infestation in the Black Hills is due to warmer wintertime 

temperature, in fact more than one factor is likely at play. But it 

is highly suggestive that warming temperature, especially the 

decline is sustained hard freeze during winter, is an important 

factor in the dramatic increase in pine beetle populations noted 

over much of Western North America. [p. 23]

See response to comment 24d on temperatures effects on 

MPB

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of MPB treatments

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk 

in the Black Hills. 

35f V. The Reductions of Fire Risk are Overstated. 

Much of the northeast (Okawita Paha) section of the Project 

Area is dominated by steep slopes (Buckhorn Mountain, Sylvan 

Peak, and Calamity Peak areas). Forest Plan analysis classifies 

fire risk as “severe” on steep slopes, regardless of vegetation. 

Any claimed reductions in fire risk by activities in steep areas 

must be justified by an analysis that extends this Forest Plan 

FEIS risk assessment analysis. 

Friends of the Norbeck recently commissioned professional 

statistician Grant Foster, of Tempo Analytics, to look at possible 

relationships between large fires, on the one hand, and weather, 

logging, and beetle tree-mortality levels on the other. 

We provided Mr. Foster with a century of data from the Black 

Hills National Forest, 1910-2009, and asked for his professional 

statistical analysis of any possible relationships between these 

variables and large fires. We had no further input into his study. 

On February 10, 2012, Mr. Foster completed his analysis, and 

produced the attached detailed "white paper" (28-pages, 2.7mb 

pdf), Pine Beetle Infestation and Fire Risk in the Black Hills. 

Section 1 provides an Introduction, reviewing the attitudes and 

public statements of politicians, landowners, and Forest Service 

Buckhorn Mountain, Sylvan Peak and Calamity Peak are 

steep, prominent rock features. Treatments may be 

implemented around the periphery of these features where 

accessible. Where treatments occur, fire hazard – not fire 

risk - would be reduced. The purpose and need for the 

Vestal project is 2-fold, reduce the threat from MPB and 

reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire. Refer to 

Chapter 1 for further discussion of the purpose and need. 

Access, soils and slopes will dictate where activities may 

occur in areas dominated by steep slopes. Very little of 

these sites will be accessible and feasible to treat, based 

on project design for soils and slopes (see Appendix B). 

It is expected that only the periphery of these sites may be 

treated. Due to the very active mountain pine beetle 

outbreak, treatment of these sites is proposed, but the will 

be limited as noted above. 

The Grant Foster paper, attached to this comment letter, 

was reviewed and considered. The paper presents a 

statistical analysis and makes conclusions based on 

correlations. Documentation of the review is in the 

project file. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-112 

officials regarding concerns expressed over the latest mountain 

pine beetle outbreak in the western US, including the Black 

Hills National Forest. Section 2 discusses the data used, and the 

processes used to obtain and process these data.1 

Section 3 assesses trends in fire history over the century of data, 

investigating fire size and number of large fires per year over 

time, and the factors influencing wildfire. Several statistical 

models are investigated to explain this evolution of fire size and 

number over time. A “base model” was developed relating 

number of fires and fire size to climatic variables (drought, 

spring-summer temperatures). This was supplemented by adding 

additional parameters, such as thousands of beetle-killed trees 

per year. 

The analysis found it noteworthy, given public perceptions, that 

the data indicate “there is no significant indication of a 

relationship between pine beetle tree kill and fire risk.” In fact, 

when pine beetle data were included, “the sign of the effect was 

opposite to expectation, indicating that greater tree kill actually 

reduces the expected number of large fires.” [p. 16, emphasis 

original]

While the effect was quite small (statistically insignicant) it was 

clearly at odds with the rhetoric surrounding the current beetle 

outbreak and associated alleged fire risks: 

However, if a causal relationship [between beetle-killed 

trees and fire risk] were as extreme as has been often 

suggested, amounting to a “tinderbox primed for 

wildfire,” then these data would have revealed it. 

Certainly a relationship cannot be ruled out – but just as 

certainly, the extremity which has been claimed in public 

and policy discourse can be ruled out. [p. 16, emphasis 

original] 

Section 4 investigated the possible causative factors influencing 

an increase in the number of large fires per year, and 

investigated whether “fire regimes” had changed in break-years 

of 1985 (the year in which the number of annual fires shows 

marked increase), 2000 (the year beginning the “second wave” 

of large fires, including the Jasper Fire), or 2001 (the year in 

which pine beetle tree mortality increased dramatically on the 

Black Hills National Forest). The analysis concluded: 

Fire risk and fire hazard are different. These terms are 

used somewhat interchangeably in the Foster paper and 

are not specifically defined. The paper examines the 

correlation of the number of fire starts and fire size to 

mountain pine beetle caused tree mortality. 

Fire risk is the potential for wildfire ignition. The risk of 

a wildfire occurring is discussed in the Fire/Fuels section 

of Chapter 3. The risk of wildfire, or the potential for 

ignition of a wildfire, would not change by alternative. 

The amount of MPB caused mortality would not 

influence the potential for wildfire ignition or fire risk. 

Therefore these conclusions in the Foster paper are not 

new information. 

Fire hazard is a fuel complex that determines the ease of 

ignition and the resistance to control (see Chapter 3 of the 

EIS). Essentially, if a fire were to start, what type of fire 

could be expected. Trees killed by MPB add to the fuel 

complex. Fire hazard specific to this project area was 

analyzed per BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 

and associated Fire Rating guide, August 2011) GWEN 

RIGHT? 

There are many factors which influence the size and 

severity of a wildfire, once ignited. The vast majority of 

fire starts on the Black Hills are quickly suppressed by 

fire personnel. 

The purpose and need for action in this project is twofold, reducing the threat to forest resources from MPB 

and to protect local communities and watersheds from 

large-scale, high-intensity wildfire (See Chapter 1 of the 

EIS). The proposed action was designed to achieve these 

purposes through the use of mechanical treatments and 

prescribed fire. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-113 

As far as the data indicate, the greater number of very large fires 

in recent years is simply due to the greater number of fires. [p. 

17] 

Section 5 discusses recent scientific research on pine beetle 

infestation and wildfire risk. Most of this research is on 

lodgepole pine forests in the western United States, but it also 

shows possibly reductions in overall fire risk caused by canopythinning by beetle tree mortality.

Section 6 on causes of the current beetle outbreak was described 

above. 

The Conclusion (Section 7) minces no words in providing the 

conclusions from the professional statistical analysis: 

The data for the Black Hills region of South Dakota 

shows significant increase in fire hazard in recent 

decades, but that increase is attributable to known causes 

including climate change and drought conditions, and 

probably also related to other factors not included in the 

study, such as fire suppression. While many questions 

remain unanswered, and fire hazard due to pine beetles 

cannot be ruled out, it is overwhelmingly likely that any 

hazard which may exist due to pine beetles is dwarfed by 

other factors. [p. 24] 

The extreme public fear of fire hazard due to pine beetle tree kill 

cannot be supported or justified by the data available from the 

Black Hills. This common intuition, shared even by professional 

foresters and firefighters, is not supported by the available data, 

and recent research actually contradicts the idea of major pine 

beetle influence on overall fire risk. Increased fires are 

occurring throughout the Rocky Mountain west, but these fires 

started before the latest beetle attacks. Even on the Black Hills, 

the extreme fire year of 2000 is a year before the dramatic 

increase in pine beetle tree kill observed in 2001. Summing up: 

It is our conclusion that there is simply no evidence to 

support the idea that the massive tree kill due to 

mountain pine beetle attack has significantly enhanced 

the risk of wildfire in the Black Hills National Forest. 

Wildfire hazard is a crucial issue which must be 

addressed with as clear as possible a perception of the 

actual risk factors. A focus on pine beetle infestation 

seems misplaced, threatening to draw attention away 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-114 

from factors which have strong and demonstrable impact 

on fire hazard and to divert limited resources to less 

productive strategies. Surely, excessive rhetoric about 

the urgent fire danger posed by pine beetle infestation, 

sometimes to the point of hysteria, does not serve the 

public interest. [p. 24]

35g VI. The Custer CWPP is not Included in the Planning 

Documents.

The DEIS claims that the “Custer County CWPP identifies a 

three mile a three mile radius from the city limits of the City of 

Custer as a Community At Risk boundary.” [DEIS at 95] No 

actual citations or quotes from this alleged CWPP are included 

in the DEIS. The CWPP is not linked to from the Vestal Project 

webpage. 

The public has no way of determining the validity of the 3-mile 

assertion. The public has no way of knowing whether such a 

CWPP was actually properly adopted by the City of Custer. 

Without access to the actual CWPP, the public has no way to 

determine whether the Vestal Project has been specifically 

designed and implemented under the requirements of HR 1904. 

We questioned above whether the big game “critical habitat” in 

the northeast quadrant of the Vestal Project Area is allowable 

under HR 1904. 

The Vestal DEIS also does not disclose how this proposed 

project fits into the “annual program of work” for the Black 

Hills National Forest.

See response to comments 2f on CWPP

A copy of the Custer County CWPP is in the project file

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 2l on qualification of the Vestal 

project under HFRA

See response to comment 35c on critical habitat

See response to comment 2h on annual program of work. 

35h VII. The DEIS Fails to Disclose Impacts to Passive-Use 

Values. 

Under regulations of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9651 (c), a United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 1989 that passiveuse values “...reflect utility derived by humans from a resource 

and thus, prima facie, ought to be included in a damage 

assessment.” 

Passive-use values in the Vestal Project Area are concentrated in 

the northeast quadrant, in the areas between Buckhorn 

Mountain, Thunderhead Mountain, Sylvan Peak, and Calamity 

The CERCLA act, commonly known as the Superfund, 

was enacted by Congress in 1980. This law created a tax 

on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided 

broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances that may 

endanger public health or the environment. Over five 

years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a 

trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled 

hazardous waste sites. CERCLA

• established prohibitions and requirements 

concerning closed and abandoned hazardous 

waste sites;
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-115 

Peak. Impacts to the high-quality recreational opportunities are 

not disclosed in the DEIS. More importantly, this northeast 

quadrant is also part of the proposed Okawita Paha sacred 

landscape (see attached letter from Defenders of the Black Hills 

to President Obama requesting designation of this area as a 

National Monument to be placed under National Park Service 

management). 

The Black Hills for millennia have been considered sacred by 

more than thirty Native American nations from North America. 

The sacred peak, Opahata I, also known as Harney Peak, is 

considered to be the “center of all that is” to many Native 

American nations. The surrounding Okawita Paha area, literally 

“Gathering Place”, is considered a sacred landscape that was 

used for thousands of years in traditional Native American 

spiritual and cultural practices. 

Prior to the incursion of Euro-Americans, people of the Great 

Sioux Nation gathered at Okawita Paha at the beginning of 

every new year which is the first day of Spring. They gathered 

to welcome back the Thunder Nation and gave thanks for the 

renewal of all life: plants, animals, birds, insects, all living 

beings. Their prayers were for all of creation and reminded 

everyone of the relatedness of everything. 

The people of the Great Sioux Nation must preserve these 

spiritual traditions and cultural identities, and complete these 

practices in their rightful places. The Okawita Paha sacred 

landscape provides a place for traditional Native American 

spirituality and is unsuited for commercial and secular activities 

such as logging, prescribed burning, and building of roads. The 

Okawita Paha sacred landscape, part of which is the Black Elk 

Wilderness, is the last place in the Black Hills that provides 

protection and sanctuary for wildlife. 

As a sacred landscape, traditional Native American spiritual 

practices may be freely exercised, spiritual practices that are 

once again resurfacing after nearly 100 years of suppression. 

A “sacred landscape” is a natural landscape where the 

Creator’s creation is recognized in all the rocks, water, and 

wildlife that are present on the land. Providing a place for 

traditional spiritual practices of reverence and respect towards 

the land is an integral part of such a sacred landscape 

• provided for liability of persons responsible for 

releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and

• established a trust fund to provide for cleanup 

when no responsible party could be identified.

Refer to EPA site at : 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm

The Vestal project does not include the release of 

hazardous substances into the environment. The 

CERCLA act does not apply to Vestal.

See responses to comments 17b and 17d on Okawita Paha 

and sacred landscape

See response to comment 2b on tribal consultation

The Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck wildlife preserve 

are not within the Vestal project area and are outside the 

scope. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-116 

designation. Protecting wildlife from disturbance, harassment, 

and trespass is consistent with a sacred landscape designation, 

as is providing a secure breeding place.

35i VIII. The DEIS Fails to Assess Impacts of Prevailing Winds 

on Fire Risk or Beetle Spread. 

The DEIS ignores the critical role played by prevailing winds, 

both in assessing fire risk, in developing fire response plans, and 

in containing pine beetle outbreaks. Contrary to much of the 

Black Hills region, the prevailing winds in July-August at 

Custer are predominantly east-west, rather than northwestsoutheast as is common in other parts of the Black Hills. 

Fortunately, wind data from South Dakota State University is 

available for Custer, SD. Since the current pine beetle outbreak 

appears to be moving northeast, and large fires typically move 

from south to north, these data need to be included in the Final 

EIS assessment of fire and beetle risks.

See response to comment 27b on prevailing winds and 

wildfires on the Black Hills

A map showing the progression of MPB since 2005 has 

been added to Appendix A of the EIS. See Map 11. 

36 Harrison No 

Neck Jr.

This is a petition to stop the Vestal Project from logging and or 

burning 43,516 acres in the Hell Canyon Ranger District under 

the Vestal Project. This is outrage towards natural wildlife 

habitats and sacred sites of the indigenous peoples of North 

America.

The rest of this comment letter addresses the same six points of 

concern as Comment #17. 

I oppose any logging or burning in the Black Hills National 

Forest of this magnitude.

See response to comment 32

See responses to comments 17a-17g

37a Jim Sweem Sirs,

I'm very concerned by recent damage I witnessed from Logging 

in the Black Hills. I do not understand all your reasoning.

As a licensed Arborist I have witnessed damage to healthy trees 

and lanscape that far outwegh any damaged from the beetles. 

Who is responsible for oversight of the logging?

It is unclear where the commentor has witnessed recent 

damage. The Hell Canyon Ranger District is only a 

portion of the Black Hills National Forest. In the process 

of logging and skidding of logs, it is possible for standing 

trees to be damaged. Such damage is minimized through 

contract requirements. The Forest has Sale 

Administrators who administer timber sale contracts and 

provide oversight. 

37b As this is a very Sacred area close to my heart. The DEIS fails 

to address the impacts to traditional spiritual uses of the sacred 

landscape of the Okawita Paha area, in violation of the 

CERCLA act.

Stop the Destruction! Mother Earth is Crying.

See response to comment 2b and 23c on tribal 

consultation

See responses to comments 17b and 17d on Okawita Paha 

and sacred landscape

The CERCLA act does not apply to the Vestal project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-117 

See response to comment 35h.

38a Colin 

Paterson

Norbeck 

Society

In December 2011, the Black Hills Hell Canyon Ranger District 

made available the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for the Vestal Project. As noted in the document, the 

project is under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (HFRA). The Norbeck Society is appreciative for the 

opportunity to provide input to the USFS about the management 

of these special lands. 

As an advocate for sustainable use of public lands, the Norbeck 

Society comments are based on the desire to support a 

management approach for the Black Hills National Forest 

(BHNF) that recognizes the importance of protecting and 

enhancing the biocomplexity of a forest that serves growing 

numbers of people with varied interests. 

We hope that you find our comments constructive.

The Norbeck Society recognizes the need to reduce high insect 

and fire hazard risks and welcomes a project that will effectively 

address this purpose and need. 

With a view for meeting the stated purpose and need over the 

long term and in a sustainable way, The Norbeck Society lists 

the following issues/comments regarding the Vestal Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).:

Your support of the purpose and need is noted. 

38b Healthy Forest Restoration Act. We note that this project is 

subject to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). 

It is stated in the proposal that “Over the past 3-4 years there has 

been a rapidly growing amount of beetle caused mortality in the 

southern Black Hills around the City of Custer.” If mortality has 

been observed for 3-4 years, why wait until it becomes an 

epidemic to act? Why not act 3-4 years ago, or 1-2 years ago?

The Hell Canyon Ranger District did not wait to address 

the Vestal project until an epidemic occurred. Initial 

data gathering began several years ago. The District is 

approximately 455,578 acres. With limited resources and 

funding available, planning efforts had been focused 

elsewhere, such as the Norbeck Wildlife project, which is 

directly adjacent to Vestal. 

In addition, several small “Bug” sales have been 

implemented in the project area over the past few years to 

address areas of high beetle populations. These include 

the Atlantic Bug sale in 2009; the Quincy and Tenderfoot 

Bug sales in 2010. Each was approximately 250 acres in 

size. 

A map showing the progression of MPB since 2005 has 

been added to Appendix A of the EIS. See Map 11. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-118 

38c Although we recognize the need to take action to reduce insect 

and fire hazard risks, we question the need for HFRA. Other 

projects that have used HFRA actually do not implement 

treatments until years after the project decision is made. Also, 

although these projects (Vestal, Calumet, Steamboat, Nautilus, 

etc) are characterized by purpose and need as to reduce insect 

risk and fire hazard, they were planned years ago as timber 

sales. See the attached map from 2009 that shows Vestal and 

others as already being planned on a schedule for timber 

sales/vegetation treatments.

We reviewed the Record of Decision for 22 timber/beetle 

risk/fire hazard projects concluded for the Black Hills National 

Forest since 2005 and posted on the BHNF “project” website. 

For most of the projects, a number of significant issues were 

identified, additional proposals developed, and the decision in 

most cases was not the original proposal. The decision was 

usually an alternative (11 of 22) or a modification of the original 

proposal (6 of 22). This was a result of the NEPA process and 

the willingness of the public to be involved. 

For the Vestal Project, the Hell Canyon Ranger District (HCRD) 

found only 2 significant issues (bugs and fire hazard) and did 

not develop any additional alternatives. I believe that many 

comments were ignored and should have been identified as 

issues and that additional alternatives should have been 

developed.

The Vestal project had been on the Forest project 

planning schedule for some time. However, due to the 

determination of a MPB epidemic within Vestal, this 

project is being planned under HFRA. Refer to response 

to comment 2f on qualifications of Vestal as an HFRA 

project. 

Implementation of this project may occur upon signature 

of the Decision document. It is anticipated that the 

Decision will be signed by earlier summer, 2012, and that 

implementation will begin shortly after. 

See response to comment 38b 

Other projects are outside the scope of the Vestal project, 

with the exception of those which occur within the 

cumulative effects analysis area, see appendix F in the 

EIS. 

The ‘Alternatives Not Considered in Detail’ section of the 

DEIS (pages 17-20) discusses alternatives from public 

comments that were not considered in detail as well as the 

rationale. 

All scoping input was considered by the District Ranger 

and IDT in determining issues and developing 

alternatives. Documentation of how each scoping 

comment was addressed is available in the project file. 

38d We fear that the use of HFRA in the Black Hills National Forest 

bug and fire proposals is being used to limit public participation 

in the NEPA process, rather than to expedite treatments. Some 

of the tactics we have seen in other recent project proposals are: 

• Nautilus Project. The basis for evaluating issues was 

not NEPA regulations, but instead the Northern Hills 

Ranger District (NHRD) interpretation of a slideshow 

presentation on how to evaluate issues. The NHRD 

ignored, dismissed, or even ridiculed almost all public 

comments. The result, whether intentionally or 

unintentionally, is to conveniently have few or no 

NEPA “significant issues” and consequently, not have 

to develop any other NEPA “alternatives”. 

• Steamboat Project. For the scoping proposal, the 

NHRD scheduled the only public meeting in the 

HFRA encourages public involvement, including 

collaboration with local governments, tribes and 

communities. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement

All scoping input was considered by the District Ranger 

and IDT in determining issues and developing 

alternatives. Documentation of how each scoping 

comment was addressed is available in the project file.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-119 

Piedmont Fire Hall on January 12, 2011. Very few 

people attended and those that did had only two days to 

comment, since the deadline was January 14, 2011. 

• Calumet Project. The Mystic Ranger District, for the 

October scoping document, provided almost no

information or detail on the proposal. It would be very 

difficult for the public to make meaningful comments 

based on such a bare bones document. 

The Hell Canyon Ranger District should consider public 

comments and input during the NEPA process in determining 

issues and alternatives to the proposed action.

38e Roads. We are encouraged that few miles of roads are being 

proposed to be newly built or reconstructed. For many of the 

past timber/bug/fire proposed projects in the Black Hills 

countless miles of new roads are built, but seldom are roads 

removed. The increased development of the dense road system 

in the Black Hills and the encouragement of “anything goes” 

travel by OHV over the last 10+ years has only resulted in a 

blight of even more roads and motorized trails. Any future 

projects on the Black Hills should help to serve to reverse this 

trend. We would like to see less or no new roads, and the 

obliteration of roads at the end of the project instead of just 

closing them.

See response to comment 35d on proposed changes to 

roads. 

The minor changes to the transportation system in 

Alternative 2 do not result in an overall change to road 

density. 

A roads analysis process (RAP) was completed by the 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) for the Vestal project to 

identify roads needed for management purposes and roads 

which create a resource concern. The proposed changes 

to roads are a result of this site specific analysis. 

The system roads proposed for closure would be blocked 

to access. These are not proposed for obliteration 

because they may be needed for management purposes 

again in the future. 

All non system/unauthorized roads were administratively 

closed with the May 7, 2010 Record of Decision for the 

Forest Travel Management plan. 

38f Management treatments. The proposed vegetation treatments 

appear to be primarily even-age actions that would help to 

reduce the risks of fire and bug epidemic, but may not provide 

much in the way of diversity and habitat for wildlife species. If 

possible, I would like to see more of the treatments listed below: 

Particularly in the MA5.4 area, but also in the other 

management areas, we would like to encourage use of other 

treatments as described here:

Individual & Group Selection. While these two 

The proposed action does include treatments that would 

maintain or enhance stand or landscape level diversity, 

including Free Selection, Variable Density Thinning, 

and Group Shelterwood. 

Mountain pine beetle activity tends to create openings, 

small at first but may expand to a landscape scale. There 

is an active mountain pine beetle epidemic occurring 

within the project area and openings are being created by 

beetle activity. Uneven-aged treatments which create 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-120 

treatments will remove a substantial amount of timber and 

fuel, additionally they have potential for maintaining 

structural diversity and wildlife habitat. 

Group Retention. Mixes small clumps of dense ponderosa 

pine with large openings. This treatment provides forage 

and browse production while retaining a small amount of 

vertical structure in the site. 

Patch Cuts.

Single large trees felled close to ground perpendicular 

to slope. Long term biodegrading creates important 

nutrients and specialized microhabitats for small plants and 

animals and make an area more diverse and supportive to 

larger plants and animals. It can also make important 

contributions to erosion control and slowing of water flow 

in heavy rains or snow melt. 

Clear cuts. To create tree-less open areas or in preparation 

for prescribed burns in areas with hardwood potential. 

Understory removal. A vegetative treatment that removes 

all ponderosa pine trees under 9” DBH in dense, mature 

sites in order to promote the growth vigor of larger 

overstory pine, and to reduce the potential for crown fire by 

the removal of ladder fuels. Creates open-canopied stands 

of pine that provide forage for white-tailed deer and elk. At 

present, this type of habitat is severely lacking in the 

project area. 

Free Selection, Fuel breaks, Spruce Release, and 

additional Variable Density Thinning could also be 

considered. 

The above treatments all have the potential to help management 

meet the Purpose and Need for the project.

openings; clearcut, patch cut and group selection; are 

not recommended in areas with active epidemics because 

the combination of openings created by MPB and the 

openings created in these treatments may leave stands 

drastically understocked. The MPB epidemic in the 

Vestal area is rapidly expanding and therefore, these 

uneven-aged treatments are not proposed for the Vestal 

project. 

Individual, or single-tree, selection is applied to 

maintain or develop distribution of trees of various age 

classes continuously in a stand. It is not proposed in the 

Vestal project due to the MPB epidemic. 

Understory removal treatment is not proposed in this 

project because of the active MPB epidemic. Mountain 

pine beetle prefers large trees and generally infests trees 

greater than 7” dbh. An understory removal treatment 

would retain the most susceptible trees and remove those 

least susceptible. Furthermore, it does not reduce MPB 

risk. 

Group Retention is discussed in the Alternatives Not 

Considered in Detail section of the EIS. 

The proposed action includes prescribed burning that 

would maintain existing patch clear cuts for mountain 

goat forage habitat. 

 

Effects to down woody material (DWM) are addressed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS in the Wildlife section. The EIS also 

contains design criteria for down woody material on page 

B-12, Appendix B. Following these design criteria would 

meet Forest Plan guideline 2307 and standard 2308a. 

Furthermore it is anticipated that down woody material 

amounts will meet or exceed those stated in objective 

212, throughout the project area, for both alternatives. 

The proposed Dead Fall treatment would contribute to 

down woody material, as will the MPB caused mortality. 

The projected levels of DWM would be such that adding 

addition DWM is not necessary. 

Free Selection, Fuel breaks, and Variable Density are 

included in Alternative 2; see pages 14-16 of the EIS. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-121 

There is no proposed Spruce Release treatment in the 

Vestal project. There are currently 107 acres of white 

spruce within the project area; the only treatment that 

would occur within these stands would be sanitation to 

remove MPB infested trees. Also see the ‘Alternatives 

Not Considered in Detail’ section of the EIS; many of 

these treatments are discussed.

38g We suspect that the basic proportions of the cover types in the 

area will remain unchanged by the proposed action. Should the 

Proposed Action be implemented, the contiguous landscape of 

homogenous and dense ponderosa pine within the management 

area will likely remain the same. This is very different from the 

historic mosaics of densities and cover types found across the 

Black Hills. This is also very different from what would be 

required to truly address the stated Purpose and Need for the 

project from a long term perspective.

Minor changes to cover types would occur under the 

proposed action. Approximately 126 acres of pine would 

be converted to aspen. Cover types and pine structural 

stages are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in Chapter 2 of the 

EIS in the ‘Comparison of Alternatives’ section. Maps 

depicting cover types and pine structural stages are 

located in Appendix A. 

The Vestal project is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

38h In addition, we also emphasize: 

Old Growth. We would like to see sizeable areas set aside for 

future old growth stands. 

Prescribed Burn. The Norbeck Society supports the planned 

use of prescribed fire. We encourage the use of prescribed fire 

treatments over the life of the project. We understand and 

appreciate the need to be cautious with prescribed burning. The 

difficulty of keeping up with desired Rx levels points to a need 

to strive for less regeneration of Ponderosa pine in other 

management treatments. 

Meadows and more treeless areas. The Norbeck Society 

Old Growth, or late succession as it is termed in the 

Forest Plan, is provided for in the Black Hills Forest Plan 

in 2 main ways. Management area 3.7 – Late

Successional Forest Landscapes and as a part of structural 

stage objectives. Changing of Management Area 

designations require a Forest Plan amendment and is not 

proposed in the Vestal project. 

In the Vestal area, management areas 4.1, 5.1 and 5.4 

have structural stage objectives, which include structural 

stage 5, late succession. See response to comment 2n on 

structural stage objectives. 

There are approximately 107 acres (<1%) of structural 

stage 5 pine (late succession) within the project area. 

Impacts to late succession are discussed in the EIS in the 

Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3. 

Your support of prescribed burning is noted. The Vestal 

project contains design criteria to delay prescribed 

burning until the MPB epidemic has passed through this 

area. 

All meadows in the project area where pine encroachment 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-122 

supports and recommends the establishment of additional open 

meadows and non-tree’d areas where appropriate.

More Aspen/birch. We support additional stands of aspen or 

birch.

is occurring are included for pine encroachment 

treatments. The IDT did not identify any areas where 

historic meadows had been converted to pine and 

therefore, no meadow conversion treatments are 

proposed. Your support of pine encroachment treatments 

is noted. The MPB epidemic is likely to create small 

openings within the forest. 

Your support of hardwood release and hardwood 

conversion treatments is noted. The Vestal project 

proposes to increase acres of designated aspen stands by 

29%. In addition, the proposed action would release 

aspen inclusions where they occur in pine stands. Aspen 

could benefit from openings created by MPB and the 

increase in deadfall from MPB killed trees. 

38i Project Timetable. As part of the plan, we would like to see a

schedule that would instill a disciplined adherence to follow 

through on all treatment stages, not just commercial logging. 

For example, burning, meadow enhancement, habitat 

restoration, stream improvement should occur on a scheduled, 

timely basis throughout the project life, not just at the end. Some 

actions, which could be deemed as custodial only, should be 

given priority.

If the proposed action is selected, implementation would 

begin with commercial timber harvest. The removal of 

commercial sized trees from meadow and aspen may 

occur in conjunction with other commercial treatments. 

Removal of smaller, non-commercial pine from these 

areas would follow after any timber sale contract has been 

completed. Burning would not occur until after MPB has 

moved through an area. 

Funding for post sale activities is provided through yearly 

budget appropriations. Some post sale activities can only 

be accomplished after harvest activities have occurred, 

others would be accomplished as funds are available. 

Post-sale projects may be contracted or completed by 

Forest-service crews. Having overlapping contracts is 

generally avoided. Therefore, timing of post-sale work 

may begin years after a timber sale contract begins. 

38j Global Climate Change Concerns. As a manager of large 

tracts of land, the USFS must lead the way in abatement of and 

adaptation to global climate change. The DEIS/FEIS should 

address the impact of alternatives on climate change or carbon 

storage capabilities, and the impacts of climate change on the 

future ecology of this forest and its associated human 

populations. If the Hell Canyon Ranger District feels, at present, 

that this is beyond the scope of the project and is an issue best 

dealt with on the forest planning level, then it should consider 

leading the way on this important issue with an amendment of 

the Forest Plan and make a complete analysis of the potential 

effects, both negative and positive on this project of Global 

This project contributes toward meeting the agency’s goal 

of mitigating the buildup of greenhouse gasses, by 

managing the forest landscape within the project area so 

that it is more resilient to deforestation or catastrophic 

loss. 

Greenhouse gases are becoming a concern because they 

can trap heat in the atmosphere, thus warming the 

climate. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon 

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. A major 

concern is the amount of carbon that is being released 

into the atmosphere in several of these gases. Forests may 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-123 

Climate Change. 

The Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change 

document of the USFS (2008) specifically states that the agency 

shall “assess how land management activities (e.g., fire 

suppression, fuels treatment, post-fire rehabilitation, timber 

harvest, forest health and invasive species management, 

ecological restoration, and watershed management) contribute 

toward adaptation objectives and how they can be modified to 

better facilitate adaptation to climate change...”

have a role to play in management of climate change 

because of their ability to take up carbon during 

respiration, and sequester it in tree roots, boles and 

branches. 

There are about 490 million acres of timberland in the 

United States, in various ownerships, forest types and site 

conditions. The current inventory of carbon in forest trees 

is 13.8 billion metric tons, and in forest understory, floor 

and soils, 24.3 billion metric tons. The rate of carbon 

absorption by U.S. terrestrial systems peaked around 

1960 and has been falling since then. The net 

sequestration of carbon by forests is projected to decrease 

from 274 to 161 million metric tons per year, from 1990 

to 2040. So, carbon uptake and storage in forests and 

forest products in this country will continue to decline 

through 2040. (Joyce and Birdsey 2000). 

The potential for increasing carbon storage in forests in 

the U.S. is quite large, however. There is potential to 

increase the amount of carbon sequestration by forested 

ecosystems. (Stavins and others, 2005). “Improved forest 

management” may offer the most cost-effective means to 

sequester additional carbon in forest ecosystems in the 

short term, although verifying carbon changes due to 

forest management may be difficult. Some models 

indicate that, over long time periods, sustainable forest 

product management on highly productive sites gives a 

larger carbon offset than protecting forests intact. ((Joyce 

and Birdsey 2000).. 

The National Forest System (NFS) is made up of about 

191 million acres of land administered by National 

Forests and National Grasslands. About 20% of the NFS 

land area is in wilderness and is not subject to 

silvicultural management. The National Forests contain 

about 97 million acres of non-wilderness timberland. 

(USDA-NASS, 2008). This means that about 20% of the 

total timberland in the U.S. is administered by the Forest 

Service. Since all U.S. forest acreage offsets about 15% 

of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that the 

effects of forest practices on any single project area, or 

even any given National Forest, may not be measurable in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-124 

a meaningful way. 

National laws and regulations governing management of 

the NFS require that lands harvested be reforested. 

Management prescriptions on these lands generally call 

for maintenance and improvement of habitat qualities for 

plant and animal species, and silvicultural improvement. 

These objectives can often align well with objectives to 

improve resiliency to longer-term influences such as 

changing climate. 

Changing climate and warming caused by an increase in 

greenhouse gases can be relevant to Forest Service land 

management in two ways. These include assessing and 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation); and, 

coping with the effects of climate change (adaptation). 

Mitigation reduces greenhouse gas emissions either 

directly on-site or by off-setting emissions generated 

elsewhere. Mitigation can include such activities as 

reducing the potential for deforestation or catastrophic 

loss, reforesting denuded lands, managing forests, to 

increase carbon uptake by trees, and utilizing biomass and 

wood products where carbon is sequestered. 

Management practices that reduce the likelihood of 

catastrophic fire and insect attack, and allow for 

utilization of forest products, can be characterized as 

mitigation techniques. 

Adaptation assesses ongoing or potential impacts to 

natural resources from changes in climate, and takes 

action to help plant and animal communities adapt to 

these changes. Proactive forest management anticipates 

certain long-term effects will result from changing 

climate based on research. It is important to recognize 

that there is a high degree of uncertainty in some current 

predictions. There are several possible approaches to 

adaptation, including promoting resilience in 

communities, and responding with changed management 

strategies. Management practices that promote diversity 

of species and reduce threats to forest health may also 

foster resilience in plant and animal communities, and can 

be characterized as adaptation techniques. These can

often be carried out in current project planning. The need 

for changing management strategies may need to be 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-125 

assessed in higher-level planning efforts such as RPA and 

forest planning. These efforts will rely on continuing 

scientific research.

38k Fire & Fuels. In prior projects, the USFS has not provided an 

analysis to evaluate the reduction of fire probability and severity 

due to the alternatives. In the EIS for the BHNF Norbeck 

Wildlife Project, a Fire Spread Probability (FSPro) model was 

used. We encourage the DEIS/FEIS to include the results of this 

type of modeling.

The purpose and need for the Norbeck Wildlife Project is 

different from the Vestal Project. The analysis used for 

the Vestal Project was a Fire Hazard Rating Summary. 

Please see DEIS pg. 98-100 Fire Hazard Rating Analysis. 

38l Economic Analysis. In this DEIS there was no economic 

analysis. More of an effort should be made to find a more 

effective way to meet purpose and need objectives on a cost 

effective basis. It would be helpful to see the costs in more 

detail and how they relate by treatment. We would like to see 

how K-V funds are to be spent. Wise use of precious funds 

should include applying funds that would historically be used 

for regeneration surveys and other optional actions related to 

maximizing industrial use of the forest, to landscape restoration 

and resuscitative activities like the ones mentioned earlier.

An economic efficiency analysis is not required for 

project level analysis in Region 2. The 1996 R2 

supplement to FSM 1970 was removed in 2011. 

The Knutsen-Vanderberg (K-V) trust fund was 

established specifically for the purpose of insuring 

reforestation occurs on harvested lands. Other uses are 

allowable, but the funds must be used for reforestation 

purposes first. Regeneration surveys are a required action 

to insure that treated stands fully regenerate. 

See response to comment 38i on funding of treatments

38m Accountability. There should be a reporting or accounting 

mechanism to monitor and report the progress and success of 

the project. Success would be measured by whether all the 

purpose and need objectives have been met.

Appendix C of the Vestal EIS includes the Monitoring 

Plan for the Vestal project. The Forest Plan identifies 

specific items to be monitored and the Monitoring 

Implementation Guide describes monitoring protocols. 

The Vestal IDT compiled additional monitoring 

objectives/items that are included in Appendix C. 

38n Forest regeneration. While the process of forest regeneration is 

ordinarily positive, if it seemingly is out of control we might 

call it ‘runaway regeneration’. Runaway regeneration of 

Ponderosa pine is a fundamental problem in the Black Hills and 

is at the heart of the issues of insect and wildfire risks. We 

encourage the HCRD to allow natural forest regeneration in 

place of tree farm management.

Natural regeneration would occur. There is no planting 

or reseeding activity proposed in the Vestal EIS. 

38o Conclusion 

The Norbeck Society believes that it is not so much a question 

of whether we log the forest, but rather HOW we log. It is clear 

that instead of insect and fire mitigation, the proposed action is 

“timber production”. 110 years of the treatments for “timber 

production” have in fact let to increased insect and fire risk. It is 

time that the USFS change the current practice for projects in 

the BHNF. 

Page 10 of the EIS includes the Purpose and Need for the 

Vestal project which focuses on reducing the threat to 

forest resources from mountain pine beetle. Reducing 

fire hazard to private lands and mountain pine beetle risk 

is part of the purpose and need. Landowners have 

expressed concern regarding fire hazard adjacent to their 

private property. The proposed action was developed to 

reflect the recommendations from Forest Health 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-126 

We encourage the Hell Canyon Ranger District of the Black 

Hills National Forest to address the Purpose and Need for the 

Vestal Project in a meaningful and fruitful way that will serve 

all interests to the fullest potential and over the long term. A 

change will need to be made in the types, distributions, and 

methods of treatments that are being considered for 

implementation.

Entomologists to reduce MPB risk. Refer to Tables 5 and 

6, and Figures 5-7, in Chapter 2 for a comparison of 

effects to MPB risk and fire hazard. 

Due to the prolific regeneration that occurs in the Black 

Hills, future active management would likely be 

necessary to maintain risk and hazard at desirable levels. 

39a Dick Artley I have reviewed the DEIS for the Vestal Project and as a 

communal owner of the Black Hills National Forest I am 

outraged that you are proposing to harm my natural resources to 

provide an opportunity for corporate profit.

A Little History

I have a masters degree in forest ecology from Oregon State 

University. I retired in 2003 as the forest planner on the Nez 

Perce National Forest.

• I am not a lay member of the public.

• I know the USFS system.

• I know the ways that the USFS deceives the public.

• I know what must be done (and not done) to perpetuate the 

proper functioning of all natural resources in the forest.

• I am certain that there is no commodity in the forest so 

important to extract that other natural resources must suffer 

during the extraction process.

• Most importantly I am an expert at the NEPA and I know what 

it takes to prepare an effective appeal.

The purpose and need for action is presented in Chapter 1 

of the EIS.

39b The Attachments to these Comments

The attachments to these comments include the views of over 

500 independent, unbiased Ph.D. biological scientists who 

describe the resource damage inflicted by commercial timber 

sale activities and road construction taken in any location, on 

any topography, at any elevation with any vegetative conditions. 

Indeed, there is no location where a commercial timber sale 

could be implemented that’s exempt from the resource damage 

described by these scientists. This includes the Vestal project.

After reading the quotes in the attachments to this letter the 

Responsible Official should understand that the scientists intend 

for their professional views to apply to all commercial timber 

sales.

Opposing Views Source Documents Comment: One cannot 

All of the attached cited references have been reviewed 

by the ID Team. Documentation is in the project file. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-127 

find meaningful scientific literature that is site-specific. The 

source documents for the opposing views are not site-specific. If 

the Responsible Official refuses to respond to the opposing 

views because the source literature for the opposing view is not 

site-specific or does not relate directly to the Vestal project, then 

the Responsible Official must remove all literature in the 

References section of the DEIS that are not site specific to this

project.

Opposing Views Comment: The directions on how to address 

opposing views is contained in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(b). This law 

allows the Responsible Official to forego responding to 

opposing views for one reason and one reason only: they must 

determine and show why the opposing view is “unreasonable.”

The Responsible Official must Respond to Comments 

Contained in this Document According to 40 CFR 1503.4(a)

39c The Proposed Action Described in the DEIS for the Vestal 

Project Indicates that 25, 449 Acres (40 square miles) of 

National Forest Land will be Commercially Logged

Timber Harvest Comment #1: The Vestal project is not a 

multiple use project because it damages “the various renewable 

surface resources of the national forests” in order to extract trees 

to generate profit for the purchaser.

See response to comment 17a on the extent of the Vestal 

project

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. 

The Forest Plan provides for multiple uses on the Black 

Hills National Forest. The Vestal proposed action is 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

39d Timber Harvest Comment #2: The log landings, temporary 

roads, skid trails and skyline chutes created for the Vestal 

project’s logging activities will be a source of sediment during 

precipitation events. The only way to prevent erosion from bare 

soil created by logging activities is to place sediment traps 

between all bare soil created and live water. This has not been 

proposed.

Highly erodible soils steeper than 40% slope are deferred, 

those 20-40% slope are required to be logged only under 

frozen or dry conditions. Water bars and seeding are 

done post-logging as needed to prevent erosion. 

Vegetative filters work very well on the Black Hills. 

From past monitoring, we see very little erosion from 

timber harvest activities. Implementing design criteria 

(see appendix B) in the WIZ around all live water will 

filter any material that may be displaced from logging 

activities. Sediments traps are not necessary.

Skyline logging is not proposed in this project.

39e Timber Harvest Comment #3: The log extraction activities 

that will occur on the Vestal project will adversely affect 

hydrologic processes by 1) reducing canopy 

interception/evapotranspiration, 2) decreasing hydraulic 

See response to comment 2w
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-128 

conductivity and increase soil bulk density, 3) collapsing some 

of the subsurface pipes, 4) increasing local pore water pressure 

in the soil which will increase the chance of landslides. This 

ecological damage cannot be mitigated. The Responsible

Official must not deny that this damage will occur without 

science citations to verify the claim. The Responsible Official 

must not tell the public that these are acceptable, short term 

results of timber harvest without science citations to verify the 

claim.

39f Timber Harvest Comment #4: The log extraction activities 

that will occur on the Vestal project will remove material that 

harbors a myriad of organisms, from bacteria and actinomycetes 

to higher fungi. These organisms play an important role in the 

forest. Rotting logs are the only way the organic matter in forest 

soils is replenished. When living trees are removed and not 

allowed to fall and deteriorate into the soil naturally the future 

growing conditions will be harmed. This project does not 

include fertilization to mitigate the loss of organic matter.

This project is consistent with the Forest Plan for Down 

woody material (DWM). 

See response to comment 38f on DWM. 

39g Timber Harvest Comment #5: Of course the Responsible 

Official is now trying to determine who will write the denial 

statements for the 4 timber harvest comments above. Please 

assure that these denial statements include references to 

unbiased, independent science that support the denial. We both

know that USFS line-officers will say anything to continue their 

forest’s timber program.

Opposing views Attachment #1 explains this in more detail.

All references in Attachment 1 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file. 

39h The DEIS Indicates there will be of Road Construction 

Associated with this Project

“Dust may also be generated through timber harvest 

activities including log hauling and road construction or 

reconstruction, adding fine particulate emissions 

locally.” (DEIS at page 105)

“The intent after use for all temporary road construction 

is that they shall be closed or decommissioned during 

post resource management activities.” (DEIS at page 

123)

Chief Dombeck recognized the long-term ecological damage 

caused by forest road construction. His words are quoted below:

"Roads often cause serious ecological impacts. There are few 

See response to comment 35d on proposed road 

construction. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-129 

more irreparable marks we can leave on the land than to build a 

road."

Statement by Dr. Mike Dombeck, US Forest Service Chief

to Forest Service employees and retirees at the University of 

Montana February 1998

Source:

https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gem/Dombeck/MDSpeeches/CD%20

COPY/Chief%20Mike%20Dombeck%27s%20

Remarks%20to%20Forest%20Service%20Employees%20and%

20.htm

39i Road Construction Comment #1: The Responsible Official’s 

Proposed Action ignores Dr. Dombeck’s wisdom. No amount of 

timber harvest justifies the long term damage caused by 

constructing forest roads. This applies to temporary roads that 

are not fully obliterated by bringing the soil back to the natural 

angle of repose (putting the soil in the fills back) and seeding 

with native grasses.:

There is 0.1 miles of new road construction proposed in 

the Vestal Project. The new system road is needed to 

access National Forest land. There will be some 

temporary roads and they will be closed and seeded upon 

completion of the activities.

39j Road Construction Comment #2: The map of the Vestal sale 

area shows a road density that’s so high that it will be 

impossible for the aquatic resources in the vicinity of the 

proposed timber sale to function properly. At the present time 

there is enough road in the national forests of America to stretch

to the moon and halfway back. If the Responsible Official were 

really concerned with serving the public and protecting the 

resources no roads would be constructed on this project. Indeed, 

it is not tragic if the trees without road access are left standing. 

This is a situation where the Responsible Official’s obsession 

with accumulation maximum volume should yield to the 

protection of all natural resources.

In the Soil and Watershed Specialist Report, stream 

health ratings were assigned to several streams. Most of 

the ratings were influenced due to grazing and not roads. 

Roads are having minimal impact to the aquatic resource.

39k Road Construction Comment #3: The new road construction 

planned for the Vestal project will have compacted road 

surfaces which will generate overland flow containing sediment 

during precipitation events. Much of this sediment often enters 

the stream channel system, locally increasing peak flows and 

increasing aquatic resource-harming turbidity. No mitigation or 

BMP application will remove all the sediment laden water 

before it reaches the stream. This should be reflected in the

cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 3. Please don’t lowball 

the sediment being produced from old system roads and old 

temporary roads that still generate sediment. Please don’t tell 

the public that such adverse effects are acceptable because they 

are “short term.”

There is only 0.1 miles of new road construction 

proposed in the Vestal Project. This section of road is not 

located near a stream, nor in a WIZ. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-130 

39l Road Construction Comment #4: The new road construction 

planned for the Vestal project will fragment wildlife habitat and 

alter animal behavior by causing changes in home ranges, 

movement, and reproductive success, and will divide large 

landscapes into smaller patches which will convert interior 

habitat into edge habitat. This cannot be mitigated. This should 

be reflected in the cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 3. 

Please don’t lowball the adverse wildlife effects of the road 

construction to wildlife. Please don’t tell the public that such 

adverse effects are acceptable because they are “short term.”

See response to comment 35d on road construction in 

Vestal 

Pages 61-62 of the Wildlife report discuss the effects of 

roads to elk. Additionally, pgs. 41 of the DEIS discuss 

roads and deer. It is acknowledged that roads do impact 

wildlife. However, 0.1 mile of new system road 

construction would be proposed under the proposed 

action. This particular road is behind a yearlong closure 

gate. Other roads that are to be reconstructed would be 

closed after project activities. Disturbances are expected 

to be short-term and wildlife would return after this 

disturbance.

39m Road Construction Comment #5: Of course the Responsible 

Official is now trying to determine who will write the denial 

statements for the 4 road construction comments above. Please

assure that these denial statements include references to 

unbiased, independent science that support the denial. We both 

know that USFS line-officers will say anything to continue their 

forest’s timber program.

Opposing views Attachment #4 explains this in more detail.

All references in Attachment 4 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39n Insect Activity should be Allowed to Occur in the Forest. 

USFS Decision Makers must never Spend Tax Dollars to 

Prevent Such a Beneficial Natural Disturbance Event.

A forest with no insect activity and tree diseases is an unhealthy 

forest.

The DEIS indicates one of the goals of the project is to 

eliminate such a natural disturbance event.

All normal, healthy, fully functioning forest have some stands of 

trees that die from insect and disease activity.

Thankfully, these healthy forests pass through periods when 

some conifer tree species in some areas become “degraded” by 

natural disturbance events. Healthy forests are not static. This 

life/death cycle is natural for healthy forests and should not be 

interrupted.

Every (emphasis added) healthy population of living things 

depends on dying individuals.

The alternatives proposed in the Vestal project would not 

eliminate insects or disease from Forest lands. 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-131 

Taking action to exclude insects and diseases from damaging 

and killing conifer trees reflects an attitude that sound conifer 

trees made available for corporate profit opportunities are more 

important than the countless other natural resources in the 

forest.

Action should not be taken to reduce the insect, disease and 

drought induced mortality to conifer trees. Such natural 

disturbance events are necessary to maintain the forest’s 

biological diversity. Insect and disease activity is an indicator of 

a healthy properly functioning forest.

Trees killed by insect activity are important habitat for scores of 

wildlife species.

Trees killed by insect activity provide the organic matter to 

replenish and enrich mineral soils.

Indeed, dead and dying trees have great ecological value in the 

forest. These conditions cannot be artificially created.

Opposing views Attachment #15 explains this in more detail.

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

The benefits of MPB killed trees to some species of 

wildlife is recognized and discussed in the wildlife 

section of Chapter 3 in the EIS.

The effects of the No Action alternative to soils, wildlife 

and other resources are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

All references in Attachment 15 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39o The Responsible Official Wastes Taxpayer’s Money to Plan 

a Timber sale at the Present Time

The current demand for wood products is at an all-time low.

Our country is currently facing massive debt. Congress is 

working to reduce government spending in every way possible.

Poor Lumber Market Comment #1: The Purpose & Need 

describes why this timber sale is being planned. There is no 

need for logs. It’s unwise to push timber on the nation that isn’t 

needed ... and spend precious dollars and harm the forest 

ecosystem simultaneously.

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

39p Poor Lumber Market Comment #2: The article states: “Local 

log contractors say the Forest Service needs to do a better job in 

understanding the marketplace before offering timber for sale.” 

The Black Hills National Forest is no different. There is 

absolutely no need to sell timber sales now for any reason. 

There is no more room to deck the logs at the mills.

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

39q Poor Lumber Demand Comment #3: The Responsible 

Official is proposing this project to fulfill her Regional volume 

expectations ... it’s certainly not needed now with housing starts 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-132 

at an alltime low and with the timber coming from private 

industrial tree farms more than meeting the domestic need for 

products made from softwood.

39r Dead and Dying Trees are the Life-Blood to the Natural 

Resources in the Forest

Any and all normal, healthy, fully functioning forest contains

trees that are dead and dying.

The DEIS indicates that dead and dying trees will be removed 

from the sale area.

Dead & Dying Trees Comment #1: A sure way to create an 

unhealthy forest is to remove the dead and dying trees. Humans 

have not yet learned to interrupt natural processes that have 

occurred for thousands of years without destroying the process. 

This is especially true if money motivates the humans to 

manipulate and harm the forest’s natural resources. The 

Responsible Official provides no information to the public 

indicating how the ecological benefits of leaving dead and dying 

trees in place will be replaced artificially.

To salvage of dead trees is proposed in the Vestal project. 

Sanitation of beetle infested trees, which are dying trees, 

is proposed for all pine stands in the project area. The 

effects of sanitation has been analyzed. Refer to the 

effects analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS for 

analysis of resource impacts resulting from both 

alternatives. 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

39s Dead & Dying Trees Comment #2: There are no situations in a 

natural forest that provide reasons for the Responsible Official 

to remove the dead and dying trees. This is especially true when

corporate profit is the reason the trees are being removed. There 

is no shortage of raw materials used to make wood products in 

America.

To salvage of dead trees is proposed in the Vestal project. 

Sanitation of beetle infested trees, which are dying trees, 

is proposed for all pine stands in the project area. The 

effects of sanitation has been analyzed. Refer to the 

effects analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS for 

analysis of resource impacts resulting from both 

alternatives. 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

39t Dead & Dying Trees Comment #3: Insect activity and diseases 

of trees are beneficial natural disturbance events. They are 

meant to occur because that’s how Nature generates dead & 

dying trees.

Opposing views Attachment #14 explains this in more detail.

The alternatives proposed in the Vestal project would not 

eliminate insects or disease from Forest lands. The 

benefits of MPB killed trees to some species of wildlife is 

recognized and discussed in the wildlife section of 

Chapter 3 in the EIS. The effects of the No Action 

alternative to soils, wildlife and other resources are 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

The Vestal project is consistent with the Black Hills 

Forest Plan. 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-133 

All references in Attachment 14 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39u Attempting to Eliminate Fire in the General Forest Harms 

the Natural Resources. Manipulation of the Fire Cycle Kills 

the Flora and Fauna Species that are Dependent on Fire

The DEIS indicates one goal of the project is to remove 

hazardous fuels to eliminate the chance of a wildfire.

The sale area is far from any Wildland Urban Interface area.

Forest ecologists know fire is a natural disturbance event

important to the resources of the forest. Projects to reduce fire 

intensity must only be undertaken within a mile of the WUI.

Eliminating Fire far from the WUI Comment #1: Standreplacing fires are not catastrophic in spite of USFS claims to 

the contrary. Of course merchantable trees burn and die during 

fires. So what? This would be a problem only if the USFS were 

mandated to spend taxpayer’s money in the general forest far 

from any WUI to save merchantable trees for the timber 

industry. Thankfully, Congress has never indicated t that this is 

a USFS mission.

The Vestal project does not propose to eliminate wildfire. 

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

39v Eliminating Fire far from the WUI Comment #2: If forests 

aren’t supposed to burn in the forest then why does fire 

(lightening) come from the sky during the summer when the 

humidity is low and the temperatures are high?

The Vestal project does not propose to eliminate wildfire. 

39w Eliminating Fire far from the WUI Comment #3: Reducing 

fuels in the general forest not associated with a WUI is an 

excuse to extract volume. Please eliminate all references to fuels 

in the final EA.

Opposing views Attachment #8 explains this in more detail.

The Vestal project does not propose to eliminate wildfire. 

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

All references in Attachment 8 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39x Taking Action (prescribed burning) to Perpetuate Clearcuts 

on Land Owned by the Public Indicates that the Black Hills 

National Forest is being Managed to Replicate a PrivateIndustrial Tree Farm for Profit rather than Striving to 

Maintain a Functioning, Biodiverse Forest for the National 

Forest Owners

The DEIS indicates that some the existing clearcuts will be 

burned to prevent new vegetation growth.

The Vestal project would implement prescribed burns in 

openings, previously created by clearcutting. There are 

approximately 35 acres of total openings, however, each 

individual opening is much smaller. All of these 

openings are less than 10 acres each. These openings 

were created specifically to provide forage for mountain 

goats, high on steep slopes which are only accessible by 

foot, near Buckhorn mountain. Prescribed burning of
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-134 

Clearcut Comment 1: Incredibly, the Responsible Official 

claims that the clearcut burning is needed to create mountain 

goat forage.

The Responsible Official follows the USFGS script well. 

Creating forage has been the USFS excuse to clearcut for many 

decades.

She conveniently fails to provide an analysis that there is 

currently a forage shortage and the goats are starving.

these openings will maintain them as forage. 

39y Clearcut Comment 1: The publc abhors clearcuts on their land. 

Attachment #26 contains photographs of clearcuts on national 

forest land. Please choose the clearcut photo that will most 

closely resemble the clearcuts created as part of the Vestal 

timber sale and insert it into the final EIS. If none of the pictures 

describe the clearcuts, please show the one that will be the 

closest.

The Vestal project does not propose to implement any 

clearcuts. 

See response to comment 39x 

39z Clearcut Comment 1: The Responsible Official has chosen to 

withhold this important information from the public without a 

reason.

Opposing views Attachment #19 explains this in more detail.

The Vestal project does not propose to implement any 

clearcuts. 

See response to comment 39x

All references in Attachment 19 were reviewed by IDT 

members. None of these attachments were pertinent to 

the Vestal project because no clearcutting is proposed. 

Review is contained in the project file. 

39aa Any NEPA Document with a P&N to “Reduce Fuels” to 

Protect Homes Located in the WUI should Include an 

Alternative that Educates the Public about Dr. Jack Cohen’s 

Fire Damage Reduction Methods Derived from his 

Research. The Public Deserves such Agency Action.

The DEIS describes the need and importance to reduce the risk 

of fire damage to homes located in the Wildland-Urban 

Interface (WUI) should a wildfire occur,

Cohen Fire Risk Reduction Methods Comment #1: Most 

members of the public with homes located in the WUI are 

unaware of the fire damage risk reduction research done by 

USFS employee Dr. Jack Cohen. The USFS has the 

responsibility to disseminate such information and educate the 

public about the most effective ways to reduce the risk of fire 

damage to their homes. The Responsible Official refuses to 

divulge such important information in the EIS to assure “fuels 

reduction” can be justified to help meet RO volume 

The purpose and need for action is discussed in Chapter 1 

of the EIS. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 2b on collaboration and 2jj on 

objective 10-06. 

Also, Cohen clearly states “Instead of all pre-suppression 

and fire protection responsibilities reading with fire 

agencies, homeowners should take the principal 

responsibility for assuring adequately low home 

ignitability” (Cohen 94).
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-135 

expectations,

39bb Cohen Fire Risk Reduction Methods Comment #2: If the 

Responsible Official were really concerned about the public she 

would have analyzed a Cohen alternative in detail.

The plan identifies concern for the firefighter and public 

safety see specialist report pg. 3-5, 11-13, 18-19 and 

DEIS pg. 104.

39cc Cohen Fire Risk Reduction Methods Comment #3: Dr Cohen 

shows that his methods are superior to fuels reduction under all 

forest conditions. Since Dr. Cohen’s superior methods apply 

within a few hundred feet of a home at risk the work must occur 

on private property.

All proposed actions in the Vestal project would occur on 

National Forest lands. The Forest Service does not have 

the authority to conduct actions on private lands. 

39dd Cohen Fire Risk Reduction Methods Comment #3: The 

Responsible Official’s Ranger District is a neighbor to the 

people who live in the WUI. Any good neighbor would inform 

their neighbor how to best protect their safety and assets. A 

Cohen alternative would educate the public at meeting with 

handouts. The USFS (with written permission) should assist 

elderly and disabled homeowners to implement Dr. Cohen’s fire 

damage risk reduction methods,

Opposing views Attachment #11 and #5 explains this in more 

detail.

The Forest Service provides public information in many 

ways, including information documents (brochures, etc..) 

at all National Forest offices, news releases, online 

information, etc... 

All references in Attachments 5 and 11 were reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39ee The WUI Boundary Shown on the Project Map is 

Inconsistent with the Official Forest Service WUI Definition 

Described Below

When examining the boundary lines drawn on the project map 

in relation to private property, the distances from the private 

property to the WUI boundary shown on the map do not agree 

with the Forest Service definition of the WUI:

“With housing density threshold, wildland vegetation types, and 

interface buffer distances determined, the operational definition 

of the WUI is complete: There is more than 1 house per 16 ha 

and more than 50 percent wildland vegetation; and, 

neighborhoods with less than 50 percent wildland vegetation are 

included if they are within 2.4 km of an area (made up of one or 

more contiguous census blocks) more than 500 ha that is more 

than 75 percent covered with wildland vegetation.” (Pg. 201)

Source: “The Public and Wildland Fire Management: Social 

Science Findings for Managers”

Sarah McCaffrey, Technical Editor, Northern Research Station

USDA, Forest Service, General TechnicalReport NRS-1, 

November 2006

Link to source: http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs1.pdf

The DEIS did not include a WUI boundary on the project 

map.

See response to comment 2g on WUI
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-136 

Please assure that the WUI lines shown in the final EIS are 

consistent with the USFS definition of the WUI.

This will require the Responsible Official to identify (and show 

on the project map) every home within 2.4 km (or 1.49 miles) of 

the forest boundary. Then draw a circle around each home with 

a 1.49 mile radius. The area where this circle intersects with 

national forest land will be WUI land.

Protecting homes in the WUI must never become an excuse to 

remove volume.

Opposing views Attachment #16 explains this in more detail.

All references in Attachment 16 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39ff Legal Precedent Requires the Forest Service Responsible 

Officials to Base their Proposed Projects on Best Science 

which will Eliminate or Reduce Adverse Ecological Effects

A Federal Register notice and an opinion handed down in the 

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals indicate that the Forest Service 

must base their projects on best science. Please see below.

“The purpose of this interpretative rule is to clarify that, both for 

projects implementing plans and plan amendments, paragraph 

(a)’s mandate to use the best available science applies.”

Source: Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188, page 58056

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Rules and Regulations

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1//projects/plan_rule/intrpretative-rule.pdf

“The 1982 forest planning regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 219 

were superseded in November 2000, when new regulations were 

promulgated. 65 Fed. Reg. 67,568 (Nov. 9, 2000). Under the 

transition provision of the 2000 regulations, the Forest Service 

was required to consider the "best available science" when 

implementing site-specific projects within a forest plan. 36 

C.F.R. 219.35(a) (2001).”

Source: The Ecology Center, Inc., v. United States Forest 

Service United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, June 29, 

2006 An Appeal from the United States District Court for the

District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:03-CV-589-TS)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&

case=/data2/circs/10th/054101.html

The best available science was considered by the resource 

specialists who conducted the analysis for the Vestal 

Project. Refer to literature cited section of the EIS as 

well as within resource specialist reports. In addition, 

numerous references provided in comment letters have 

been reviewed by resource specialists. Documented 

reviews are contained in this table or, if otherwise noted, 

are in the project file. 

 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-137 

The transition regulation is still in effect.

39gg Best Science Comment #1: This member of the public feels 

that the science statements contained in the attachments to these 

comments constitute science that’s at least as accurate as the 

science literature in the References section of the DEIS.

All references in all Attachments, as well as those noted 

in comment letter have been reviewed by IDT members. 

Review is contained in the project file.

39hh Best Science Comment #2: The Responsible Official 

consciously excluded science that describes natural resource 

harm from the References section in the DEIS. The Responsible 

Official carefully selected science references that support the 

timber sale (mostly authored by USDA employees). This clearly 

shows that the project is not based on best science.

39ii Best Science Comment #3: There are hundreds of opposing 

views statements included in the attachments. If the Responsible 

Official is concerned about basing this project on best science, 

she will examine the literature cited in the attachments and 

modify this project according to the science that describes 

methods to reduce the environmental impacts of this timber sale.

Opposing views Attachment #15 explains this in more detail.

All references in Attachment 15 have been reviewed by 

IDT members. Review is contained in the project file.

39jj Please do not Apply Herbicides Anywhere Near (or in) the 

Project Area for any Reason

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are the most toxic of all 

herbicides. However herbicides containing the following 

chemicals are also quite toxic and should never be applied to the 

vegetation growing on public land.

• Chlorsulfuron

• Clopyralid

• Dicamba

• mazapic

• Imazapyr

• Metsulfuron

• Picloram

• Triclopyr

• 2, 4-D 

I have similar documents explaining the toxicity and risks of 

applying herbicides with these chemicals as well. They are 

available on request.

Simply signing an area that will (or has been) subject to 

herbicide application is inadequate protection for the public. The 

The Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed 

Management Plan, signed January 2003, states that 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved 

herbicides are used for noxious weed spraying in the 

Black Hills National Forest. The Decision Notice 

includes mitigation measures that would eliminate, 

minimize, or reduce impacts to the environment, as well 

as Finding Of No Significant Impact. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-138 

only way to protect the people who mix and apply the herbicides 

is to require them to wear hazmat suits. Applying these poisons 

by hand does not prevent drift ... even with no apparent wind. 

Applying herbicides from the air is criminal.

The only foolproof way to protect the public is to apply no 

herbicides of any kind ... especially when there are effective 

alternatives to noxious weed eradication and control. Yes the 

mechanical and biological control methods are more expensive 

than herbicides, but does the Responsible Official have an 

acceptable number of human deaths for every dollar saved?

39kk Here’s a summary of the liability that Federal employees 

assume when doing their jobs.. In invite the Responsible 

Official to validate this information by contacting an OGC 

attorney.

A Federal employee may be sued in his/her individual capacity 

for injuries or damages to persons or property. Individuals who 

violate environmental laws or who injure or damage the persons 

or property of others as a result of carelessness may be 

personally liable for the consequences.

Where the actions of a Federal employee cause injuries or 

damage to the person or property of another, the injured party 

may bring an action to recover the cost of the damage.

Most of the environmental statutes impose criminal liability for 

willful or knowing violations. Some statutes impose criminal 

liability for negligent violations. Individual Federal employees 

may be charged with criminal liability if their actions or 

inactions meet the requirements for imposing liability. Federal 

or State prosecutors may bring criminal charges. Liability often 

does not depend on knowledge of, or

personal participation in, the acts made criminal. With respect to 

violations that occur, the term "knowing" is defined as 

knowledge that the requirement or regulation exists, more so 

than to actual knowledge of specific violations. The Supreme 

Court has said "where dangerous or noxious waste materials are 

involved, the probability of regulation is so great that anyone 

who is aware that he is in

possession of them must be presumed to be aware of the 

regulations."

The Vestal project does not propose any action which 

would be inconsistent with the Forest Plan, nor violate 

any law or regulation. 

39ll See the Judge Haggarty’s opinion in BLUE MOUNTAINS 

BIODIVERSITY PROJECT v. UNITED STATES

This comment refers to the Malheur National Forest and 

is outside the scope of this project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-139 

FOREST SERVICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF OREGON FOR THE DISTRICT

OF OREGON, December 2, 2002.

An excerpt if the opinion:

“A. The U.S. Forest Service is hereby enjoined from 

implementing the portion of the June 26, 2000 Decision Notice 

and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Noxious Weed 

Control Project on the Malheur National Forest that involves the

use or application of herbicides and biological controls until and 

unless it considers, evaluates and discloses in an Environmental 

Impact Statement or Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement the individual and cumulative impacts of herbicide 

use in accordance with this Court’s Opinion and Order. Any 

such EIS must evaluate categories of new information since the 

1988 Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement was issued, including:

(1) the causes and increasing spread of noxious weeds, (and the 

contribution of certain management activities, such as cattle 

grazing, to the introduction and spread of noxious weeds);

(2) evidence of the neuro and immuno-toxicity of herbicides;

(3) toxic effects and increased susceptibility of amphibians to 

herbicide impacts;

(4) endocrine disruption caused by herbicides;

(5) effects from additives to herbicide full formulations 

including the impacts from surfactants;

(6) metabolites, the breakdown product of herbicides; and

(7) the availability of new species-specific herbicides.”

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

39mm The DEIS conveniently leaves out the types of herbicides that 

will be applied in the sale area.

By far the most dangerous herbicides contain glyphosate.

The recent research of independent, unbiased Ph.D. scientists 

not affiliated with the US Forest Service or Monsanto Inc. 

reveals that even casual contact with glyphosate-containing 

herbicides causes the following maladies in birds, fish, and 

mammals (including human visitors to the forest):

Exposure to herbicides that contain glyphosate causes nonHodgkin’s lymphoma ... a form of cancer.

Sources:

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-140 

Dr. Mae-Win Ho Ph.D. and Brett Cherry “Death by

Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup” 

an Institute of Science in Society news release submitted to the 

USDA

November 2, 2009

http://current.com/146im4c

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Joe Cummins “Glyphosate Toxic & 

Roundup Worse”

Institute of Science in Society report 07/03/05

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php

39nn Exposure to herbicides that contain glyphosate causes 

endocrine disruption in human cells.

Sources:

Christina Howe, Ph.D., Michael Berrill Ph.D., and Bruce D. 

Pauli “The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based 

Pesticides in Northern Leopard Frogs”

Amphibian Ecology and Pathobiology, August 14, 2002

http://www.trentu.ca/biology/berrill/Research/Roundup_Poster.

htm

Martin, Negin P. Ph. D. “Monsanto's Roundup More

Deadly to Liver Cells than Glyphosate Alone” 

Organic Consumers Assn. Current News

http://current.com/items/90737244_monsantos-roundup-moredeadly-to-liver-cells-thanglyphosate-alone.htm

Richard, Sophie Ph.D., Safa Moslemi Ph.D., Herbert Sipahutar, 

Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini Ph.D., 2005 

“Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human 

placental cells and aromatase” 

Mindfully.org

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2005/Glyphosate-RoundupPlacental24feb05.htm

Gasnier, Céline Ph.D., Coralie Dumont Ph.D., Nora Benachour 

Ph.D., Emilie Clair Ph.D., Marie-Christine Chagnon Ph.D. and 

Gilles-Eric Séralini Ph.D. “Glyphosate-based herbicides are 

toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines”

Available online 17 June 2009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=

B6TCN-4WJBC0R1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F21%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt

=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-141 

view=c&_searchStrId=1591140451&_rerunOrigin=scholar.goo

gle&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid

=10&md5=2adfd01803a911a1ff1eda15564d337e&searchtype=a

39oo Exposure to herbicides that contain glyphosate causes skin 

tumors.

Source:

Christina Howe, Ph.D., Michael Berrill Ph.D., and Bruce D. 

Pauli “The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Glyphosate-Based 

Pesticides in Northern Leopard Frogs”

Amphibian Ecology and Pathobiology, August 14, 2002

http://www.trentu.ca/biology/berrill/Research/Roundup_Poster.

htm

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.

39pp Exposure to herbicides that contain glyphosate causes the 

death of liver cells in mammals

Sources:

Martin, Negin P. Ph. D. “Monsanto's Roundup More Deadly 

to Liver Cells than Glyphosate Alone” 

Organic Consumers Assn. Current News

http://current.com/items/90737244_monsantos-roundup-moredeadly-to-liver-cells-thanglyphosate-alone.htm

Ho Mae-Win Ph.D. and Brett Cherry “Death by Multiple 

Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup” 

an Institute of Science in Society news release submitted to the 

USDA November 2, 2009

http://current.com/146im4c

Ho, Mae-Wan Ph.D. and Prof. Joe Cummins Ph.D. 

“Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse”

An Institute of Science in Society publication, 07/03/05

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php

Gasnier, Céline Ph.D., Coralie Dumont Ph.D., Nora Benachour 

Ph.D., Emilie Clair Ph.D., Marie-Christine Chagnon Ph.D. and 

Gilles-Eric Séralini Ph.D. “Glyphosate-based herbicides are 

toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines”

Available online 17 June 2009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=

B6TCN-4WJBC0R1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F21%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt

=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&

view=c&_searchStrId=1591140451&_rerunOrigin=scholar.goo

gle&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-142 

=10&md5=2adfd01803a911a1ff1eda15564d337e&searchtype=a

39qq Exposure to herbicides that contain glyphosate causes 

chromosomal damage.

Source:

Prasad, Sahdeo, Ph.D., Smita Srivastava Ph.D., Madhulika 

Singh Ph.D., and Yogeshwer Shukla Ph.D.

“Clastogenic Effects of Glyphosate in Bone Marrow Cells of 

Swiss Albino Mice” 

Journal of Toxicology Volume 2009 (2009), Article ID 308985, 

6 pages

http://ec2-174-129-233-187.compute1.amazonaws.com/journals/jt/2009/308985.html

Herbicides that contain glyphosate include:

Roundup Ultra®, Roundup Pro®, Accord®, Honcho®, 

Pondmaster®, Protocol®, Rascal®, Expedite®, Ranger®, 

Bronco®, Campain®, Landmaster®, and Fallow Master® 

manufactured by Monsanto; Glyphomax® and Glypro® 

manufactured by Dow AgroSciences; Glyphosate herbicide 

manufactured by Du Pont; Silhouette® manufactured by 

Cenex/Land O’Lakes; Rattler® manufactured by Helena;

MirageR® manufactured by Platte; JuryR® manufactured by 

Riverside/Terra; and Touchdown® manufactured by Zeneca.

As of November 2001, Rodeo® (previously manufactured by 

Monsanto) is now being manufactured by Dow AgroSciences 

and Monsanto is now producing Aquamaster®.

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.

39rr Glyphosate Comment #1: Certainly, noxious weeds and nonnative plants are a major problem on public land. The 

Responsible Official refuses to discuss recent glyphosate 

toxicology studies in the final EIS.

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

39ss Glyphosate Comment #2: The Responsible Official has no 

problem taking actions that might kill the wildlife, fish and 

human visitors to the forest.

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

39tt Glyphosate Comment #3: The Responsible Official refuses to 

tell the public why the safety direction they reference contains 

only research that at least 5 years old and excludes recent

research. This is because the new research exposes glyphosate’s 

massive (sometimes lethal) toxicity information.

Opposing views Attachment #9 explains glyphosate toxicity in 

more detail.

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.

39uu

The Responsible Official indicates in the DEIS for the Vestal 

See response to comment 39jj on use of herbicides
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-143 

project that herbicide will be applied. Please beware.

“Known noxious weed infestations would be treated with 

herbicides and/or biological controls after treatments to reduce 

infestations and allow native vegetation to compete with nonnatives. Areas would be retreated as necessary.” (DEIS at page 

B-4)

It is just being revealed that for the last few decades certain 

corporations were using a variety of methods to convince 

government regulatory agencies to look the other way. This is 

true for the EPA that is responsible for testing herbicide safety.

The EPA does not test pesticides for safety. It relies on the 

manufacturers’ test data to make judgments. Recent probes have 

found that the experiments on which these data have been based, 

have been designed to show only what the manufacturer would 

like them to show. Indeed, the broken link in the process is that 

the chemical manufacturers pay the independent labs to test the 

chemicals and suggest label directions.

Some man-made chemicals that are sold over the counter to 

consumers in the United States are banned for use by the 

European Union. In 2003 the EU banned the use of atrazinecontaining herbicides. These herbicides are still sold in 

hardware stores in America. More than 60 million pounds of 

atrazine-containing herbicides are applied annually across the 

United States.

Opposing views Attachment #18 explains this situation in 

more detail.

The referenced documents were reviewed and do not 

present any new information relevant to the Vestal 

project.

39vv Concluding Comment: It’s certain that when the Proposed 

Action described in the DEIS is implemented the natural 

resources in (and downstream) from the project area will be 

degraded. This is not consistent with the duty of the Responsible 

Official to implement actions that will benefit the majority of 

the American people.

No degradation of resources was identified in the effects 

analysis completed for this project. Refer to Chapter 3 of 

the EIS. 

40a Walt Bones

South Dakota 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Thank you for sending a copy of the Vestal Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement to our attention. We have been very busy with 

mountain pine beetle (MPB) suppression efforts. So, our 

comments are going to be brief and reflect the same concerns 

we expressed in response to scoping document.

Your support of the purpose and need for action is noted. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-144 

Overall, we think the draft is well done and easy to review 

compared to other drafts that we have received. We believe the 

Vestal project very critical to people of Custer and we are glad 

to see it is meant to address the heavy infestation of mountain 

pine beetles in the area.

You identified MPB as the primary driver behind this project. 

We firmly agree MPB management should be your primary goal 

for this project and efforts should be aimed at controlling the 

spread of infestations and creating a healthy forest resistant to 

future attacks.

40b We still have the following specific concerns and suggestions:

Proposed Vegetation Treatments - Free Selection (FS) - You 

indicate that 1054 acres of the project area will be thinned to 

reduce MPB risk. As part of this effort you plan to thin the 

majority of the area to a density of 80 square-feet basal area 

(BA). Some islands, as large as two acres, will be left within 

these areas that will have a density of up to 120 square-feet of 

basal area. We recommend the overall basal area in these areas 

should be no higher than 60 BA. We believe the islands left at 

much higher densities will serve as reservoirs for MPB and may 

lead to heavy losses in and around those islands. We 

recommend these areas be cut to no more than 80 BA. The 

islands would still pose a risk and they should be monitored 

very closely. Sanitation cutting should be done in the islands to 

treat any MPB infested trees on an annual basis or until the 

current epidemic ends. Many of these areas are adjacent to 

private lands. It is not possible to tell from the maps if the 

private lands are forested or meadows. If the private lands are 

forested, an outbreak in one of these islands will quickly 

threaten trees on adjacent private lands. This situation should be 

avoided.

This was an alternative considered and deferred from 

detailed study – see Chapter 2 in the EIS. 

Sites where Free selection is proposed are those which 

have particular wildlife habitat elements. The overall BA 

in the sites proposed for Free Selection would be 80BA, 

but within these sites the BA will vary from open to dense 

in patches of approximately 2 acres. This variation of 

density within pine sites reduces their susceptibility to 

mountain pine beetle. Free Selection is proposed on 

approximately 4% of all treated pine stands in the project 

area. Other proposed treatments will reduce pine stand 

densities to 60BA or less. Sanitation is included as a 

treatment for all pine sites in the project area. Sanitation 

may occur each year for up to 5 years. This treatment 

generally occurs during implementation of the approved 

treatment. 

See response to comment 11b on high risk stands 

40c Proposed Fuels Treatments - Dead Fall (DF) - Your proposal 

calls for maximum slashing depth of 24 inches. State regulations 

require a slashing depth of no more than 18 inches. We would 

recommend a revision of slashing requirements to 18 inches. 

You also indicate standing dead trees will remain standing in 

these areas. This does not concern us unless these trees died 

from MPB infestations. If so, these trees will be highly 

susceptible to wind throw in less than 5 years. We would 

recommend beetle killed trees should be felled and brushed to 

the same standards as other slash.

In response to your scoping comment, the slashing depth 

associated with deadfall treatment was modified in the 

DEIS to state that the target depth is 18 inches, but no 

more than 24 inches. The height was not changed to an 

absolute maximum of 18 inches because there are places 

where this would be impossible, given the extent of MPB 

killed trees. 

It is anticipated that MPB killed trees will break of fall 

within 5 years. Deadfall treatments would target these 

areas where MPB killed trees break and fall. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-145 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We wish you a 

speedy project completion that meets your overall goals of MPB 

control.

41 Max Wilbert Please do not log/burn the black hills! Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted

42 Margie 

Nogueras

To be aware that what is being done is incorrect and abusive and 

you are bringing this lesson upon yourselves. You are the 

instruments of destruction. The law of life will not come upon 

you with flowers and cheers/ you who are the instruments of this 

disease will reap the same or perhaps worse upon yourselves. Be 

aware that the times are revealing that the stronghold of the 

Earth Spirit will claim what belongs to HER and the children of 

her bossum.

Save yourselves and stop invading and destroying sacred 

ground. As you are reading this message, Spirit is touching you. 

Listen to your Heart where your Creator waits to strengthen 

your decision and to help you heal.

Please stop and desist. The People's rights and beliefs require 

respect. If you do not heed this warning you will warrant the 

result. The US Government must abide and respect what the 

forefathers of the US Nation have withheld as undeniable truth. 

Do Not dishonor further the Indigenous Nations of the World. 

Remember, that as you sow, so will you reap!

The Ancestors and the People's of Boriké support The People's 

of the Black Hills and in a joint effort of prayer bring our 

Ancestors to bear upon a solution to this situation. The Spirits of 

the Whiteland of Borike and of the Nations of Peace work 

together with the children of like mind to help usher in the 

transformation and healing of The Mother and Her Children. It 

is done. Jan Jan Katu (So Be It.)

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted. 

See responses to comments 2b on scoping and public 

involvement including tribal input; and 17d on sacredness 

of this area. 

 

43a William A. 

Read

I have reviewed the Draft Vestal EIS (DEIS) in order to submit 

comments. Additionally I have read appropriate portions of the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HR 1904), the Black Hills

National Forest Land BHFMP and various related scoping 

documents. I have also talked to area residents who would be 

affected by the instigation of the Plan.

I am an owner and a director of Exum Mountain Guides in 

Grand Teton National Park, which from time to time has 

See response to comment 39ff on best available science. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-146 

operated technical climbing under a permit from Custer State 

Park. As such, I am very interested and concerned about the 

welfare of the Black Hills- Custer area.

I believe the Draft Vestal EIS lacks adequate science and 

contains violations of the Forest Management Plan.

The Vestal EIS identifies Management Direction on 

pages 3-9. The Vestal proposed action is consistent with 

the Black Hills National Forest Plan. Chapter 3 discusses 

effects to resources and displays how the project is 

consistent with the Forest Plan. Chapter 5 contains 

Literature Cited. Additional literature citations and 

information on analyses are contained in the project file 

as part of the specialist reports. 

43b The Plan also lacks the scenic Integrity objective and so violates 

Goal 4, which is to uphold the main attraction of the Custer 

area. This is a reason the Custer Area of the Black Hills has 

been chosen as a destination highlight for both domestic and 

international visitors, and an important reason why the overall 

concept as stated on the Plan needs to be reviewed. Certainly the 

socioeconomic impact on visitors needs to be thoroughly 

addressed.

Thank you for your consideration.

See response to comments 2n, 2dd and 2ss on scenery

See response to comments 2bb and 2ee on socioeconomics

44 Mary 

Zimmerman

I am interested in the Vestal Project and the way that you 

choose to approach it. Please keep me informed of your progress 

on this matter.

Your name is on the project mailing list

45 Kay Shade Dear Friends,

I write to you today about the destruction and desecration 

proposed in the Hell Canyon Ranger District. Burning and 

logging will not provide a healthy forest. This is an extremely 

sacred area to many people, please do not forget. This is an 

important area for wildlife, which I know is necessary for the 

tourist economy. Please reconsider and delay action until it has 

been given more creative thought.

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted

See response to comment 17d on sacredness of area

See response to comments 2bb and 2ee on socioeconomics 

46 Christine 

Manarpaac

I strongly oppose the logging of this vast land! This northeast 

portion of the proposed Project Area should be considered a 

sacred landscape designation and management under the 

Okawita Paha National Monument and should not be subject to 

desecration and devastation of logging especially with the 

availability of alternative resources. The proposed logging and 

burning would destroy this sacred landscape, which is sacred to 

many Native American nations across North America. This is 

more than land to the Native American nations, this is the life 

source of their identity and culture and can not be replaced.

Your support of the No Action Alternative is noted

See response to comment 17b and 17d on the Okawita 

Paha National Monument and sacredness of this area. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and tribal 

involvement 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-147 

47a Gary 

Brundige 

Custer State 

Park

Custer State Park (CSP) submits Vestal comments planned 

under the HFRA authority. The “No Action” alternative is not 

acceptable given the current situation with mountain pine 

beetles, fuel loads and the need for vegetation treatments to 

improve wildlife habitats in general.

Your support of management actions to reduce MPB 

impacts and fuel loads is noted

47b-c Based on Appendix A maps, the project area is adjacent to over 

1 mile of the west boundary of CSP in the Sylvan Lake area, 

and 10 – 11 miles of additional lands adjacent to the west 

boundary of CSP, including Stockade Lake. Custer State Park 

has an active and aggressive vegetation treatment program 

which includes, but is not limited to: commercial and noncommercial treatments, wildlife habitat improvements, 

prescribed fire, and more recently, mountain pine beetle 

sanitations; actions very compatible with BHNF and the Vestal 

project. 

Our agencies have frequently cooperated to allow access and 

temporary logging activities between our borders. CSP fully 

participated in assisting BHNF to move forward on Needles II 

and Grizzly II. And, we supported the Norbeck Wildlife 

Preserve project and look forward to a cooperative framework in 

the Roosevelt portion of that project. 

I don’t need to emphasize the critical importance for the publics 

we serve and the resources we manage to continue our interagency cooperation. Because of our shared boundaries and the 

wildlife that cross between our boundaries, we support action 

Alternative #2.

BHNF is fully aware of the considerable work that the State has 

been and is currently conducting within CSP to treat green-hit 

trees before the next beetle flight. Today, I attended the Mt. Pine 

Beetle Response Conservation Leaders meeting. I believe our 

two agencies appreciate the urgency and need to treat in Vestal; 

we both understand the consequences of a failure to timely treat 

these areas. CSP also recognizes the limited capacity and 

infrastructure of the timber industry to accommodate State, 

private and federal land timber removal. 

Custer State Park is currently treating stands adjacent to the 

north park boundary, near the Vestal project. This commercial 

thinning is being done in conjunction with the MPB treatments. 

Your support of Alternative 2 is noted. Thank you for the 

support and cooperation on all projects. 

The Forest Service acknowledges the State’s aggressive 

vegetation treatment program to reduce MPB caused 

mortality within their border. Those treatments will only 

increase the effectiveness of the proposed Vestal 

treatments to reduce MPB caused mortality on this 

landscape we share. It is mutually beneficial to both 

agencies to continue to work cooperatively to address 

MPB and fire hazard along our shared boundary. We 

appreciate and value our working relationship with Custer 

State Park and the State of South Dakota. 

This project may be implemented upon signature of the 

decision. It is estimated that the decision will be signed 

in late spring, 2012. 

We agree that time is of the essence for implementing this 

project. Removing green infested trees and thinning to 

reduce basal area has been shown to be the most effective 

treatments for landscape level reduction of MPB risk. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-148 

Additionally, treatments to areas in CSP adjacent to the Vestal 

project are in development for near term implementation. These 

projects will dovetail nicely with the Vestal project and the 

Roosevelt project when it becomes active. Together these 

projects will serve reduce MPB risk on areas managed by both 

agencies.

47d Appendix A-18 also indicates significant prescribed fire areas 

adjacent to the park boundary. CSP has an active fire program 

and would propose joint activity across the boundary. With 

timber activity occurring on both sides of the fence, the timing 

would be similar and both agencies would benefit from cost 

scale affects. Additionally, fuels and vegetation would benefit 

from joint fire application on a larger scale.

We agree that combining efforts to accomplish prescribed 

burning would be beneficial to both agencies. 

47e NEPA is a time-consuming process and we appreciate the 

expedient efforts put forth in planning Vestal under HFRA. We 

urge BHNF in their communications with industry to 

concentrate immediate treatment efforts in those areas already 

cleared by NEPA, which includes Vestal. HFRA should shorten 

the Decision finalization. If there is anything CSP can do to 

assist in access to BHNF lands adjacent to our boundary and 

sharing resources for prescribed fire, please contact me. 

The majority of the boundary next to CSP is for big game winter 

range. The treatments are varied (free selection, hardwood 

release) and include prescribed fire, whole tree logging and 

closure of temporary roads post-treatment. The multidisciplinary Design Criteria reflect consideration for habitats 

that encompass shared watersheds, and should be protective yet 

afford long-term habitats for big game and other wildlife, 

species that often cross between our boundaries.

Your support and offer of assistance in implementing 

treatments on our adjacent lands is appreciated. 

Your support of proposed treatments within the big game 

winter range management area is noted. 

48 Talli Nauman Dear Ms. or Sir:

I am writing to submit comments on the Vestal Project, which 

would result in the logging of nearly all (99%) of the federal 

forest acres within the Project Area, including in the Sylvan 

Peak, Calamity Peak, and Buckhorn Mountain portions of the 

proposed Okawita Paha National Monument and International 

Peace Park.

Having been raised right on the edge of that project area and 

having had to evacuate my home during a forest fire there, and 

still being a frequent traveler of its trails, I can tell you that I am 

sick and tired of outsiders who have never even seen it making 

decisions on how to use it. It most definitely is not an area apt 

for timbering and I do not want my taxpayer money to go 

See all responses to comment letters 17 and 27

The proposed action is designed to reduce MPB risk and 

fire hazard in this project area. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-149 

toward keeping people like that in their jobs or toward cutting

down the trees for some pop-science reason, much less for 

fighting the inevitable lawsuit(s) that will result from 

proceeding apace with the slashing.

After careful study, I concur with the majority of people who 

think a closer look should be taken, rather than carrying on with 

a business as usual approach. Among the ways this can be 

accomplished, as you probably already know, are:

The first six points of concern of this comment letter addresses 

the same six points of concern as Comment #17.

The 7th and 8th points of concern are the same as addressed in 

Comment #27.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your 

responsiveness.

49a Laura 

Marciniak

Clearcutting doesn't follow best management practices. Why are 

you choosing that option?

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project

49b Selective cutting, removal of debris, and rehabilitation of 

degraded habitat prevents recurrent infestation.

Refer to pages 17-24 in the EIS to view proposed 

treatments.

49c Burning is only recommended in heavily infested areas. Prescribed burning is not proposed as a treatment to 

reduce MPB. Design criteria included in this project 

would delay burning until after MPB has passed through 

this area. 

49d I would ask that you have an independant review of the 

statistical analysis used in this decision.

The Draft EIS was made available to the public for 

review in December 2011. A decision on this project 

will follow the objection period. 

50a Fred 

Heidepriem

Clear cutting or near clear cutting in the Black Hills? When did 

this practice start? 

As a former resident who grew up in the area, and whose family 

resided in the area since the gold rush, I must say that I am 

against these practices. To take trees infested is one thing. To 

also take healthy trees is another thing altogether.

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

The proposed action would respond to the purpose and 

need for action to reduce the threat to forest resources 

from the MPB, by decreasing basal area in high risk 

stands and removing beetle infested trees. These actions 

are recommended by the project entomologist and have 

been shown to be effective in reducing MPB caused 

mortality on the Black Hills National Forest. Reducing 

stand density is a preventative treatment and removing 

beetle infested trees is a suppression treatment. 

The proposed treatments are The vegetation treatments 

included in the proposed action, are accepted silvicultural 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-150 

systems on the Black Hills National Forest – See Forest 

Plan 2408 at page II-25 in the Forest Plan for accepted 

silvicultural systems. Refer also to timber stocking chart 

on page H-2 of the Forest Plan. 

See response to comment 2u on proposed treatments

50b Runoff will become a problem, as will erosion. Too many 

problems, not enough foresight. No. Not today, not ever.

See response to comment 2z on flooding concerns

See response to comment 2z on erosion. 

Runoff and erosion will become a concern if the area is 

burned by a wildfire. If this happens all organic material 

is removed from the soil surface and when rain falls on 

the burned landscape water will run off the landscape. 

Commercial vegetation management leaves most of the 

organics in place and when rain falls, the organics will 

absorb the rainfall and there will not be any runoff. The 

only exception is when there is a large precipitation event 

and undisturbed areas along with disturbed areas will see 

runoff.

51a Duane Short

Biodiversity 

Conservation 

Alliance

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (BCA) is pleased to have 

this opportunity to comment on the Black Hills National Forest 

(BHNF) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

proposed Vestal Project. BCA and the undersigned share serious 

concerns regarding the stated Purpose and Need for this project. 

We generally share concerns regarding the validity and 

questionable legality of the Custer County Citizen Wildfire 

Protection Plan.

See response to comment 2f on the Custer CWPP

51b In addition to concerns regarding the accuracy of statements 

presented as fact in the DEIS we find that recognition and 

attention to best available science is lacking.

See response to comment 39 ff on best available science

51c Our comments incorporate, by reference, the full weight of the 

comments and references in ATTACHMENT 1 and 

ATTACHMENT 2. We have read and are in general agreement 

with the comments of these two attachments which, to our 

understanding, are already in the BHNF bank of Vestal Project 

DEIS comment files. 

We thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.

NOTE: Attachment 1 is a full repeat of comment letter 2. 

Attachment 2 is a full repeat of comment letter 34

51d Below is a partial list of laws we believe to be relevant and 

having the potential to be violated in terms of the Vestal DEIS 

as it is being presented to the public by the Service. 

Relevant laws that the Proposed Vestal Project would likely 

A decision has not yet been issued on this project, and 

speculation whether the project violates legal direction is 

premature. Any decision on this project will comply with 

relevant direction. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-151 

violate:

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (“NFMA”), 16 

U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687, 36 C.F.R. § 219 

• ensure that the project is consistent with the Plan, 16 U. S. C. § 

1604(i); 36 CFR § 219.10(e) (means has to meet plan goals... 

violating or any deviation from these standards requires an 

amendment to the project or an amendment to the forest plan. 

• sustainability: “limit the sale of timber ... to a quantity equal 

to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest 

annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis.” 16 U.S.C. 

1611(a) 

• “hard look” at the science, including citing opposing 

viewpoints [emphasis added] 

NEPA directs that Federal agencies must take a reasonable 

“hard look” at their proposals in light of available information, 

analysis, and the potential for environmental impacts in making 

informed decisions to implement an action or alternative, 

Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). Inherent in the hard 

look provision is the necessity to consider and examine the 

appropriate issues using the most appropriate expertise and 

methodology available. 

The environmental consequences section of an EIS (or EA) 

forms the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of 

alternatives and includes discussion of the adverse impacts that 

cannot be avoided, including direct and indirect impacts, to 

support the comparison of alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.16). The 

CEQ regulations do not specifically mention cumulative impacts 

in the analysis and comparison of alternatives. Because direct 

and indirect impacts are caused by and related to project 

implementation, respectively, they represent the more 

substantive considerations in the alternatives development and 

analysis process, beyond the full disclosure and “hard look” 

provisions of NEPA.

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 

This NFMA provision applies to the Forest level program 

and not to individual projects. 

The purpose and need for action, issues, environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the 

proposed action are presented and meet the hard look 

requirement. 

The environmental consequences of the alternatives 

analyzed in detail are presented in Chapter 3 of the EIS. 

This include direct, indirect and cumulative effects. 

51e Multiple Use-Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-

531 

Not every multiple use is required on every acre of national 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides 

direction for forest planning that is in accordance with, 

under the principles of, and as provided in the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), as stated at several 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-152 

forest. The Service is required to do a relative value analysis. 

We do not find that the Service has undertaken this analysis or 

that it even claims to have done so. The service must make a 

reasoned consideration of what uses may or may not be 

appropriate on a localized area of forest and must consider what 

can be provided by private land nationally (not just locally) in 

determining what use may be given weight to the exclusion of 

other uses on a given area. This requirement has great 

implications in terms of the pre-commercial thinning and other 

proposed treatments resulting in the extraction of timber 

products. 

The Black Hills National Forest does not exist in a vacuum. The 

BHNF is intertwined with reservoirs and watersheds, and 

beyond that, private and state lands which are influenced by 

and, in turn, influence the ecology and economics of the Vestal 

project area. 

Multiple use does necessarily mean that the BHNF “must” 

provide commercial logging or any particular multiple use. 

Multiple use is defined as: 

The management of all of the various renewable surface 

resources of the national forests so that they are utilized 

in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the 

land for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions; that some land will be 

used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious 

and coordinated management of the various resources, 

each with the other, without impairment of the 

productivity of the land, with consideration being given 

to the relative values of the various resources, and not 

necessarily the combination of uses that will give the 

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

16 U.S.C. § 531(a) (1988). 

To further facilitate forest management, Congress passed the 

Resource Planning Act of 1974, which included a provision 

requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to "develop, maintain, 

and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management: plans 

points in the NFMA law. 16 U.S.C. 1604. The Record of 

Decision for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan EIS balanced 

competing needs, and considered the net public benefits, 

as required by NFMA. This accomplished the analysis of 

values described by the commenter. While the 

commenter may have come to a different conclusion had 

they been the Responsible Official, the analysis was 

conducted as required by law, was affirmed on appeal, 

and need not be revisited at the project level. 

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-153 

for units of the National Forest System .... 16 U.S.C. § 1604(a) 

(1988)." This general directive was expanded in the NFMA, 

which required the Secretary to promulgate regulations for the 

development of forest plans that conformed not only to the 

MUSYA but also to the more detailed procedural and 

substantive guidelines set forth in the NFMA itself. 16 U.S.C. § 

1604 (1988). 

Under the NFMA, it is required that this be considered during

planning. (36 CFR 219.1) Pursuant to the language in this act, 

each national forest must complete a relative value analysis to 

comply with both the NFMA regulations and the Multiple Use, 

Sustained Yield Act. An opinion in the U.S. District Court of 

the Southern District of Illinois regarding the forest 

management plan of the Shawnee National Forest addressed this 

issue and explained it in detail.1 (

1 Sierra Club, RACE et al v. 

U.S.D.A., S. Dist. IL 1996, affirmed, 7th Cir. 1998)

MUSYA requires the Secretary to coordinate management of 

the various renewable resources on forest lands with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various 

resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will 

give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 6 

U.S.C. '' 529, 531(a) (1988). We argue that a proper relative 

values analysis requires the Forest Service to consider whether 

such renewable resources are being supplied from the private 

lands surrounding and intermingled with the ...National Forest. 

We argue, further, that the BHNF LRMP fails to adequately 

conduct this type of analysis and, as a result, overemphasizes 

resource uses such as artificially maintained openland areas, 

logging, oil and gas leasing, mining and motorized recreation 

uses and underemphasizes such resource uses as wilderness and 

wildlife habitat for neotropical migratory birds and other birds 

such as the black-backed woodpecker and American dipper 

(formerly water ouzel). 

Congressional findings enacted as part of the NFMA state, in 

relevant part, that Congress finds that . . . 

to serve the national interest, the renewable resource 

program must be based on a comprehensive assessment 

of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply 

of renewable resources from the Nation’s public and 

private forests and rangelands, thorough analysis of 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-154 

environmental and economic impacts, coordination of 

multiple use and sustained yield opportunities as 

provided in the [MUSYA], and public participation in the 

development of the program. 16 U.S.C. ' 1600(3) (1988) 

(emphasis added)...

The legislative history for the NFMA supports the argument that 

Congress intended to have the Forest Service consider the 

resources available on private lands when developing forest 

management plans. In explaining the new provisions in the 

NFMA, the Senate Report states that: 

they further emphasize “. . . the role of private as well as 

public lands in meeting national needs, and the 

responsibility and opportunity for the Forest Service to 

provide leadership in managing and conserving natural 

resources.”2

 

(

 2 S. Rep. No. 893, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1976), 

reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6662, 64563... ) 

The legislative history to the MUSYA provides even more 

persuasive support for relative values analysis focusing on 

localized conditions. 

In explaining the Act’s multiple-use directive, the House Report 

discusses the relative values analysis as follows: 

One of the basic concepts of multiple use is that all of 

these resources, in general, are entitled to equal 

consideration, but in particular for localized areas’ 

relative values of the various resources will be 

recognized.... 

In practice, the priority of resource use will vary locality by 

locality and case by case. In one locality timber use might 

dominate; in another locality use of the range by domestic 

livestock; in another outdoor recreation or wildlife might 

dominate. 

Thus, in particular localities the various resource uses might be 

given priorities because of particular circumstances. This is the 

meaning of the last sentence of section 2 of the bill. However, 

no resource would be given a statutory priority over the others 

[emphasis added]. The bill would neither upgrade nor 

downgrade any resource.3

 

(

3 H.R. Rep. No. 1551, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. _ (1960), reprinted 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-155 

in 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2377. 2379.)

A proper relative values analysis would require the Forest 

Service to consider the particular circumstances of the local area 

in determining how to prioritize resource use in each national 

forest. 

51f In the current situation, not only does the Forest Plan not 

contain any kind of accurate analysis that could be identified as 

a “relative value analysis,” but the priorities established by the 

BHNF were illegally developed and don’t stand up to scientific 

scrutiny... including, but not limited to, the priority of 

maintaining species viability by implementing Best Available 

Science. 

Species viability was analyzed in the Phase II 

Amendment. The Vestal Project is consistent with the 

Revised Forest Plan as Amended by Phase II Amendment 

direction. 

The content of the Forest Plan is outside the scope of this 

project. Any concerns over the Phase II Amendment 

represent a Forest-level planning issue and are outside the 

scope of the Vestal Project. 

51g One of the first relative values that the BHNF should have 

considered is what relatively unique values does the BHNF 

contain that are not contained in surrounding and intertwined 

lands in the nation, region, and locale. 

Obviously, based on easy to find statistics, the number one 

value that the BHNF contains over other lands is that it is under 

public ownership and contains the largest base of land under 

single ownership in that part of the state. It also contains some 

of the largest blocks of forest in the region. Single ownership 

and large forest blocks to the degree found on the BHNF cannot 

be found anywhere else in the region.

The BHNF has been fragmented significantly by past activities, 

and to a great extent by the extensive road system which is one 

of the most dense road systems in our national forests. As one of 

the nation’s most heavily logged national forests the BHNF is 

losing any semblance of a biologically natural forest. 

The surrounding private lands are heavily fragmented as well. It 

is possible that the BHNF could be made to be almost 

contiguous. This would go a long way in beginning to restore 

the natural, native ecology of the region, which is that of being 

heavily forested with old growth, primarily contiguous forest. 

This would be impossible to do on private land without the help 

of significant economic incentives and a very long term public 

education program, which isn’t discussed in the BHNF plan. 

See response to comment 51e 

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-156 

However, the BHNF plan does not discuss, at least in any 

serious manner, how this would value the region compared to 

implementing a plan which focuses on creating early 

successional habitat, retarding old growth forests in many 

places, and continuing to fragment the forest through creating 

openings through logging, burning, opening maintenance, 

roadwork, and other disturbances. 

In order to properly consider the relative value of these 

conditions, the BHNF should have looked at the frequency and 

abundance of the various habitats, including unfragmented, 

maturing forest natural communities elsewhere in the region, 

compared with habitats such as farm fields, pastures, logged 

areas, and other disturbance habitats in the same region. Such an 

honest and scientifically sound analysis would show that the 

natural community associated with a large, unfragmented, 

mature forest is found in few other places in the region on the 

BHNF, and that restoring the contiguous, old growth forest 

community is only possible on the BHNF. Early successional 

habitat is definitely abundant on private land. 

Such an analysis would not be limited to just the other public 

lands in the region, although that is an important analysis, or just 

the ecological issues, although these are important. What is 

going on in terms of habitat availability, land uses, land use 

changes over time, history and culture, and other values on 

private lands in the region are part of that analysis also. But this 

kind of analysis would have to be the basis of any efforts to try 

and prioritize what the BHNF should focus on providing, and 

such an analysis would touch everything from recreation 

management to research, to law enforcement, to dealing with 

ecological issues. Again, the failure of the agency to honestly 

address this shows a bias against providing contiguous, old 

growth forest and toward emphasizing creating habitats through 

logging and burning which are readily available elsewhere. 

Basically, what we are saying here is that one of the multiple 

uses gets more weight than another on BHNF. The BHNF is 

required to provide natural diversity on the forest and not reduce 

diversity unless there is no other alternative [emphasis added].

The BHNF holds some of the last sanctuaries for a number of 

plants and animals, some unique to the Black Hills and others 

representing distinct populations of globally or nationally 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-157 

imperiled species. If these areas within BHNF jurisdiction stop 

providing for diversity, these species have literally, no habitat in 

the region, that will sustain their long-term survival. This fact 

elevates the relative value of biodiversity and wildlife viability 

considerably. The relative value of providing diversity would 

have to be very great in the BHNF, compared to other uses such 

as motorized recreation, grazing, logging, mining and other 

forest fragmenting and degrading uses.

51h MUSYA allows and, in fact, requires the Service to limit certain 

areas of national forest to certain multiple uses. 

Section 529 of the MUSYA directs the Secretary of Agriculture 

"to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of 

the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the 

several products and services obtained there from. In the 

administration of national forests due consideration shall be 

given to the relative values of the various resources in particular 

areas." 16 U.S.C. § 529 (1988). 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) authorization of a 

project does not exempt or, in any sense, allow the Service to 

circumvent or ignore the MUSYA. 

The MUSYA requires the Secretary to coordinate management 

of the various renewable resources on forest lands with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various 

resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will 

give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.” 16 

U.S.C. §§ 529, 531(a) (1988). The legislative history to the 

MUSYA provides more persuasive support for the plaintiffs‚ 

demand for a "relative values" analysis focusing on localized 

conditions. 

In explaining the Act's multiple-use directive, the House Report 

discusses the "relative values" analysis as follows: 

One of the basic concepts of multiple use is that all of these 

resources in general are entitled to equal consideration, but in 

particular or localized areas relative values of the various 

resources will be recognized.... 

A proper Relative “values” analysis would require the Forest 

Service to consider the particular circumstances of the local area 

See response to comment 51e 

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-158 

in determining how to prioritize resource use in each national 

forest. 

However, while this type of analysis might suggest that one use 

might logically predominate over others because of localized 

needs or conditions; it does not require that the forest be 

managed solely for that one particular use. Nor does it require 

the Forest Service to focus entirely upon localized needs at the 

expense of ignoring the national demand for resources that can 

be supplied by a particular forest. On the contrary, the case law 

up to this point gives the agency discretion to determine the 

proper uses for various localized areas of the forest.

To summarize this, although a forest is governed by "multipleuse," that does not mean that every multiple use is to be on 

every acre of national forest. The forest must comply with the 

substantive and detailed guidelines in the NFMA regulations 

and therefore should set forth in its Forest Plan how the multiple 

uses are going to be provided in a way that also meets the 

requirements in the NFMA regulations. In essence, the Service 

must assess the relative values of the various Geographic Areas 

and throughout forest as a whole.

51i One of the requirements is to provide for natural diversity. In 36 

CFR 219.27(g) it is required that "Management prescriptions, 

where appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall preserve 

and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, 

including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal 

species, so that it is at least as great as that which would be 

expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species 

similar to that existing in the planning area. Reductions in 

diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species from 

that which would be expected in a natural forest, or from that 

similar to the existing diversity in the planning area, may be 

prescribed only where needed to meet overall multiple-use 

objectives. 

A related regulation is found at 219.26, which requires that, 

"Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities and tree species consistent with the overall 

multiple-use objectives of the planning area. Such diversity shall 

be considered throughout the planning process. Inventories shall 

include quantitative data making possible the evaluation of 

diversity in terms of its prior and present condition. For each 

planning alternative, the interdisciplinary team shall consider 

The Revised Forest Plan as Amended complied with all 

applicable laws and regulations. See response to 51e 

above. 

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-159 

how diversity will be affected by various mixes of resource 

outputs and uses, including proposed management practices. 

(Refer to § 219.27(g).)" We fail to find any indication in the 

DEIS that the Service has conducted such inventories. 

We argue that the Service has failed to consider diversity in 

terms of multiple use management, which means that it has 

failed to consider the relative values forest-wide of all of the 

potential areas to provide for diversity. One of the BHNF key 

tools for doing this is found in management areas—which may 

include Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zones in some 

cases)—reductions in diversity of plant and animal communities 

and trees species from that which would be expected in a natural 

forest, or from that similar to the existing diversity in the 

planning area, may be prescribed only where needed to meet 

multiple use objectives.

51j We believe the BHNF fails to have an adequate cumulative 

impact analysis—forestwide—and to have a valid forest plan. 

This, we believe, renders project level decisions arbitrary and 

capricious in both lay and legal senses of the terms. The BHNF 

excludes multiple uses, such as e.g., wildlife viability, wildlife 

habitat, old growth and old growth obligate values, and 

watershed protection in the Vestal DEIS. The Service must have 

an adequate analysis that demonstrates the relative values of the 

different types of land on the forest, and it has to consider how 

private land may or may not be able to supply the same types of 

needs on a national basis. We see no such analysis.

The assignment of relative values which could lead to the 

exclusion of a certain multiple use on a localized piece of 

national is something that has to be done in the forest plan, and 

its impact has to be analyzed in accordance with NEPA, and 

subjected to public comment. So, without having an adequate 

plan and EIS, which is so clearly demonstrated in the Vestal 

DEIS, it is practically and legally unlikely that the Service is 

proposing Vestal in a manner that is in compliance with 

MUSYA.

The Revised Forest Plan as Amended complied with all 

applicable laws and regulations. See response to 51e 

above. 

The Vestal project will be consistent with standards in the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as required by law. 

51k-1 NEPA: 42 U.S.C. § 4332, 40 CFR § 1502 (d) conduct an 

environmental analysis to evaluate the effects of the specific 

project and to contemplate alternatives 

• Public involvement o Reliable sources suggest public 

involvement is lacking.4 (

4 D. Bainbridge – Comment LetterDEIS Vestal Project ATTACHMENT 2)

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

involvement
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-160 

• Reasonable Range of Alternatives o Only considers action vs. 

no action. NEPA 102(2) 

• Purpose and Need lacks substance 

Also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502 – site specific plan

CEQ Regulations 

Under CEQ regulation, USFS must “[e]xplain why the 

comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the 

sources, authorities, or reasons supporting the agency’s position 

and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances that would 

trigger agency reappraisal or further response.” 40 C.F.R. § 

1503.4. 

See response to comments 2e and 2o on alternatives 

The assertion that the purpose and need lacks substance is 

unclear. The purpose and need for action is discussed in 

Chapter 1 of the EIS. Also see response to comment 2e.

See all responses to comments in this table, which meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 1503.4 

51k-2 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 

• Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) – We consider 

the Custer County CWPP to be an invalid plan for this project. 

(See D. Bainbridge, Attachment 2) 

• HFRA requires the CWPP be agreed to by the applicable local 

government, local fire department and state agency responsible 

for forest management. Sec 101 (3) (A) (B) (C). There is no 

documentation that it was ever formally accepted by the local 

fire department or by the State Department of Agriculture, 

Division of Forestry. DEIS says there is a three mile WUI, but 

there is not such description in the plan. 

• defines WUI in § 101(16) in places w/o CWPP 

• public participation requirements in §§ 104(e) and 

104(f). 

o no community involvement until May 11, 

2011 public meeting. 

• establish and conform with “annual program of work” 

§ 103(a) 

• Sivicultural assessments § 404 

o A separate DEIS for each area, peer review, 

and public notice should be offered. 

• Consideration of alternatives 16 USC 6514 /104 (c) 

must consider additional action alternative if it is 

proposed during the scoping process and meets the 

purpose and need as defined in CEQ regulations. 

• Consideration of alternatives 16 USC 6514/104 (d)(1) 

See all responses to comment letter 2 – Bainbridge 

See response to comment 2f on CWPP

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration

See response to comment 2c on program of work

See response to comment 2nn on Sec 404 of HFRA

See response to comments 2e and 2o on alternatives 

 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-161 

and (2) – need to consider action alternative because 

the project to be conducted is located further than 11⁄2 

miles from an at-risk community. 

51k-3 Service failed to cite sources for these requirements

analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions.

Chapter 3 of the Vestal EIS contains analysis of 

resources, including direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects. See Appendix F for a list of past, present and 

future activities. 

51l Forest Management Plan Goals 

The proposed action in the DEIS is incongruent and in 

opposition to the listed standards for 

• soil disturbance (1110, 1103) 

• surface water run-off (1112, 1113 and 1116) 

• stream channels (1201, 1209) 

• riparian areas (1301 and 1302) 

• structural diversity standard (2101, 2104, 2106, 2107) 

• 2406, 2407, 2408, 2414 

• manage tree stands to enhance the scenic quality and 

recreational opportunities (5610) 

See response to comment 2w on 1103, 1110, 1112, 1113, 

1116, 1201, 1209, 1301, 1302 

See response to comment 2x on 2101, 2106, 2107

See response to comment 2pp on comment 2104

See response to comment 2rr on 2406 and 2407

See response to comment 2oo on 2408

See response to comment 2ss on 2414 

See response to comment 2jj on 5610 

51m Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic

BCA, having commented on many BHNF projects finds the 

Service to arbitrarily declare mountain pine beetle (MPB) 

infestations as “epidemic” or “not” from one project to the next 

and in some cases within a single proposed project the Service 

claims the project area is experiencing a MPB epidemic in one 

paragraph and “not” in another paragraph or section. In “every” 

case, the Service’s ever-changing descriptions of the severity of 

the MPB outbreak serve to support it proposed actions. This 

phenomenon has not gone unnoticed. 

Rattlesnake, Herman, Briggs Springs and other BHNF projects 

demonstrate the Service’s inconsistent, incoherent and arbitrary 

language usage in its discussion on the severity of the MPB 

outbreak in the BHNF. In no case, even after repeated requests 

from the public, has the Service provided its criteria for 

determining what conditions constitute a MPB epidemic.

The definitions below are from Schmid et al 2007. 

Generally, going from endemic to epidemic occurs when 

there begins to be groups of 5 or more trees showing up, 

particularly in consecutive years. 

While MPB population level definitions are usually

generalizations because precise knowledge of population

numbers is difficult to obtain, some improvements

in the definitions can be made. Drawing from the 

previous definitions and using the frequency of MPBattacked trees per year from our five locations, the 

following definitions are proposed:

Endemic: usually <1 but occasionally two MPB attacked

trees per 5 or more acres per year. Most of

the time, the number of MPB-attacked trees will be

<1 tree per 10 or more acres. However, an endemic

MPB population may attack two adjacent, narrowly

spaced trees so two trees per 5 acres is recognized as

being endemic. In endemic situations, one of the two 

trees will probably be a pitchout and pitchouts may

be found more frequently than successfully attacked

trees.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-162 

Incipient Epidemic: two or more groups of three

to four MPB-attacked trees per group on 40 to

320 acres for 2 to 3 consecutive years. The appearance

of a single group of three or four infested trees

in any particular year (for example, Sartwell and

Stevens [1975] definition) may signal an incipient

epidemic, but when considered over a landscape of

20 to 50 acres, it might be a 1-year anomaly. The 

incipient level represents the transition from endemic

to epidemic but recognizes that at the beginning

of an epidemic, MPB populations do not usually

increase rapidly because the number of trees per

group increases slowly and infested groups have not 

coalesced.

Epidemic: several groups of four or more MPB attacked

trees per group on 20 to 320 acres over 2 to

3 consecutive years, especially if the number of trees

per group is increasing and groups are coalescing.

As for the incipient epidemic definition, the appearance

of two to three groups on 50 acres for 1 year

may be an anomaly, but their continued presence in

succeeding years indicates otherwise. In contrast to

the incipient epidemic condition where numbers of

infested trees are increasing relatively slowly, the

number of infested trees per group in specific stands

in the epidemic condition may increase tenfold.

51n The Vestal DEIS suggests the Service can predict, even down to 

small, precise areas, where beetle risks are high or low. This 

suggestion is preposterous. From British Columbia Canada to 

New Mexico national forest managers have been incapable of 

predicting MPB outbreaks, much less, when and where they will 

occur. Thus, the current state of our North American ponderosa, 

lodgepole and select conifer forests. 

Whether a true epidemic is occurring in part or the entire Vestal 

project is a very important concern because the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act is triggered only when the risks to the health of 

a forest is considered an emergency. The public has been given 

essentially no information that would allow informed comment 

on the Service’s declarations that such an emergency exists. The 

Service is basically telling, not asking, the public to blindly 

“Trust” their ill-defined declarations. 

The determination of MPB risk in the Black Hills is based 

on the density and tree size and correlated to structural 

stages. (Forest Plan FEIS page III-385 and Appendix B14 Table B5, including rating guide, updated August 

2011.) 

Stands need to have an average diameter of over 7 inches 

to sustain a beetle epidemic. In both even aged and 

uneven aged stands, trees with a moderate to larger DBH 

are usually in the first rounds to be attacked. Thinning 

stands produces trees that are more vigorous. Stands that 

are more vigorous, thinned, will produce trees that have 

better phloem quality, however, the change in 

microclimate habitat causing the beetles to not like the 

thinned stands is a greater deterrent than the increase in 

phloem quality. Unthinned stands are always in a 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-163 

The Vestal DEIS, as do many recent BHNF projects, claims that 

thinning and other logging regimes will control the current 

MPB. Best Available Science clearly refutes this claim.

We ask that the Service address this matter before moving 

forward with the project. If this matter is not addressed we 

request the service to abandon the Vestal Project with the 

exception that Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas where 

wildfire immediately threatens private, state and Forest Service 

structures or human safety be treated using efficient and 

effective means. And WUI treatments should occur only when 

and where private land owners have made their property 

Firewise in accordance with all applicable laws, policies, 

standards and guidelines.

functional drought as trees compete with each other for 

water and other resources. This reduces the amount of 

oleoresins that are produced, which are the trees main 

defense against MPB. Thinning also produces greater air 

circulation which causes a change in the dispersal of 

aggregation pheromones. Again, long term research has 

consistently shown that stands with reduced basal area are 

less likely to sustain a MPB epidemic than unthinned 

stands, Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005. Mountain pine 

beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots 

surrounded by unmanaged stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP54. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 11 p; and 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.) 

There is an epidemic occurring within the Vestal project 

at this time. See Appendix H in the EIS. 

This project does not propose to control the MPB 

epidemic in the project area. Refer to the purpose and 

need in Chapter 1 of the EIS. 

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, 2011; Allen, 2011b; Allen, 2011c). 

This information was used by the Forest Supervisor in 

making a determination that an epidemic is occurring in 

the Vestal area. 

A map showing the progression of MPB from 2005-2011 

has been added to Appendix B of the EIS. Refer to map 

11. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of MPB treatments
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-164 

51o This project is stated by the Service to be authorized under the 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (hereafter, HFRA), Title I, 

Section 102 (a) (4) and to have been designed under guidelines 

presented in the National Fire Protection Association (hereafter, 

NFPA) Publication 299, Protection of Life Property from

Wildfire. 

NFPA Standard 299 has been revised and was released in 2002 

as NFPA Standard 1144 (NFPA 2002).5

 (5, 2 Forests at the 

Wildlands-Urban Interface. Conservation and Management. 

Edited by Susan W. Vince, Mary L Duryea, Edward A. Macie, 

and L. Annie Hermansen. CRC Press. Washington D.C. 2004.) 

We request the Forest to explain exactly which Standard it is 

using and has the Forest applied NFPA Our question is whether 

the Forest explored and considered any of the aforementioned or 

other standards as options. Furthermore, NFPA Publication 299 

does not bind nor otherwise constrain the Forest from 

considering other standards that may incorporate more recent 

science and experiential data. In fact, NFPA Standard 229 

explicitly states, “This standard shall not be used to set forth the 

general fire protection features or procedures addressed in other 

standards.” (See Application 1.3.2 below, p. 2.)

1.3 Application. 

1.3.1 This standard shall not be construed as prohibiting any 

construction or planning features that will provide fire 

protection at least as equivalent to that required by this standard 

and that which has been set forth by the authority having 

jurisdiction. 

1.3.2 This standard shall not be used to set forth the general fire 

protection features or procedures addressed in other standards. 

1.3.3 The authority having jurisdiction shall use recognized fire 

protection measures to meet local conditions. 

1.3.4 When unusual local conditions exist, the authority having 

jurisdiction shall determine equivalent requirements that provide 

a level of protection no less than would be afforded by full 

compliance with this standard. 

See response to comments 2f and 2l on qualifications 

under HFRA

The NFPA is referenced in the EIS at 

discussions on Forest objective 10-01, which 

notes , “Objective 10-01: Manage for 50 to 75 

percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in the 

wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard 

within proximity of structures to current NFPA 

standards”. 

NFPA 1144, Standard for Protection of Life and Property 

from Wildfire 2002 Edition, was used in conjunction with 

the Forest Plan as part of the Vestal Project. Chapter 4 of 

NFPA 1144 identifies the measures needed regarding 

Assessment and Planning. 4.1.2 identifies the analysis 

which should take place, all elements of which can be 

found in the Fire/Fuels specialist report. 

 

51p As stated in the Forest’s Purpose and Need Statement we do not 

accept that timber harvest activities, as proposed, serve in any 

capacity to reduce the spread of the mountain pine beetle 

The purpose and need for the Vestal project includes 

reducing the threat to forest resources from the existing 

mountain pine beetle epidemic. It does not include any 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-165 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae), (hereafter, MPB) or the spruce 

bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis), (hereafter, SBB). 

Removing all ponderosa pine from the entire Black Hills 

National Forest would quite effectively stop the spread of the 

MPB. No one would refute this point. Spotty clearcutting, on the 

other hand, offers no such result. Proposed clearcut and POLs 

units scattered throughout the project area will do nothing to 

affect current and little, if anything to influence the nature of 

future MPB outbreaks. The MBNF long history of thinning and 

clearcutting did not prevent this current outbreak. Future 

clearcutting and thinning will, likewise produce similarly 

ineffectual results. 

In the past ten years, the Forest has done work that has affected 

32,611+ acres (former Forest Supervisor, Mary Peterson, Casper 

Star-Tribune LTE, February 14, 2008). Our question is, “what 

does the forest have to show for this work other than that some 

work was done?” In the past ten+ years the beetle epidemic has 

spread exponentially, more than 7,500 percent from the acreage 

affected by beetle-kill in1996. How much of this work, for 

example, logging that affected the 32,611 acres on the Medicine 

Bow National Forest could have been more effectively directed 

specifically to WUI areas in the past ten years and where 

virtually everyone agrees the work is needed most?

mention of spruce bark beetle. 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

The remainder of this comment appears to pertain to the 

Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF) which is outside 

the scope of this project. 

51q The Forest Service has acknowledged in official documents and 

repeatedly in newspaper accounts that “nothing can be done to 

stop or slow the beetle epidemic.” Again, virtually everyone 

supports efforts to efficiently and effectively protect WUI areas 

with only the question of who should pay as a point of 

controversy. Clearcutting nor any other management 

prescription proposed in the project does anything to stop or 

slow the MPB epidemic. BCA suggests that the Forest’s claim 

that clearcuts farther than 0.5 mile from the nearest private 

property serve to protect homes and structures are false. 

Countless scientific studies and recounted experiences 

collectively suggest that efforts should be concentrated 

immediately around homes to achieve both efficient and 

effective protection from wildfire. Real life examples ranging 

from brush fires to severe and large forest fires bear out research 

scientist, Jack Cohen’s, findings. Below are two random 

examples. 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comments 35e on effectiveness of 

proposed treatments. 

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk 

in the Black Hills

All literature citation provided in scoping or in comments 

on the DEIS have been reviewed by resource specialists. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-166 

American Perspectives on the Wildland/Urban Interface (2005), 

Epilogue by Jack Cohen 

Jack Cohen is a Research Scientist with the USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana 

The research indicates that the most effective things we can do 

to reduce the home ignition potential is directed at the home and 

its immediate surroundings within 100 to 200 feet. I call this 

area, the home and its immediate surroundings, the home 

ignition zone. Vegetation removal in the zone around a home 

should be done to reduce fire intensity and prevent any flames 

from contacting the structure. This keeps flames from providing 

sufficient heat to the home-fuel. Even high intensity wildfires 

burning at distances beyond 100 to 200 feet are not capable of 

directly igniting a home’s wood walls. Firebrands only threaten 

the home if they ignite the home-fuel directly—by getting into 

interior spaces or collecting on exterior flammable surfaces. We 

want to reduce the home-fuel availability to firebrands by 

eliminating unobstructed openings and highly flammable 

conditions at locations of firebrand collection.

We assert that the proposal erroneously claims the proposed 

logging activities will predictably and significantly reduce the 

risk and hazard of catastrophic wildfire in proximity of private 

lands and homes located within and adjacent to the analysis area 

boundary.

Both concerns, ineffective beetle epidemic control and 

unnecessary, ineffective, and inefficient fuels reduction actions 

will be discussed in more detail later in these comments.

Cohen addresses the importance of providing defensible 

space around homes and to use non-flammable materials 

in construction and eliminate openings. These are 

certainly advisable practices to home owners who choose 

to live in wooded areas. 

The purpose and need for the Vestal project includes 

reducing MPB risk and fire hazard, in summary – see 

Chapter 1 in the EIS. 

See response to comments 39aa through 39ee on Cohen

Wildfire risk is the probability of an ignition. No change 

to wildfire risk is expected with any alternative. 

Fire hazard specific to this project area was analyzed per 

BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 and associated 

Fire Rating guide, August 2011) 

51r We support, with certain reservations such as those expressed 

by Deidre Bainbridge (Attachment 2), efforts to provide safety 

to private concerns that willingly chose to live in a public forest 

setting that is known to experience frequent wildfires that are

sometimes catastrophic in nature. We do not support fire 

suppression efforts that cannot be justified by peer-reviewed 

science or in terms of cost effectiveness per the recent finding 

by the Office of Inspector General Audit Report, Forest Service 

Large Fire Suppression Costs - Report No. 08601-44-SF. 

November 2006. The DEIS does not specify how many units of 

or the total value of private buildings, structures, and other 

facilities would supposedly be protected by implementing this 

proposed action. It is therefore impossible for the public to even 

estimate the costs/benefits of this proposal, strictly in terms of 

See responses to all comments in letter 2 – Bainbridge

The Vestal project does not propose fire suppression 

efforts. It proposes to reduce fire hazard. 

See response to comments 2bb and 2ee on socioeconomics

The EIS does discuss private lands. Approximately 40% 

of the project area is private lands and there are 

approximately 3,200 structures within the project area. 

The Vestal project surrounds the community of Custer, 

therefore there are substantial values at risk throughout 

this area. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-167 

assessed values of potentially affected structures and property. 

The Forest would do a great public service if it provided 

information about the private property being protected, e.g., 

how many private landowners are being protected, how many 

citizens are directly affected, what is the value of the property 

(structures, buildings, facilities & etc.) per landowner/per 

citizen. What are the actual costs of the proposed action?

51s While we do not support the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (hereafter, HFRA) in its entirety, we agree that the Forest is 

authorized to expedite National Environmental Policy Act 

(hereafter, NEPA) processes upon determination that ecosystem 

components are severely threatened by MPBs and/or Spruce 

Bark Beetles (SBBs). We assert, however, that, while authority 

exists to expedite action there is no mandate to act for the sake 

of acting. It was our expectation that although process is being 

expedited, the Forest would exercise due diligence as it 

examines its alternatives (options) concerning beetle control and 

wildfire prevention and/or suppression efforts. We, in recent 

years have suggested the Forest examine most recent peerreviewed science relating to MPB control, in particular, and 

MPB effects on wildfire risks and character where various 

management regimes have been compared and contrasted to 

each other and no action controls (BCA Spruce Gulch Scoping 

Comments, Feb. 2008). Having authority to expedite analysis is 

not authority to forego NEPA rules and regulations or to 

circumvent NEPA’s “hard look” and other EIS requirements. 

We, again, request the Forest examine the full body of most 

recent scientific literature that suggests environmental 

conditions prior to and during beetle infestations, and prior to 

and during wildfire are the primary determinants of wildfire 

risks and character, i.e., wildfire scope and intensity. Scientific 

consensus indicates environmental conditions following both 

MPB infestation and wildfire are also the primary determinants 

of residual (after) effects on the forest landscape, wildlife, water 

quality, erosion and etc.

We continue to respect the Forest’s eagerness to “do something” 

about the MPB epidemic and to mitigate its effects. We caution, 

however, that we do not support a “do something... even if it’s 

wrong” or “do something... even if there is no or insufficient 

science to support what is done” approach to MPB control and 

wildfire suppression.

There are no Spruce bark beetles in the Vestal project. 

The Vestal project is an authorized project under Section 

102(a)(4) of the HFRA. See Appendix H of the EIS for 

the determination that an epidemic is occurring in this 

area. 

See response to comments 2e and 2o on alternatives

All literature citation provided have been reviewed by 

resource specialists as documented in this table, or in the 

project file. No literature citations are provided in this 

comment. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-168 

51t EXISTING CONDITIONS 

We agree with the Forest that a beetle epidemic is well 

underway and now has even reached its peak rate of spread 

threshold. The MPB outbreak is likely to continue and we do 

not dispute that the outbreak is severe. We assert, however that 

that this beetle epidemic is not without precedent (as stated by 

Region 2 Forester, Rick Cables in a January 15, 2008 Denver 

Post news article). “The bark infestation has spread 

dramatically,” he [Cables] said. “This is an unprecedented 

event." Although the root cause(s) may be different from 

historic cause(s), this is certainly not an unprecedented event. 

Cable’s statement is indicative of a universal problem existing 

today. Some land and resource managers tend to believe and 

operate as though all that has happened on this planet happened 

during humanity’s ability to record history. This is a very nonscientific and, in fact, irrational approach to forest or any other 

ecosystem management.Worse, is the misinformation conveyed 

to the public. Just as catastrophic wildfire has occurred, 

repeatedly, throughout the natural history of our montane forests 

insect infestations have too. 

This outbreak is certainly alarming in terms of human historical 

experience. While a couple of centuries of experiential history 

seem significant, this window of experience is miniscule when 

compared and contrasted to multi-millennial forest natural 

history. This science generated multi-millennial history bears 

out the cyclical nature of bark beetle outbreaks and epidemics. 

Within these cycles are episodes of severe beetle epidemics. 

Again, the natural causes are thought to be related to 

environmental conditions favorable to beetles and unfavorable 

to, in this case, lodgepole pine and a few other non-preferred 

conifers.

Scientists generally agree that this current MPB outbreak is 

related to four primary factors.

Four Fundamental Factors

•Drought: Long-term drought stresses trees and makes them 

more vulnerable to insects. A drought-stressed tree cannot 

produce sufficient sap to smother invading beetle larvae.

•Seasonal Duration: Unusually warm and long summers further 

stress trees and may accelerate growth and enhance the 

fecundity of the insects

Your concurrence that a MPB epidemic is occurring is 

noted. 

The 2008 article referred to pertains to the MPB epidemic 

in Colorado and southern Wyoming, not the Black Hills. 

See response to comment 24b on effect of weather and 

temp to MPB in the Black Hills

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of MPB treatments

See response to comment 35e-1 and 35f on review of 

Foster Paper

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk 

in the Black Hills

See response to comment 38j on climate change
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-169 

•Temperature: Warmer than normal winters enhance survival of 

insect larvae. 

•Shifting Seasons: Extended early springtime periods of cold 

lasting at least two weeks with temperatures remaining below20° to -40°F are required to kill beetle larvae and halt outbreaks.

Temperature is the common element of all four factors. 

Questions remain as to how much of the trend toward higher 

temperatures in the project area relate to global warming but the 

overwhelming scientific consensus is that human causes are 

driving up, at least in part, global temperatures. Whether we 

attribute the four fundamental factors to human causes or not the 

beetle epidemic is here and the Forest has publicly stated that 

nothing can be done to stop its spread (Region 2 Regional 

Forester, Rick Cables, Denver Post Jan. 15, 2008).

An earlier Denver Post article (Aug. 2, 2007) reported.

After nine years of research Dominik Kulakowski, a professor 

of geography and biology concluded, “There is a risk of fire, but 

that risk was here prior to the outbreak of pine beetles," 

(referring to beetle-devastated areas in Summit County, CO.) 

Logging dead trees in reaction to the current beetle outbreak - 

which has decimated an estimated 660,000 acres of Colorado 

pine forests - shouldn't be confused with efforts to reduce 

wildfire hazards, Kulakowski said.

"We're sort of barking up the wrong tree if we're trying to 

mitigate the fire risk by dealing with the bark-beetle outbreak," 

he said. 

Property owners and communities should carve out "defensible 

spaces" to protect development from forest fires, said Barry 

Smith, the emergency- management director for Eagle County, 

but culling dead trees deeper in the forests is not ecologically 

necessary. 

"There is a little bit of increased fire danger when we have these 

trees with the red needles on them," he said. 

"They'll ignite similar to gasoline. But in a year or two, when 

the needles drop off and we have the ghost trees, we call them - 

the gray trees - the fire danger will diminish," Smith said. 

This 2007 article pertains to the mountain pine beetle 

epidemic in Colorado, not the Black Hills. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-170 

Research teams lead by respected forest ecologist, Bill Romme 

have supplied volumes of data to support the above newsprint 

quotes. 

In spite of the Forest’s Purpose and Need for the Project 

statement that this project will reduce the spread of mountain 

pine beetles in the Vestal analysis area and reduce the current 

mountain pine beetle population in forested stands dominated by 

ponderosa pine trees, respectively, the issue of whether or not 

anything can be done to stop or slow the spread of the MPB is a 

dead issue. The science is clear and the Forest has 

acknowledged such, the MPB epidemic cannot be slowed or 

stopped at this point in time. 

The above is Background Information the public must be 

presented in clear and uncertain terms. We will address the 

distinct, if not separate, issue of wildfire suppression in the 

context that environmental conditions, not fuels management 

regimes, are the primary determinant of wildfire risks and 

character following MPB infestations.

The purpose and need for the Vestal project says to “... 

reduce the threat to forest resources from the existing 

MPB epidemic....” The Vestal project does not propose 

to stop the MPB epidemic. 

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of treatments to reduce risk to MPB 

51u Wildland Urban Interface Areas 

We agree with the Forest that Wildland-Urban Interface areas 

are the highest priority in terms of wildfire suppression efforts. 

We do not support, however, the extent to which the Forest 

proposes to implement fuels reduction activities.

See response to comment 2g on WUI

51v The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) and component 

definitions 

These definitions originated in the Federal Register (66:751, 

2001) report on WUI communities at risk from fire (USDA & 

USDI, 2001), and Tie and Weatherford’s 2000 report to the 

Western Governor’s Association on WUI fire risk. The 

Wildland-Urban Interface is prefaced with the following 

introductory remarks. “The Wildland-Urban Interface is where 

houses meet or intermingle with wildland vegetation. The WUI 

is where wildfire poses the biggest risk to human lives and 

structures. It is also an area of widespread habitat fragmentation, 

introduction of invasive species and biodiversity loss.” 

• Housing density Housing density information was derived 

from U.S. Census data. Analysis was conducted at the finest 

demographic spatial scale possible, Census blocks, from the 

2000 Census. All measures of housing density are reported as 

See response to comment 2g on WUI 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-171 

the number of housing units per square kilometer. 

• Landcover We utilized the National Land Cover Dataset, a 

satellite data classification produced by the USGS with 30m 

resolution based on 1992/93 imagery and available for the entire 

U.S. (Vogelmann et al. 2001) to identify 'wildlands'. Our 

definition of 'wildlands' encompasses a range of management 

intensities. NLCD classes that we included as 'wildlands' are 

forests (coniferous, deciduous and mixed), native grasslands, 

shrubs, wetlands, and transitional lands (mostly clear-cuts). We 

exclude orchards, arable lands (e.g., row crops) and pasture. 

• The Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) WUI is composed of 

both interface and intermix communities. In both interface and 

intermix communities, housing must meet or exceed a minimum 

density of one structure per 40 acres (16 ha). Intermix 

communities are places where housing and vegetation 

intermingle. In intermix, wildland vegetation is continuous, 

more than 50 percent vegetation, in areas with more than 1 

house per 16 ha. Interface communities are areas with housing 

in the vicinity of contiguous vegetation. Interface areas have 

more than 1 house per 40 acres, have less than 50 percent 

vegetation, and are within 1.5 mi of an area (made up of one or 

more contiguous Census blocks) over 1,325 acres (500 ha) that 

is more than 75 percent vegetated. The minimum size limit 

ensures that areas surrounding small urban parks are not 

classified as interface WUI

• Buffer Distance for Interface The California Fire Alliance 

(2001) defined "vicinity" as all areas within 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of 

wildland vegetation, roughly the distance that firebrands can be 

carried from a wildland fire to the roof of a house. It captures 

the idea that even those homes not sited within the forest are at 

risk of being burned in a wildland fire. We adopt this buffer 

distance to identify interface areas. With minimum housing 

densities, vegetation types, and interface buffer distances 

determined, the operational definition of the WUI is complete: 

It is clear from the Forest Service’s own language that the 

management of WUI areas are not to be taken lightly. We 

request the Forest assure each Non-Forest Ownership area, in 

fact, qualifies as Wildland-Urban Interface. 

While virtually everyone agrees that qualified private property 

Funding for Forest Service programs of work is done 

through annual appropriations. There is no funding 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-172 

in WUI areas warrants protection, a significant measure of 

controversy exists concerning the means, methods, and funding 

of such protection.

BCA contends that landowners who willingly choose to live in 

large forested areas known to be predisposed to wildfire should 

bear a fair share of the cost and risk associated with their choice. 

Likewise, the Forest should implement no more or less than fair 

and reasonable actions toward the protection of private property 

and expend funds likewise. 

The largest community protection zone required under maximal 

conditions is less than 500 meters (1640 feet) wide. However, 

most communities require treatment extending less than 400 

meters (1312 feet) from the house (Nowicki, 2002)7 (see 

Attachment 1). 

(

7 Nowicki, Brian. The Community Protection Zone: Defending 

Houses and Communities from the Threat of Forest Fire. Center 

for Biological Diversity August 2002) 

Vegetation management beyond the structure’s immediate 

vicinity has little effect on house ignitions (Cohen and Saveland 

1997).8 Cohen (1999)9 stated, “The evidence suggests that 

wildland fuel reduction for reducing home losses may be 

inefficient and ineffective. Inefficient because wildland fuel 

reduction for several hundred meters or more around homes is 

greater than necessary for reducing ignitions from flames. 

Ineffective, because it does not sufficiently reduce firebrand 

ignitions.” 

(

8 Cohen, Jack D, and Jim Saveland. 1997. Structure ignition 

assessment can help reduce fire damages in the W-UI. Fire 

Management Notes 57(4): 19-23.) 

(

9 Cohen, Jack D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to 

homes: where and how much? USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report. PSW-GTR-173.) 

mechanism available to obligate outyear funding to this 

project. 

Nowicki 2002 – was reviewed. This paper concludes that 

vegetation near homes is most important to keeping them 

safe. The Forest Service encourages private landowners 

to create defensible space around their homes. The 

Vestal project purpose and need does not only include 

protection of private property from wildfire. See Chapter 

1 in the EIS.

Cohen and Saveland, 1997 are referring to vegetation 

management in respect to flame exposure. Cohen et al. 

still show that firebrands from vegetation can ignite 

structures “vegetation management away from the 

structure would not affect ignition from flame exposure 

and would not significantly reduce ignitions from 

firebrands.” (pg.22). However, Cohen et al. further state 

that “However, 150, feet (46m) represents a very short 

distance for firebrands.” (pg.22). 

Cohen (1999), in the following sentence states “To be 

effective, given no modification of home ignition 

characteristics, wildland vegetation management would 

have to significantly reduce firebrand production and 

potentially extend for several kilometers away from 

homes.” (pg. 192). Therefore, Cohen (1999) is showing a 

need for vegetation management to reduce firebrand 

ignitions in the WUI

The Vestal project purpose and need includes “...protect 

local communities and watersheds from large-scale, high 

intensity wildfire...” . The community of Custer is 

surrounded by the Vestal project area. Substantial values 

are at risk from wildfire, in this community. The Vestal 

project proposes a landscape level approach to reducing 

fire hazard surrounding the community of Custer. The 

provided literature was reviewed. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-173 

51w COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS 

We wish to remind the Forest that HFRA authorization does not 

mandate action nor is a license to start a project specific 

Collaboration Process from a maximum baseline as though this 

maximum is a reasonable and ecologically sustainable 

benchmark. NEPA statutes require baseline information that 

reflects a reasonable representation of any given analysis area’s 

carrying capacity relative to proposed projects and actions. 

Simply holding up HFRA allowances as a starting point is not 

consistent with NEPA which has historically been applied as 

early in the planning process as possible. 

Collaboration, alone, does not constitute commitment. We assert 

that the Forest is no position to adopt a “we will make it up 

[how the work gets done] as we go strategy.” Without legally 

binding commitments, on-the-ground work seldom is 

completed. Without legally binding contracts that assure all the 

work will be completed to satisfy all laws, rules, regulations, 

and policies the Forest is obligated to fulfill this project and the 

Forest Service is poised to fail. Failure to apply this bit of 

common sense will leave the forest a literal mess, one that could 

leave the forest and its wildlife in a far worse condition than the 

beetles leave it. 

We see no evidence that the Forest Service has or will secure 

such legally binding contracts prior to issuing a Final Decision, 

should this project move forward. Given the ambitious nature of 

the project we fail to understand how the Forest Service can 

possibly satisfy the need to produce legally binding contracts 

prior to issuing a Record of Decision that will see the project 

through, should the Forest move forward with the project.

The Forest Service, from the Inspector General’s Office 

(Assistant Inspector General, Robert Young) to the Forest’s 

Western Region Chief Financial Officer (Jesse L. King) to 

Wildland-Urban Interface Work Teams, including FireWise 

Groups throughout the nation, are calling for private and other 

non-forest ownerships to contribute their fair share of the 

immense human resource and financial costs associated with 

WUI fire protection. 

Although the Forest is offering Stewardship and Partnership 

opportunities, to date, indicators suggest there are far too few 

The Forest Service is aware that HFRA does not mandate 

action. It provides for expedited processes on authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects, such as Vestal. 

The affected environment for all resources is discussed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS. The alternative effects are also 

discussed in Chapter 3. 

See response to comment 2b on scoping and public 

collaboration. 

Preparing contracts to complete proposed activities is 

outside the scope of this project. Contracts are often used 

to complete various portions of projects on the Hell 

Canyon District. However, these are not the only method 

used to complete work. Force account crews also 

accomplish project related activities at times. 

 

Securing legally binding contracts to complete project 

activities prior to a project decision would be a predecisional commitment. Project implementation may 

begin following signing of the project decision, not 

before. 

It is incorrect to say that ‘there are far too few willing and 

capable participants to accomplish a fraction of the on-
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-174 

willing and capable participants to accomplish a fraction of the

on-the-ground work required to complete the proposed action. 

We believe this project should NOT go forth in the absence of 

secured partners, legally bound to fulfill their commitments. 

Abandoned and incomplete logging projects have historically 

produced regrettable results that degrade almost, if not every 

aspect, of the affected landscape. 

Collaboration is a respectable approach to discover public 

desires but collaboration without commitments to accomplish 

preparatory and on the ground work, and to share in the cost 

(not only the profit-taking) provides no assurance that stated 

goals and objective can or will be achieved in an ecologically 

sound and equitable manner.

the-ground- work required to complete the proposed 

action.’ Work may be completed in several different 

ways as noted above. 

All proposed actions would occur on National Forest 

lands. 

51x PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 

We have long disagreed with the Forest’s repeated and 

contradicted premise that any aspect of the proposed project will 

serve to reduce current pine beetle populations in forested stand 

dominated by lodgepole pine. We have expressed disagreement 

that backcountry clearcutting serves to significantly decrease the 

risk and hazard of catastrophic wildfire in the proximity of 

private lands and homes, and to reduce the susceptibility of 

vegetation to catastrophic fire and further mountain pine beetle 

attacks. 

We grant the fact that MPB infested tree removal from the forest 

reduces MPB population in an absolute sense. We do not agree 

that this action serves to significantly reduce subsequent year 

MPB populations. To reduce the subsequent year populations of 

the highly fecund MPB the Forest would essentially have to 

identify and remove the vast majority of infested trees to even 

slightly reduce populations. This ill-advised action, should it be 

undertaken is an impossible tasking in that the process of 

identification and removal of individual trees would fail to 

achieve the following:

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives 

The Responsible Official (RO) for the Vestal Project has chosen 

to propose resource management actions that respond to Forest 

Plan Goals 2, 4, and 10. We request the RO explain in clear and 

compelling detail why Plan Goals 1,3,5,6,7,8 and 9 were not 

chosen as Goals worthy of resource management actions.

There are no lodgepole pine stands in the Vestal project 

area. 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project area. 

The Vestal project includes suppression actions to remove 

infested trees from the forest – sanitation – as well as, 

prevention actions, vegetation treatments to reduce 

density and MPB risk. See response to comment 35e on 

effectiveness of treatments. 

In comparing the existing condition to desired future 

conditions, as noted by the Forest Plan, Goals 2, 4, and 10 

are those where clear opportunities exist for improvement 

toward desired future conditions. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-175 

Goal 2: Provide for a variety of life through management of 

biologically diverse ecosystems.

Objective 201: Manage for a minimum of 92,000 acres of aspen, 

and 16,000 acres of bur oak during the life of the Plan. The 

highest priority for hardwood restoration is where conifers (e.g., 

spruce and pine) have out-competed aspen adjacent to riparian 

systems that once supported beaver. 

Please provide a scientific basis for Objective 201. 

• Opportunity exists to increase/maintain hardwood 

communities by reducing pine competition within these stands. 

In addition, opportunities exist to enhance and expand 

hardwood inclusions by opening stand canopies and removing 

conifers.

Please provide a science-based need to increase/maintain 

hardwood communities. Please provide a science-based need to 

reduce pine competition within hardwood stands. Please provide 

a science-based need to exploit opportunities to enhance and 

expand hardwood inclusions by opening stand canopies and 

removing conifers.

Providing a scientific basis for objective 201 is outside 

the scope of this project. Objective 201 is a Forest Plan 

objective. Refer to the Phase II EIS. The Vestal project 

moves toward meeting Objective 201.

51y Objective 205: Manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland 

and 3,600 acres of meadow during the life of the Plan. 

Please provide at least one science-based document that 

suggests nature and its processes are static and in need of 

management to remain static.

• Opportunity exists to maintain existing meadows within the 

project area. Most of these meadows are currently experiencing 

encroachment by pine. Meadows act as natural fuelbreaks. 

Please provide at least one science-based document that 

suggests nature and its processes are static and in need of 

management to remain static.

Providing a scientific basis for objective 205 is outside 

the scope of this project. Objective 205 is a Forest Plan 

objective. Refer to the Phase II EIS. The Vestal project 

moves toward meeting Objective 205.

51z Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational 

opportunities, and protection of heritage resources in 

response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest 

visitors and local communities. 

Objective 402: Provide natural appearing landscapes with 

Providing a scientific basis for objective 402 is outside 

the scope of this project. Objective 402 is a Forest Plan 

objective. Refer to the Phase II EIS. The Vestal project 

moves toward meeting Objective 402. 

Natural evolving vegetation can be dynamic. The natural 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-176 

diverse scenery and enhance opportunities to enjoy attractive 

settings... Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 

1 5 

Please provide at least one science-based document that 

suggests nature is incapable of producing “natural appearing 

landscapes.” 

• Opportunity exists to enhance/maintain landscapes in and 

around existing recreation sites by removing MPB infested trees 

and thinning stands to reduce insect damage and wildfire 

hazard. In addition, removal of MPB infested trees would 

enhance public safety in these areas.

We agree, that the proposed Vestal Project can enhance public 

safety “in and around existing recreation sites.”

forces that shape and create vegetation conditions, such as 

wildfire or MPB activity, do not pay attention to privateUSFS land boundaries. Most people prefer to view live 

trees across a landscape, versus dead trees resulting from

the MPB activity we are currently experiencing. 

It is not a question of nature producing natural appearing 

landscapes, but how can we manage the vegetation to 

reduce potential for negative effects from MPB and 

wildfire in a manner that mimics the effects of nature. 

The Vestal project includes treatments in and around 

existing recreation sites. 

51aa Goal 10: Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation 

conditions to reduce occurrences of catastrophic fire, insect, 

and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease 

management and firefighting capability. 

Based on our many references to peer-reviewed scientific 

research we disagree that a legitimate need to “Establish and 

maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce 

occurrences of catastrophic fire, insect, and disease events, and 

facilitate insect and disease management and firefighting 

capability” exists. 

We address Objectives 10-01, 10-04 thru 07 elsewhere in our 

comments but without specific reference to each. Here we will 

simply indicate if we agree, disagree, need important 

information (Need Info) not provided in the DEIS. We also offer 

a few short comments. 

Objective 10-01: Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low 

fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire 

hazard within proximity of structures to current NFPA 

standards... 

Need Info 

• Opportunity exists to reduce existing fire hazard that currently 

exceeds objectives on National Forest System lands within the 

project area.

Goal 10 is a Forest Plan Goal, identified as part of the 

Forest Planning process – outside the scope of this 

project. Refer to the Phase II EIS. The Vestal project 

contributes to meeting this Goal. 

Objective 10-01 is addressed in the EIS. The Vestal 

project moves toward meeting this objective. It is unclear 

what information needs you are referring to. 

It is noted that you agree that an opportunity exists to 

reduce fire hazard within the project area. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-177 

Agree 

51bb Objective 10-04: Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate 

with risks (fire occurrence), hazard (fuel flammability), and land 

and resource values common to the area, using the criteria in 

Forest-wide Guideline 4110. 

Disagree 

• Opportunity exists to treat fuels and reduce hazards within the 

project area.

Agree (with caveats discussed throughout comments) 

Objective 10-04 is a Forest Plan objective. 

It is noted that you agree that an opportunity exists to 

treat fuels and reduce hazards within the project area. 

51cc Objective 10-05: Manage wildfires using the appropriate 

response based on management area emphasis, existing values, 

risk of ignition, and fuel hazards within a given area. 

Agree (with caveats discussed throughout comments) 

• Opportunity exists to reduce existing and activity fuels to a 

manageable level, facilitating a proactive and effective response 

to wildfire.

Agree (with caveats discussed throughout comments)

It is noted that you agree that an opportunity exists reduce 

existing and activity fuels to a manageable level, 

facilitating a proactive and effective response to wildfire.

within the project area. 

51dd Objective 10-06: Develop fuel management and protection 

strategies for intermixed land ownerships in partnership with 

private, state, and other federal agencies. 

Need info 

• Opportunity exists to coordinate with the State and County 

based on goals established in the Custer County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) to reduce fuels on both public 

and private lands in order to reduce the potential for large 

wildfires that could affect homes, infrastructure, and other 

ecosystem values.

This Work should have already been completed 

It is unclear what information needs you are referring to. 

Opportunities to coordinate with the State of South 

Dakota and Custer County on reducing fuels on public 

and private lands, are ongoing. As an example, the State 

(Custer State Park) offers assistance and support 

cooperation in implementing projects along our shared 

boundary – See Comment letter 47. 

51ee Objective 10-07: Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle 

could present risks to management objectives for ponderosa 

pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are in 

medium or high risk for infestation. 

The Vestal proposed action reduces acreage of ponderosa 

pine in a high risk condition – see Table 5 in the EIS—

and meets this objective. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-178 

Disagree (the MPB outbreak cannot be controlled) 

• Opportunity exists to reduce the acreage of pine stands at high 

risk of MPB infestations by removing infested trees and 

reducing the overall stand density.

Disagree (the MPB outbreak cannot be controlled) 

51ff Forest-wide standards and guidelines related to insects and 

disease: Vestal Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 6 

We Disagree with the premise underlying the following 

Standards and Guideline (our position is that the MPB outbreak 

cannot be controlled on the scale proposed by the Service) 

Guideline 4201a: Plan management activities with consideration 

for potential insect or disease outbreaks. Use integrated pest 

management strategies where insect or disease outbreaks may 

adversely affect management objectives. Utilize preventive 

vegetation management practices, including silvicultural 

treatments, to protect forest stands from insect and disease 

epidemics. 

Standard 4201b: During scheduled management activities, 

minimize susceptibility to mountain-pine-beetle epidemics by 

reducing average basal area to 70 or less in pine stands, except 

where denser stands are needed to meet other management 

objectives. 

Standard 4201c: Use the following insect-and-disease 

protection measures: Manage vegetation in and adjacent to highuse recreation areas to improve forest conditions, as needed to 

maintain or improve the desired recreation settings(s) or to 

conserve R2 sensitive or species of local concern and snails. In 

and adjacent to developed recreation sites actively treat insect 

and diseases to reduce pest populations.

Standard 4201d: Consider spatial array of stand conditions 

when planning harvests to reduce their potential for mountain 

pine beetle epidemics. For example, silvicultural treatments may 

be appropriate within or adjacent to dense mature stands. 

Guideline 4205: Consider applying preventive silvicultural 

treatments or other integrated pest management strategies to 

Note: There is no Chapter 16 in the Vestal DEIS. 

The listed Forest Plan standards and guidelines are part of 

management direction in the Forest Plan. Disagreements 

with Forest Plan direction is outside the scope of this 

project. 

Guidelines are “..preferred or advisable courses of 

action..”

Standards are , “..limitations on management activities 

that are within the authority and ability of the Forest 

Service to meet or enforce....” (Preface – Page 2, Forest 

Plan). 

 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-179 

National Forest System land adjoining other land ownerships to 

reduce the likelihood of insect and disease epidemics and 

spread. Plan suppression strategies to reduce mountain pine 

beetle populations in pine stands during epidemics. Prioritize 

according to values, risk and management objectives. Priority 

should be given to areas in which values to be protected exceed 

the cost of protection. 

Guideline 4206: Project plans should consider existing 

infestations of insects or disease within a project area. Activities 

should be designed to minimize the risks of spreading the 

infestation while still providing habitat for those wildlife species 

dependent upon the presence of insects and disease.

51gg Given the historical legacy of heavy timber extraction (via 

largely clearcutting practices) surrounding and, in a few 

instances, including the Vestal area extending this clearcutting 

legacy into the Vestal Analysis Area violates the language and 

intent of MUSYA. 

The current beetle epidemic incurs NFMA in that the usual 

management “remedies” do not answer to the detailed 

procedural and substantive guidelines set forth in NFMA. NEPA 

further requires that Best Available Science be applied to this 

“unprecedented” (Rick Cables, Denver Post Jan 15, 2008) beetle 

infestation. While we disagree that this beetle epidemic is 

unprecedented in a natural history context, we do agree it is 

unprecedented in the Forest Service’s experiential context. 

We assert that the Forest must consider an Alternative that 

would address MUSYA, NFMA, and NEPA and acknowledge 

that the Forest is powerless at this point to significantly stop or 

slow the MPB epidemic and that protection of the WUI areas 

must focus on the immediate areas adjacent to homes in order to 

comply with Best Available Science, current and conventional 

WUI wisdom, and to comply with the USDA Forest Service 

Western Region Inspector General Audit as committed to by the 

Forest’s CFO, Jesse L. King.

The Black Hills National Forest utilizes clearcutting as a 

method to achieve other resource objectives. It is not a 

common practice for timber harvest purposes on the 

Black Hills. No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal 

project. 

See response to comment 39ff on best available science

We are unaware of a 2008 article by Rick Cables which 

discusses the beetle epidemic in the Vestal area. 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

See response to comment 2k. 

See response to comment 51e on MUSYA

See response to comment 2g on WUI

See response to comment 35e on effectiveness of 

treatments 

See response to comment 51w

51hh In an August 4, 2008 Notice from Forest Chief, Gail Kimball10 

(See Attachment 2), the following direction was given to 

Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF 

Director and Deputy Chiefs. 

(

10 See Attachment titled Fire Suppression Costs - Deferring 

Obligations) 

Total suppression costs are projected to reach $1.6 billion in FY 

Attachment 2 to this comment letter is not the August 

2008 notice as stated in this comment. It is a Vestal 

comment letter from C.Hansen, John Muir project. See 

comment letter 34. 

Funding for wildfire suppression activities is outside the 

scope of the Vestal project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-180 

2008. Appropriated suppression funds total $1.2 billion. At this 

time, the only option for financing the shortfall is to use the 

agency’s transfer authority. Therefore, we must avoid incurring 

additional financial obligations wherever possible to cover 

projected suppression costs and have developed a fire transfer 

strategy, involving four increments.

Director, and Deputy Chiefs may make exceptions for 

emergency circumstances and that activities related to FY 2008 

fire suppression activities must proceed: 

- Defer award of any non-emergency contracts for any purpose 

other than those contracts that are required for critical on-going 

business. 

- Defer any procurement of non-critical projects and 

acquisitions. 

- Reschedule any non-critical travel, including meetings and 

conferences that can be deferred. 

- Do not obligate funds for execution of any land acquisition or 

forest legacy project unless an exception is made per direction 

above. 

- Do not issue any grants or agreements that will result in 

obligations of FY 2008 or prior year funds unless an exception 

is made per direction above. 

- Use prudent cost-saving judgment in managing staffing, 

including hiring, non-critical overtime, training and awards.

It remains unclear how the Black Hill National Forest intends to 

conserve adequate funding for fire suppression when proposing 

below cost, backcountry logging activity as a large component 

of its Vestal Project. Given all the Forest Service’s media hype 

about this season’s wildfire risks it would appear prudent to 

abandon any logging activities in deference to the most efficient 

and effective WUI projects.

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

51ii In Conclusion 

We remain concerned in general terms about the 

aforementioned and following issues. 

The analysis completed for the Vestal Project, and 

documented in this FEIS, was prepared under and is 

consistent with the Forest Plan and the Phase II 

amendment. The Vestal Project implements Forest Plan 

direction. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-181 

* Healthy and old growth trees would be logged under this 

proposal. 

* Clearcutting is one of the most destructive forms of logging 

for interior forest wildlife such as the black-backed woodpecker 

as discussed by Dr. Chad Hanson. (see ATTACHMENT 1) 

* Voluminous anecdotal evidence and peer-reviewed scientific 

studies remove all doubt that clearcut and thinning projects can 

actually increase the rate of wildfire spread in the presence of 

dry, windy conditions, increase risks of blow-downs, and create 

conditions more conducive to the spread of invasive plant and 

animal species. 

* Soil stability and fertility, watershed quality, amphibians and 

interior, old growth forest species (typically the most threatened 

of forest dwellers) are all at risk. 

* A number of species in the project area absolutely dependent 

on intact old-growth forests for their survival, including to some 

degree, the black-backed woodpecker.

* Studies have also found that undisturbed, old-growth forest 

supports a greater diversity of birds, a greater abundance of 

breeding birds, and higher diversity of small mammals than any 

other forest habitat in their study areas. These findings 

underscore the importance of old-growth as central to the 

preservation of biodiversity on the BHNF. 

* Interior forests needn’t be logged in the name of protecting 

private property and communities located far from the interior 

and or beetle killed stands of forest. 

* Private property owners and communities should carve out 

"defensible spaces" to protect development from forest fires. 

* The Forest Service has openly admitted that there is nothing 

they can do about the beetle epidemic. Logging in the name of 

the beetle infestation is a waste of taxpayer dollars, human 

resources, and time more appropriately dedicated to private 

home protection efforts where most effective, immediately 

adjacent to homes. 

The Vestal EIS discusses the environmental impacts of 

the alternatives considered in detail, in Chapter 3. The 

Vestal project is consistent with management direction 

contained in the Forest Plan. 

See response to comments 2y and 38h on late succession, 

old growth 

No clearcutting is proposed in the Vestal project. 

The Forest Service has reviewed all literature citations 

provided. Refer to responses to comments. 

See response to comment 2u on blowdown

The EIS discusses noxious weeds in Chapter 3. Design 

criteria are included in Appendix B of the EIS to 

minimize potential for spread of weeds. Appendix C of 

the EIS includes monitoring of weed treatments. 

See response to comment letter 34 on black-backed 

woodpecker

See response to comment 35e on effectiveness of 

proposed treatments. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-182 

* Scientific studies show that beetle-killed stands present no 

greater wildfire threat than do healthy forest stands, except for 

one to two years until dead needles fall from the tree and that 

logging may even increase fire risks when unpredictable 

environmental conditions present themselves.

Fire hazard specific to this project area was analyzed per 

BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 and associated 

Fire Rating guide, August 2011) 

51jj This Forest Service Preferred Alternative does not adequately 

consider the project’s effects on soil, watershed quality, wildlife 

(especially Endangered and Threatened species and interior 

forest habitat dependent species), and recreation quality. The 

Preferred Alternative still does not, adequately consider the 

effects of other proposed logging projects, such as the forestwide "Hazard Tree" logging project, or lingering forest and 

landscape destruction from past logging projects, within and 

surrounding the Vestal Analysis Area.

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan, 

which includes management direction pertaining to water, 

soil, recreation and wildlife. Refer to Chapter 3 of the 

EIS for the effects analysis. 

We believe you are referring to the Forest-wide Mountain 

pine Beetle Response Project. This project was 

considered in the Vestal analysis. No sites within the 

forest-wide project occur within the Vestal area. Refer to 

Appendix F of the EIS for a listing of past, present and 

future activities considered in cumulative effects analysis. 

51kk For all the stated reason and concerns expressed in these DEIS 

Comments we ask the Forest Service to abandon the Vestal 

Project (excepting wanted, effective and efficient WUI 

treatments). Should the Forest consider the aforementioned ask 

implausible we would further ask the Forest Service to consider 

developing its Preferred Alternative to better protect water and 

soil and wildlife habitat or to explore and create a third 

alternative with a combined WUI treatment (only) and Wildlife 

management Emphasis. We believe the Forest would better 

achieve its stated goals and objectives by developing a new 

alternative that addresses the true problems associated with 

efficient and effective protection of WUI areas. Allow the 

Vestal Analysis Area to heal from this beetle epidemic as it has 

done and very successfully for thousands of years. Again, we 

appreciate your desire to demonstrate that the Forest Service is 

“doing something” but we question what that “doing” is truly 

doing to, not for, the forest and the wildlife that depends entirely 

on the same natural processes that they have been adapting to 

for millennia. 

Thank you for considering these comments. Please include 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance in all mailings and updates 

concerning this proposal. We welcome any opportunity to meet 

with you and/or other Forest officials to further discuss this 

proposed project.

See response to comment 2g on WUI. 

The No Action alternative was considered in detail and 

defers all treatments proposed. 

Refer to the purpose and need for action in Chapter 1 of 

the EIS. 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan, 

which includes management direction pertaining to water, 

soil and wildlife. Refer to Chapter 3 of the EIS for the 

effects analysis. 

The beetle epidemic is occurring now. It will continue to 

move through this project area, adjacent to homes, 

businesses, municipal infrastructures, etc. The 

anticipated changes to this landscape under the No Action 

alternative are noted in Table 4 in the EIS. Drastic 

changes are expected under the No Action alternative. 

52a Nancy 

Hilding

Vestal Project Comment letter # 2 

MAPS 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-183 

1. Please include a topographic map. 

2. Thanks very much for including a map with the stand 

locations and sites, without this map, one can’t make sense out 

of Appendix D -- so thanks much! 

3. Map 3 and Map 5 suffer from map colors being too similar. 

On Map 5, one can’t tell which stands will be a yellow that 

represents either SS 4A or SS 2. It is difficult to differentiate 

between aspen and rocks. The 3B and 3C and are difficult to 

distinguish unless right next to each other. At any rate the most 

telling and problematic juxtaposition is SS 2 vs SS4A - please 

fix in final. 

4. A watershed map would be nice. 

5. Shouldn’t you have a before and after map of structural stages 

(SS) for Alternative 1. If the area is in the middle of a mountain 

pine beetle (MPB) epidemic, it is highly dynamic and the SS 

should not be static. I know you have charts, but what about a 

theoretical map? 

Topographic maps may be available upon request. 

You’re welcome.

Maps 3 and 5 will have an adjusted color scheme to better 

clarify differences between structural stages and cover 

types. 

A watershed map has been added to the FEIS – see 

Appendix A. 

Visually a map is site specific. We are unable to predict 

which sites, specifically, would be impacted by the MPB. 

52b WETLANDS 

I have not found a section on wetlands, but maybe I missed it. If 

it’s not there, please include it in the final. We have a generic 

concern for the sufficiency of FS wetlands inventories, as we 

find sometimes, that you all miss the small ones, especially if 

hidden from airplanes under canopies – so we like to see this 

and read it. Please avoid putting log landings, slash piles, 

logging trails and road crossings across any wet land, fens, bogg 

or seasonally saturated soils (no matter how large).

Wetlands were discussed on pages 135, 136, 142 and 143 

of the DEIS. Wetlands are also discussed in the Soil and 

Watershed Specialist Report. Wetlands will be avoided 

by vegetation treatments and since there is only 0.1 mile 

of new roads proposed not located near any wetlands, 

roads will also avoid wetlands. There are no direct or 

indirect effects to wetlands because they will be avoided.

52c WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY 

We request improvement in the analysis of impacts to water 

quality and surface water quantities and surface water 

flow/flood risks resulting from the alternatives. We are 

especially concerned about streams not meeting beneficial uses 

(French Creek).

The DEIS summarized the analysis. The Soil and 

Watershed Specialist Report in the project file contains a 

more detailed analysis. As presented in the Soil and 

Watershed Specialist Report, the State of South Dakota 

has been sampling French Creek for dissolved oxygen 

and no violations related to dissolved oxygen were 

observed or recorded during the sampling period.

52d ALTERNATIVES NOT REVIEWED. 

HR 1904, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, allows for more See ‘Alternatives Not Considered in Detail’, pages 17-20, 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-184 

than 2 alternatives, if any appropriate ones were suggested 

during scoping. There is no discussion of alternatives suggested 

but rejected. Were there any? If so please review all suggested 

but rejected alternatives.

of the Vestal DEIS. 

See response to comments 2e and 2o on alternatives

52e ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Please consider the dispute over Treaty claims to the Black Hills 

and the sacredness of the NE part of this timber sale to Lakotas. 

The Friends of the Norbeck wrote about this in their Vestal 

Comment letter. Please consider the affected area of the DEIS, 

to include the Native Americans on their reservations, as they 

believe, they still own the Black Hills and have not settled for 

the financial payments awarded by the Supreme Court.

A dispute over treaty claims is outside the scope of this 

project. 

See response to comments 17 b and 17d on sacredness of 

area. Also see response to Friends of the Norbeck Letter 

35. 

52f CATCH 22/PARDOX. 

For years the BHNF has been promoting a fire risk scheme, 

based on risk of catastrophic crown fires. This relative risk 

scheme is tiered to structural stages, but really to canopy 

closure, with more dense stands scoring at higher risk. The irony 

here is that mountain pine beetles (MPB) should open the 

canopy -- either creating small to large openings (breaks in 

canopy) or thinning stands and reducing crown closure and/or 

opening up the area to allow for aspen growth. Thus given your 

traditional (since Phase 2) favorite fire risk theories, MPB 

should reduce fire risk. Where is that chart that shows fire risk 

as a function of structural stages, before and after (Alt 1 in 

future vs. Alt 2 in future)? Please discuss the MPB ability to 

reduce crown closure and this positive effect of MPB on risk of 

catastrophic crown fires (given your traditional theories). Why 

are you silent on this traditional rational used in countless 

BHNF NEPA documents, that used to justify timber sales by 

promising reduced risk of catastrophic crown fires? Why have 

you switched to a fuel loads rhetoric, when you want to scare 

people about MPB? Why the inconsistency – do you pick fire 

theories most convenient to desired outcome?

Fire risk is the likelihood of a fire starting in the area. 

There is no change to fire risk as a result of any 

alternative. 

Mountain pine beetle creates openings within stands by 

killing the trees which will break and fall within 3-5 

years. Therefore, without treatment, heavy fuels 

concentrations will exist on the Forest floor following 

MPB mortality. 

Fire hazard is defined as a fuel complex that determines 

the ease of ignition and the resistance to control. Fire 

hazard specific to this project area was analyzed per 

BHNF Forest Plan direction (FEIS-III-349 and associated 

Fire Rating guide, August 2011) 

Table 6 and Figure 7 in the EIS display existing fire 

hazard and projected fire hazard for Alternatives 1 and 2 

at year 2018. Also refer to Figures 10 - 13, and Table 40. 

Maps of existing and post Alternative 2 fire hazard (Maps 

14 and 15) have been added to Appendix A of the EIS.

52g The Jasper Fire was substantially in SS 3B. Please consider the 

long-term risk of seeding baby pines and the future 

creation/growth of a closed canopy of smaller SS 3 trees. In the 

future will the FS thinning of stands down to 40-60 Basal area, 

create a forest floor full of small pine trees, that are precommercial and that then grow to create a new monotonous, 

extensive 3B or 3C sub forest, with a large sub-crown fire risk 

in 20 years or more from now? How does the FS thinning plans 

vs. the MPB thinning actions compare for creating - a , short, 

Natural regeneration in the Black Hills is generally 

prolific. Forest management practices may include 

thinning of regenerated stands. No artificial seeding of 

pine is proposed in the Vestal project. The only 

treatments designed to create an understory in the Vestal 

project are the Shelterwood Seed Cuts (226 acres) and 

scattered portions of Group Shelterwoods. Other 

treatments which open the overstory may also encourage 

regeneration development. Regeneration would also be 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-185 

pre-commercial, closed canopy of SS 3 dense stands. SS 3 dense 

stands with very short distance from ground to canopy (ladder 

fuels don’t need to be so tall) and they will have thinner bark, 

bark that will be less resistant to fire. Will the MPB provide 

more horizontal diversity, with more openings than the FS kill 

methods? 

We don’t see how you can conclude that Alt 1 will create so 

much SS 3 compared to Alt 2 - when you only plan 617 POL 

acres cut and 54 PCT acres cuts in Alt 2. 

We thought HFRA requires you to cut from below (take out 

smaller trees) and we don’t see you doing that enough, instead 

you are taking out larger trees, when you have hardly any old 

growth in the area. 

How many current SS 4 stands, could graduate to SS 5 in 7 

years?

expected to occur in areas where MPB activity has killed 

overstory trees. Future analysis would recommend future 

treatments. Based on the shelterwood system used in the 

Black Hills, dense understory trees, regeneration, is 

thinned in future steps of the Shelterwood System. 

The actual amount of PCT would potentially include the 

OR’s as well (1255 acres). The amount of POL thinning 

could potentially include all CT’s, VDCT’s FS’s and 

GSH (17,617 acres). See EIS pages 17-24.

See response to comment 2m on Large Trees and old 

growth in this project per HFRA

The analysis does not show any increase in SS5 at year 

2018. 

52h Please review and discuss the Black article: “Logging to Control 

Insects: The Science and Myths Behind Managing Forest Insect 

“Pests”” 2005, Xerces Society, and the Black e.t al. article 

“Insects and Roadless Forests” , 2010, , Xerces Society. Please 

review and discuss the Martin Simard et. al. article “Annotated 

Bibliography for Forest Managers On Fire-Bark Beetle 

Interactions”, 2008, University of Wisconsin, Please fully 

disclose the range of science articles that don’t support your 

conclusions of increased fire risk after beetles. Please review the 

various opinions, (including those that contradict you) on the 

effectiveness of logging to fight outbreaks of MPB. Please 

review and discuss Grant Foster’s “Pine Beetle Infestation and 

Fire Risk in the Black Hills”, 20102, an article send to you by 

Friends of the Norbeck via their Vestal comment letter.

The Black articles have been reviewed. These are 

opinion pieces, not refereed scientific articles. The 

Xerces document is a compilation of reports and articles. 

It does not provide any new information. Review of the 

2005 Xerces document is in the project file. The Vestal 

project area is not a roadless Forest. 

The Forest Service has reviewed all offered literature. 

We acknowledge that there is some difference of opinion 

regarding MPB treatments. However, the Forest Service 

is proposing treatments to reduce MPB susceptibility 

based on local Black Hills knowledge and experience. 

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of treatments. 

The following presents additional information. The 

effectiveness of vegetation management practices for 

prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in 

coniferous forests of the western and southern United 

States. Christopher J. Fettig , Kier D. Klepzig, Ronald F. 

Billings, A. Steven Munson,T. Evan Nebeker, Jose F. 

Negro ́n, John T. Nowak. Forest Ecology and 

Management 238 (2007) 24–53.

See response to comments 35e-1 and 35f on the Grant 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-186 

Foster Paper 

52i In Appendix H you declare the entire area to be a MPB 

epidemic. You declare that the MPB has killed 27 trees per acre 

per year for 3 years, (that is 81 trees per acre). This level would 

be epidemic, but would have been proceeded for many years 

with endemic and transient epidemic kill levels, thus increasing 

the MPB thinning beyond 81 trees per acre.. Should not this 

level of tree kill, result in a reduction of the Growing Stock 

Levels and reduced Basal Areas and thus the making for less 

dense structural stages? Do the estimates of Structural Stage 

reflect a stand density from stand inventories that predated the 

MPB “epidemic” and/or”transient epidemic” events, or have the 

SS evaluations been adjusted for the current level of kill by 

MPB? Has the MPB kills already converted some stands to SS 

1, SS 2, SS 3 and does the data on current SS stages reflect 

MPB created openings? Have the SS charts on pages 29-31 been 

adapted to reflect MPB killing of trees and thinning of the 

Forest? Do the charts about stands with very large trees (page 

31) reflect data post MPB kills? If all these stands have very 

large trees, why can’t we gain more SS 5 in a few years? If all 

the stand data has not been adjusted for thinning by MPB, with 

preference to killing larger trees, please do so.

On average across the project area, 27 trees per acre have 

been killed over the past three years. This is not that 27 

trees were killed each year for 3 years. This figure is 

from the Forest Health Report; “Mountain Pine Beetle 

Conditions in the Vestal Area” March, 2011. 

Tables 20 (pg. 38) and 26 (pg. 43) state at what year the 

structural stages would be for all alternatives. 

Tables 24 and 25 on page 41 of Vestal EIS state in the 

table title “at Year 2018”, so yes, those numbers were 

estimated with the influence of MPB infestation versus 

the existing condition. Page 36 states the criteria for SS5, 

which includes an age of 160 years and dbh of 16” or 

greater. Page 42 (under ‘Late Succession’) also states 

SS4A and 4B would eventually grow into SS5 over 

several decades or longer. 

52j For years, the FS has promoted small openings in the forest as a 

way to catch snow in the winter and increase water yield. Does 

the MPB do this?

MPB killing trees will increase water yield because there 

would be less trees to on the landscape using water. This 

water will be available for stream flow and/or ground 

water recharge. See Soil and Watershed Specialist 

Report. 

Small openings in the forest to catch snow works in a 

snow dominated precipitation regime. Creating small 

openings for the purpose of capturing snow would not be 

effective in the Vestal Planning Area. The southern 

Black Hills receives very little precipitation in the winter 

and most of the precipitation in the spring and summer so 

small opening would have minimal snow to catch. See 

Soil and Watershed Specialist Report.

52k Please discuss whether the number of trees killed by MPB 

equals or is similar to the number of trees killed by FS when 

thinning to prevent MPB, when MPB is at epidemic levels – i.e., 

compare the MPB and the FS (when fighting a MPB epidemic) 

– do both kill the same or similar number of trees? In face of 

epidemic do you need to thin to BA 35-60? Is the difference 

between MPB and the FS kills, not the number of trees killed, 

The projected changes to structural stages from the MPB 

epidemic are displayed in Table 4 in the EIS. The 

number of individual trees killed by MPB is unknown. 

The changes to structural stages from implementation of 

alternative 2 are also displayed in Table 4 of the EIS. The 

exact number of individual trees to be removed in 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-187 

but how the tree is used after death and the distribution of the 

kills on the landscape? Are the MPB kill zones more clumpy? 

Do they create more openings that will stay in SS 1 longer, 

before converting to SS 2, when compared with FS tree killing 

protocol. Please compare the short and long term effect on 

forage of MPB tree kills vs. FS kills.

Alternative 2 is unknown. 

Treatments in Alternative 2 are designed to meet the 

purpose and need for action. The target density for 

thinning is based on recommendations from project 

entomologist. No thinning to less than 50 BA is 

proposed. 

Alternative 2 does not propose to create openings, SS1 in 

pine stands. 

52l Does the FS have to declare an area, as an epidemic to qualify 

projects for HFRA? Don’t various scientific writers indicate that 

mankind is not very effective at stopping tree death once the 

MPB attain epidemic levels? Hasn’t Nieman staff indicated in 

public, that when they have a choice, they would focus logging 

on the outlying areas and would give up on the core/central 

areas in the Black Hills, which is in epidemic state? How 

effective can you be once it reaches an epidemic state? Is this 

the best expenditure of your resources? So is there an irony 

here?

The occurrence of an epidemic does not trigger use of 

HFRA. Section 102(a)(4) of HFRA is for projects where 

an epidemic, or other circumstances, pose a significant 

threat to Federal or Non-Federal lands. In the Vestal 

project area, the MPB epidemic poses significant threat to 

resources on both Forest Service and private lands. 

The most effective measures to reduce MPB risk are to 

implement prevention treatments to reduce stand density 

and to suppress by conducting sanitation efforts. 

52m Please indicate on a map all areas that are in an endemic, 

transient or incipient epidemic or epidemic state for MPB. If the 

entire are is in epidemic, as you state in Appendix H, than verify 

that on a map. Please provide a definition of these 3 stages of 

MPB populations (endemic, incipient and epidemic).

Refer to Appendix H in the EIS. 

52n Please include a discussion of the turn of century (nineteenthtwentieth) MPB epidemic and compare it to the present 

epidemic, so folks can know this is not unique. Also review the 

other historic Black Hills MPB epidemics of similar or larger 

scale to this one. Please present charts showing the tree deaths 

due to MPB for the last 130 years.

MPB epidemics have occurred in the past and will occur 

in the future. Management of the forest can reduce the 

risk for MPB mortality by implementing treatments such 

as proposed in the Vestal project. 

52o Comparison of Hardwood regeneration. 

On page 36 you mention hinging of dead conifers to protect 

aspen re-growth. Won’t the death by MPB, which leaves the 

dead trees standing and eventually to fall over, resulting thus in 

frequent “hinging” courtesy of MPB if you leave MPB stands 

alone? How can you conclude that Alternative 1 will not create 

as much aspen as Alternative 2? If the MPB kills large swaths of 

pines won’t that open up more areas to long term SS 1 and 

aspen, than the FS method of thinning down to 35-80 Basal 

areas?

Page 36 of the Vestal DEIS states, “Conifers less than 9” 

DBH are hinged and left on site to protect aspen suckers 

from browsing.” Live conifers less than 9” DBH would 

be hinged, not dead conifers. MPB do not typically infest 

trees smaller than 7” DBH. Alternative 2 includes 

Hardwood Conversion, without pine removal these sites 

would continue to experience pine encroachment. Yes, 

MPB could create large swaths of SS1, as shown in Table 

4 on page 28 of the Vestal EIS. 

52p If you want to prevent fire in the WUI, you should aggressively Sites which historically are pine stands are not typically 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-188 

convert to aspen, including planting or seeding of aspen. Aspen 

has a low fire risk and does not have to “weeded” every 15-20 

years.

suitable for aspen. Hardwood conversion is implemented

in sites that have historically been suitable for aspen. 

52q Other factors related to MPB, 

Please discuss other factors that may influence MPB, such as 

insect predators, bird predators, weather, slope, aspect, soil etc. 

Please include a plan to install weather stations, to watch the 

effect of weather in the summer and winter on the MPB.

Being that MPB is native, it has an entire suite of natural 

enemies, predators of all kinds. Unfortunately, in 

epidemic conditions, these natural controls cannot keep 

pace with beetle expansion.

Weather conditions in the Black Hills are documented on 

a daily basis.

52r Recreation and Visuals. 

Part of the area is MA 4.1 and 5.4. Please discuss the negative 

effects of slash and tree stumps on the recreational use and 

human visual appreciation of these areas. 

Please discuss the long term visual effects of “cut and chunk” 

and sanitation cuts.

By-products of vegetation removal include slash (tops &

branches not utilized for commercial products or fuel are 

left on the ground, or piled, throughout the area of the 

vegetation removal) and stumps. These would likely be 

evident throughout the treatment areas. Slash may occur 

in quantities well above natural levels - creating strong 

contrasts (the slash reflects light) in color and texture. On 

steep slopes stumps can be highly evident, as they too 

will reflect light; on flat terrain grasses can grow up and 

hide them. With both byproducts, it is the quantity 

present that determines how natural the forest will appear 

after treatment. Additional slash treatments such as piling 

& burning, crushing, or moving to a large landing for 

treatment, can all greatly reduce the visual impact from 

the slash. Design criteria for treatment of slash is 

included in Appendix B of the EIS. 

The Cut and Chunk treatment is a present and future 

activity considered in the analysis (see appendix F). 

Trees currently infested with mountain pine beetle are 

felled and cut into chunks, 12-18” long, and left scattered 

on the forest floor. This is a labor intensive treatment 

utilizing chainsaws not large mechanical equipment. As a 

result, no soil displacement or geometric patterns in the 

vegetation are created. However, the chunks are evident. 

The color of the cut wood is a pale white-yellow; when 

sunlight shines on the fresh cut wood, it has been 

observed to be highly visible in the immediate 

foreground. This effect may be highly visible for 1-2 

years, until the surface of the wood weathers to a dull 

gray, which may be less conspicuous in color. 

Understory vegetation of grasses, forbs, shrubs and small 

trees may hide the chunks. This treatment is generally 

used in areas where there are few MPB infested trees or 

on slopes greater than 40%. It is on the steep slopes that 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-189 

this treatment has the greatest potential to be highly 

visible. In these locations, the gray weathered pieces of 

cut up chunks could be evident when understory trees are 

widely scattered. The visual effect is totally dependent 

upon the amount of MPB activity and the understory 

present. 

Additional information on the visual impact of the 

proposed treatments has been added to the EIS. See the 

Scenery section of Chapter 3. 

52s Please discuss which alternative will provide more long term 

forest openings, meadows and hardwoods, and which alternative 

will bring about a faster conversion to endless, monotonous 

forest of SS 3 trees. Please compare those long term visuals. 

Please consider that people who come from deciduous forest 

areas and are thus used to seeing trees standing without leaves 

for about 6 months of the year, each year and may not consider 

the branches of a standing tree, without leaves, ugly.

Refer to Tables 3 and 4 in the EIS for estimates of cover 

types and pine structural stages for existing condition and 

projected conditions for the alternatives. 

The Vestal project area contains mainly (99%) ponderosa 

pine forest, which is conifer and not deciduous forest. It 

is not appropriate to compare the visual character of dead 

pine trees to deciduous trees in the winter. 

Unfortunately, the pine trees killed by MPB decay 

quickly and fall or break mid-way up the tree, generally 

within 3-5 years. Ten years after the MPB activity first 

starts there may be few standing dead trees. 

52t This area has some very high tourist use areas. SIO are 

guidelines and can be changed at the Project level. We believe 

the visual analysis during the 1996 plan, was theoretical based 

on computer modeling and not ground-truthed. Please reevaluate the SIO for the area.

The visual analysis completed for the Forest Plan is 

outside the scope of this analysis. The Vestal project is 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

52u HFRA 

I think the HFRA requires you to comply with the Forest Plan, 

so you must do that to qualify for HFRA. We think HFRA 

requires you to cut the smaller shorter trees and retain large old 

trees. 

We don’t think this plan does enough to retain SS 4C or 

promote future SS 5.

The Vestal Project is consistent with the Black Hills 

National Forest Plan. See responses to comments 2v-6 

and 2w. 

See response to comment 2m on large trees and late 

succession

The proposed activity would provide more SS4C and SS5 

in the long term than the no action alternative. See Table 

4 of the EIS. 

52v We question why you are doing any overstory removals at all, if 

you big trees are at risk. We suggest you drop those. We think 

that HFRA requires you to thin from the bottom (only cut 

smaller trees). We don’t see how you can justify overstory 

removes under HFRA or with the purpose and need..

See response to comment 14d on overstory removals

See response to comment 2m on large trees and old 

growth
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-190 

52w We worry about loss of thermal and hiding cover for the 5.4 

area. 

We worry about the ability to support Black-backed wood 

peckers in the future, given all the cumulative cutting of MPB 

infected trees and healthy trees to open up stands. 

See response to comment 2s on thermal cover

See response to comment 2y on hiding cover

See response to comment 35d on MA 5.4

See response to comment letter 34 on black-backed 

woodpeckers

52x We request reduced roads (more road closure) and road 

reconstruction.

See response to comment 38e on roads

The No Action alternative would not implement any road 

reconstruction. 

53a Nancy 

Hilding

We question the assertion that no change would occur to spruce. 

If MPB kill pine in spruce stands and near spruce stands, should 

that not help spruce?

Spruce trees will eventually succeed pine trees because 

they are more shade tolerant. The MPB activity in the 

project area may infest pine within and adjacent to spruce 

stands. No change to acres of spruce is expected. 

53b Please in the soils section, include a discussion of the 

relationship between soils and MPB - is there any relationship 

between soil types and how MPB has been behaving.

General observations do not show that there is a 

relationship between soils and MPB. 

53c Please discuss how slash will be treated after the slash piles are 

burned.

In areas where slash piles are burned, seeding would 

occur as noted in design criteria. Slash piles are burned 

to consume slash. 

54a Suzanne J. 

Bohan 

EPA

In accordance with our responsibilities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U .S.C. Section 4321 , et 

seq. , and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 

7609, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

(EPA) has reviewed the December 2011 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Vestal Project. This DEIS was 

prepared by the Hell Canyon Ranger District of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) Black Hills

National Forest to analyze potential environmental impacts 

associated with proposed vegetation treatments to reduce the 

threat to forest resources from the existing mountain pine beetle 

(MPB) epidemic and to protect local communities and 

watersheds from large-scale, high intensity wildfire.

The Vestal Project Area surrounds the City of Custer and is 

within Custer County, South Dakota. The project area consists 

of 43,516 acres, including 25,726 acres of USFS lands and 

17,790 acres of interspersed private lands (including City and 

County properties). The analysis area includes extensive private 

dwellings, businesses, government offices, Bismarck Lake 

Recreation Area and Campground, and Crazy Horse Mountain. 

The City of Custer is a designated "at-risk" community for 

wildfire.

A summary of the two alternatives analyzed in the DEIS is as 

Thank you for your review and comment.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-191 

follows: 

• Alternative 1 (No Action)- no vegetation or fuels management 

actions; and

• Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) - 25,449 acres of vegetation 

treatments, including commercial thinning of trees not currently 

infested with MPB and sanitation removal of trees currently

infested with MPB; 1, 761 acres of prescribed burning; up to 

23,693 acres of deadfall treatment to reduce fuels (mechanical 

treatment of existing slash through methods such as lopping, 

chipping, and piling/burning); and 0.6 mile of new roads/34 

miles of road reconstruction.

In a May 23,2011 letter, EPA provided scoping comments for 

this project. We appreciate that the USFS addressed many of our 

comments in the DEIS. As a result, our concerns with the 

December 2011 DEIS have been narrowed to these issues: (1) 

aquatic resources and (2) air quality. These concerns are the

basis for EPA's EC-1 rating discussed at the conclusion of this 

letter.

54b 1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical 

importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of 

associated impacts.

EPA considers protection of aquatic resources to be among the 

most critical issues to be addressed in any NEPA analysis for 

vegetation management activities. Most treatments 

contemplated under the proposed action (e.g., harvest, 

mechanical treatment, prescribed flre, road construction) have 

the potential to adversely impact aquatic resources, including 

surface and ground waters, wetlands, streams, riparian areas, 

and their supporting hydrology. Given EPA's concerns 

regarding aquatic resources, we recommend that USFS position 

itself (and others) to fully evaluate impacts resulting from the

alternatives by providing complete data and robust analyses of 

potential impacts.

We agree the aquatic resources in the project area are 

extremely important and need to be protected. See the 

Soil and Watershed Specialist Report for detailed 

information.

The aquatic resource section of the DEIS summarized the 

analysis documented in the Soil and Watershed Specialist 

Report. Additional information on this analysis is 

available in the Specialist report contained in the project 

file. 

54c Existing Conditions: The DEIS notes that there are 67 acres of 

wetlands within the project area. For disclosure purposes, we 

recommend including a map of this acreage in Appendix A, 

similar to the map provided for streams of the project area. We 

appreciate the qualitative discussion of existing stream health 

and water quality provided in the DEIS. We recommend 

A map of the wetlands is located in the appendix of the 

Soil and Watershed Specialist Report, in the project file.

Including water monitoring data would not provide any 

information that would help in the analysis of this project. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-192 

expanding the discussion to include any available water quality 

monitoring data and/or identification of significant gaps in 

monitoring data that could be targeted for collection through the 

project monitoring plan. Data of particular interest include 

nutrient concentrations, water temperature, dissolved oxygen 

and turbidity. In addition, the DEIS notes that the project area 

includes one stream, French Creek, that is identified as a Clean 

Water Act Section 303(d) impaired waterbody for low dissolved 

oxygen. French Creek is not supporting its designated beneficial 

uses of Coldwater Marginal Fish Life and Limited Contact 

Recreation. We recommend elaborating on how proposed 

project activities might affect this specific waterbody and water 

quality parameter and how project design criteria would 

mitigate impacts given that proposed treatments could occur in 

the French Creek water influence zone and possibly contribute 

to decreased oxygen levels due to organic loading or increased 

temperature.

This project area has a very high percentage (40%) of 

private land, most of which is located along streams in the 

project area. Of all the stream channels, two thirds or 

67% is on private land. Monitoring water quality would 

not provide pertinent information for this project because 

of the extent of private land and activities in the project 

area. 

The design criteria for the WIZ are expected to maintain 

temperature and oxygen levels because of the 0-50 foot 

no equipment zone and 50-100 foot tread lightly zone. 

Because of the WIZ, runoff from timber sale units is not 

expected in to any streams including French Creek. 

Organic loading should be kept to a minimum because of 

these buffers. 

54d Water Quality Impacts of Beetle Epidemic: The DEIS notes that 

although no formally identified Municipal Watersheds are 

located in the project area, the community of Custer obtains its 

water from within the project area. The presence and handling 

of beetle-killed trees has the potential to impact public water

supplies if it leads to organic loading of area waterbodies that 

are sources of drinking water. Organic matter interacts with 

disinfectants used in the drinking water treatment process to 

form disinfection byproducts, which are a human health 

concern. Organic loading may also decrease oxygen levels that

can lead to the release of metals such as arsenic, manganese, and 

iron from sediments. We recommend the FEIS provide a more 

detailed discussion regarding how the community of Custer 

obtains its water from within the project area, and then assess 

the potential for organic loading impacts to drinking water

treatment and supplies.

The City of Custer obtains its water from wells into the 

alluvium of French Creek or a ground water supply, not 

from surface water. With implementation of the design 

criteria, WCPs, BMPs and Forest Plan Standards runoff 

from the area as the results of this project is not expected, 

except in extreme events. Organic loading is not 

expected in the surface waters as a result of this project, 

because standards and guidelines will be implemented to 

protect soils. 

54e Range-Related Impacts to Aquatic Resources: The DEIS notes 

that there are currently 13 grazing permits within the analysis 

area. Range improvements (e.g., water developments, spring 

exclosures, fencing, corra.ls, etc.) are generally designed and 

constructed in a manner that protects aquatic resources from

adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing. We support 

the DEIS design criteria to protect these range improvements 

from mechanical vegetation treatments and road 

construction/reconstruction. We recommend expanding the 

design criteria to identify measures to protect range 

improvements from prescribed fire application.

The design criteria to protect improvements would apply 

to all types of implementation, including prescribed 

burning. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-193 

54f Impact of Roads on Aquatic Resources: To reduce adverse 

impacts to watersheds, EPA recommends minimizing new road 

construction and road density, as well as locating roads to limit 

impacts to surface waters. The proposed action would 

necessitate 0.6 mile of new system road, 34 miles of road

reconstruction and 91 miles of road maintenance to facilitate 

treatment activities. The DEIS notes that temporary roads and 

the 0.6 mile of new system road would be closed or 

decommissioned following project completion. We recommend 

monitoring road reconstruction and new road activities. Since it 

is often difficult to effectively close roads in the Black Hills and 

negative environmental impacts associated with roads could 

continue if closure efforts are less than 100% successful, EPA 

recommends that a monitoring plan and schedule be developed 

to assess the effectiveness of road closures.

Actually, new system road construction would only occur 

on 0.1 mile to by-pass private lands where the Forest 

Service does not have a right-of-way. 

The Travel Management Record Of Decision closed all 

roads not listed on the MVUM (Motor Vehicle Use 

Map). Monitoring is accomplished through the use of 

Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers and Forest 

Protection Officers. 

54g Design Criteria and Monitoring Plan: We support the extensive 

list of project design criteria to protect aquatic resources, 

including special requirements for streams and riparian habitats.

To ensure that project activities do not adversely impact aquatic 

resources, we recommend expanding the list as follows:

• Require revegetation of all disturbed areas within the 

same growing season they are disturbed, and monitor 

revegetation efforts for five years to ensure success.

• Specify steps to protect range improvements from 

prescribed burning.

• Monitor breakdown of hydrophobic soils for five 

years following prescribed burns.

Appendix B, Design Criteria, notes that Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCPs) and South Dakota Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to protect 

geologic, soil and water resources.

Appendix C, Monitoring Plan, notes that BMPs will be 

monitored during and after management activities. We 

recommend that all applicable WCPs and BMPs be listed in 

Appendix B and the Appendix C discussion be expanded to 

Revegetation is a requirement of the Forest Plan. Forest 

Plan Standard 1110 says, “Initiate re-vegetation as soon 

as possible, not to exceed 6 months after termination of 

ground-disturbing activities...” This will be 

accomplished as part of the project implementation and 

needs to be done in order to comply with the Forest Plan.

The design criteria in Appendix B to protect 

improvements would apply to all types of 

implementation, including prescribed burning. 

 

Observations of the soils as part of the BAER process 

after past major wildfire in the Black Hills show that 

there is a slight hydrophobic layer at the ash layer. It has 

been observed that this layer disappears with the first rain 

or as soon as it is wetted. Hydrophobic soils have not 

been observed to be a problem in the Black Hills. 

Prescribe fire is usually implemented during conditions 

when there is moisture in the soil and duff so all the duff 

is not consumed. This will prevent a hydrophobic layer 

from forming. A strong hydrophobic layer is not 

expected to from prescribed fire. 

Appendix B is a list of Design Criteria that needs to be 

implemented for the project to minimize the impact of the 

project to the resource and to meet the requirements of 

certain laws. Adding all WCPs and BMPs here will make 

the list cumbersome and the Design Criteria that really 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-194 

address how the USFS intends to ensure that WCPs are properly 

implemented to ensure that no substantial or long-lasting effects 

to these resources result from project activities.

needs to be followed may get lost or overlooked. The 

WCPs and BMPs are discussed and listed in the Soil and 

Watershed Specialist Report and will be implemented 

during project implementation. 

Project implementation is monitored by sale 

administrators to minimize the impacts to the resources. 

Forest Plan monitoring may include units within the 

Vestal area. Past soils monitoring for similar project 

activities has shown that disturbed areas re-vegetate 

quickly on the Black Hills. 

54h 2) Air quality impacts associated with the project are a 

critical concern that must be fully evaluated.

It is particularly important to assess and mitigate air quality 

impacts associated with the Vestal Project given the project area 

surrounds the population center of Custer and is near two 

mandatory Class I Federal areas (Wind Cave National Park and 

Badlands National Park). We appreciate that the DEIS includes 

an Air Quality section which addresses many of our 

recommendations related to air quality, including a summary of 

available data for existing conditions, a qualitative discussion of 

potential project emissions, and a description of mitigation 

measures to address related prescribed fire emissions.

Air quality is addressed in the EIS.

54i Existing Conditions: For disclosure purposes, we recommend 

expanding the qualitative smoke emissions discussion to include 

PM10. In addition, we recommend broadening the existing 

conditions discussion to include available summary data for 24-

hour PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations (in addition to the annual 

averages presented for PM2.5). Finally, we recommend including 

the trending of air quality at the nearby Class I Federal areas 

over the past several years (see the VIEWS site for air quality 

related values -AQRVs- at http://views.cira.colostatc.edu.web/). 

Information regarding current conditions will be an important 

tool for monitoring the impacts of project activities. Decisionmakers will need to understand baseline conditions in an effort 

to ensure that Vestal Project activities, when combined with air 

quality impacts from external sources, do not adversely impact 

the NAAQS or AQRVs.

EPA is requesting that the Forest Service make use of a 

wider range of data from monitoring stations at two local 

Class I sites, including annual trend data and daily values 

for PM2.5 and PM10. The Forest Service agrees this data 

could be useful, for project and burn planning as well as 

monitoring. However, we were unable to find this data 

on the site referenced in the comment. Specifically, for 

the Wind Cave and Badlands sites, we were unable to 

find daily values for these parameters for time periods 

after 2009. Nor could we find annual trend data for any 

time periods after 2004. If this data becomes available in 

the future the Forest Service will consider using it as 

appropriate. Until then the Forest will continue to 

consider smoke dispersal capacity and other factors in 

burn planning. To our knowledge these have proven 

effective in recent projects in maintaining air quality 

within acceptable limits.

54j Prescribed Fire: The proposed action includes the application of 

prescribed burning to 1,761 acres. This significant prescribed 

fire activity may cause degradation of air quality in the region. 

Public notification is a requirement in burn plans on the 

Black Hills National Forest. The public notification 

procedures will be developed as part of each site specific 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-195 

We appreciate the clear explanation of potential prescribed fire 

impacts and the detailed steps to minimize such impacts. We 

fully support the prescribed fire design criteria and monitoring 

recommendations as outlined in Appendices B and C of the 

DEIS. Please note that it appears requirements for public 

notification procedures, as noted on page 106 in the Air Quality 

section of the DEIS, were not carried through to Appendix B. 

We recommend expanding Appendix B to include this 

requirement.

burn plan. These procedures will change depending on 

where in the project area the burn is implemented. 

This has also been added to design criteria section of this 

EIS. 

54k EPA's Rating and Recommendation

Consistent with Section 309 of the CAA, it is EPA's 

responsibility to provide an independent review and evaluation 

of the potential environmental impacts of this project. Based on 

the procedures EPA uses to evaluate the adequacy of the 

information and the potential environmental impacts of the 

proposed action, EPA is rating this DEIS as Environmental 

Concerns - Insufficient Information (EC-1 ). The "EC" rating 

indicates that EPA review has identified environmental impacts 

that need to be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. 

The "1" rating indicates that EPA believes the DEIS provides 

adequate information and analyses to disclose project impacts. 

A full description of EPA's rating system is enclosed.

We hope that our comments regarding aquatic resources and air 

quality will assist you in further reducing the environmental 

impacts of this project. We appreciate the opportunity to review 

and comment on this DEIS. 

Your review of the Vestal DEIS is appreciated 

55a Jared 

Tennyson 

I am writing this letter in response to the Vestal Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. I represent the owners of 

different properties that will be affected by the proposed project; 

this letter is written on their behalf.

The National Forest is Custer's largest asset. As a lifelong multigenerational resident I have been fortunate to be exposed to 

such a beautiful landscape. As a father I am able to watch my 

daughter share the same love for nature. First I would like to 

thank you and everyone who helps preserve and protect the 

National Forest, it embodies the true character of our 

community.

The properties which we own are within the area of the 

proposed Vestal Project and immediately adjacent to National 

Forest Property. These properties represent various degrees of 

Thank you for your interest in the Vestal Project. 

Your support of the management of the National Forest is 

noted. 

The extent of private property, including home sites, 

vacation property, businesses, etc.. within the Vestal 

project area is a main reason for proposing the extensive 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-196 

land use, and include tracts of commercial real estate, motels, 

and ranch land. As tax payers we support the proper 

management of the forest, and as your neighbor we expect it. 

After studying the DEIS for the Vestal Project we were 

disappointed in the lack of alternative actions that could be used 

to provide acceptable levels of management.

treatments identified in the proposed action. These 

treatments are based on recommendations by forest health 

specialists with extensive knowledge and experience with 

MPB, including MPB within the Black Hills National 

Forest. Refer to Chapter 4 for a list of IDT members. 

Such treatments are in line with management actions 

occurring on other state and federal lands. 

The MPB epidemic is expanding rapidly and will result in 

changed conditions surrounding the community of Custer. 

55b The scope of the Vestal Project is extremely large and it is 

challenging to generalize all of the impacts that will result from 

the proposed action. Although I would agree that the 45,000 

acres need to be managed, the project proposes excessive 

treatment to some unique areas when more critical areas could 

be prioritized. Commercial thinning is an important part of our 

forest management, but a timber sale is about 10 years too late 

to defeat the Mountain Pine Beetle and admittedly (on page 146 

of the DEIS) won't prevent the epidemic. This project will yield 

over 85,000 CCF of saw log by-products at a time where the 

market is very unfavorable. It surprises me that this action is 

recommended with no other alternatives considered.

The project area is approximately 43,516 acres, of which 

25,823 acres are on National Forest System lands. 

The No Action alternative was considered in detail and is 

available to the decision maker. 

It is correct that the proposed action will not prevent, or 

stop, the existing epidemic. However, implementing the 

proposed treatments would reduce MPB risk within the 

project area. 

Refer to comment letters 11 from Neiman’s Timber 

Company; and 14 from Black Hills Forest Resource 

Association

See response to comments 2e and 2o on range of 

alternatives

55c There are several recommended types of treatment within the 

Vestal Project that need to be occurring immediately. As a 

landowner we have been performing Sanitization to all of our 

live infested pine trees every year with very good success. The 

exponential growth rate of the Mountain Pine Beetle requires 

our maximum attention to these live infested trees. The entire 

scope of the Vestal Project should be based upon mitigating this 

damage in conjunction with treatments like Variable Density 

Thinning and Free Selection to immediately create buffer areas 

to isolate the insects.

Sanitation is included in the proposed action for all pine 

stands in the project area. It is a suppression method for 

MPB. However, in the vast Vestal landscape, completing 

a removal of all live infested trees on an annual basis 

would not be possible. Infested trees will remain on 

National Forest and private lands, within and outside of 

the project area. Substantial MPB mortality has occurred 

directly adjacent to this area and beetle emergence from 

those areas can re-infest sanitized stands in Vestal. See 

Map 11 in Appendix A which shows MPB progression. 

Therefore, the preventative treatment of reducing stand 

density (basal area) is proposed. The project may be 

implemented upon signature of the decision, which is 

anticipated to occur prior to the 2012 MPB flight. 

Variable Density Thinning and Free Selection are also 

included in the proposed action. See pages 17-24 in the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-197 

EIS. 

The Purpose and Need on page 10 of the Vestal DEIS 

includes reducing MPB risk in this area. 

55d Commercial thinning has been neglected in several areas within 

the Vestal Project area but timber sales should be managed 

separately from Mountain Pine Beetle treatments. Priority for 

commercial thinning should be given to areas at most risk. 

Restoring these areas to a basal area of 80 sq. ft. per acre by 

commercial thinning would create a much healthier forest. I do 

not support treatments that will generate an average basal area 

less than 60-70 sq. ft. including thinning that would be produced 

by CT-50, CT, and Group Shelterwood treatments. These 

treatments consist of 61% of the entire Vestal Project area and 

will result in areas with low quantity of trees that are vulnerable 

to wind loss. The proposed commercial thinning is excessive 

and will negatively impact Custer.

Pine stands at an 80 BA have a high risk for MPB 

susceptibility. See response to comment 2d on thinning 

to a 60 vs 80 BA. 

This landscape contains a significant amount of private 

lands and tremendous values at risk. The MPB epidemic 

is an imminent threat to those values. Therefore, 

substantial landscape level suppression and prevention 

treatments are proposed. These treatments were designed 

by Entomology and Silviculture professionals with 

extensive experience in these fields (refer to Chapter 4), 

including extensive local experience. These treatments 

have been shown to be effective, especially when 

conducted together on a landscape scale. 

Management of timber stands at tree densities of 50-60 

ft2

/ac will reduce MPB risk to low. This density is within 

the timber management zone for the Black Hills. Refer to 

timber stocking chart on page H-2 of the Forest Plan. 

The entire project area is experiencing an epidemic, 

contains intermixed private lands, substantial values at 

risk and is priority. Treatments may commence upon 

signature of the project decision. 

Spraying to protect high values trees is another 

preventative option. This is being implemented at high 

use recreation areas, such as Bismarck Lake. 

See response to comment 2u on risk of blowdown

See response to comment 35e on definition and 

effectiveness of treatments to reduce MPB risk. 

See response to comment 51n on determining MPB risk

55e Our property that will be impacted most by the Vestal Project is 

owned by LRTT Ranch, LLC. This property is located in Area 

4.1 and is impacted mostly by proposed actions in management 

location 030404. Our property shares approximately 5 miles of 

There are limits to what is removed, or more precisely 

what is to remain, in a GSH treatment. See response to 

comment 2u on GSH treatment. 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I 

I-198 

boundary with the National Forest. Sites 5, 11, 12,40,41,42, and 

43 are proposed as Group Shelterwood, these overgrown areas 

do need treatment but GSW concerns us because there is no 

limit to the amount of timber that is ultimately removed. 

Site 15 is a well managed area and does not warrant the 

excessive CT-50 thinning; a more appropriate treatment would 

be Free Selection. 

The proximity of this ranch to existing MPB outbreak combined 

with the un-managed forest around us (specifically sites 10-14 

on Buckhorn Mountain) creates an urgency to implement these 

treatments immediately.

30404-5 is a 3 acre rock outcrop, therefore no treatments 

are proposed. 

30404-11 is 31 acres and a SS 4C pine stand. It has a 

High risk for MPB and a very high fire hazard. This 

stand is not directly adjacent to private land. 

30404-12 is 16 acres and a 4A stand. It has a Low risk 

for MPB and a moderate fire hazard. This stand is 

directly adjacent to private land. 

30404-40 is 26 acres and a SS3A stand. It has a Low 

Risk for MPB and a moderate fire hazard. It is nearly 

surrounded by private land. 

30404-41 is 8 acres and a SS 4A pine stand. It has a 

Low risk for MPB and a high fire hazard. It is bounded 

on 2 sides by private land. 

30404-42 is 5 acres and is a SS 4B stand. It has a High 

risk for MPB and a high fire hazard. It is bounded on 2 

sides by private land. 

30404-43 is 13 acres and is a SS 4B stand. It has a High 

risk for MPB and a high fire hazard. It is also prescribed 

for Deadfall treatment as there are patches of MPB killed 

trees in this stand currently. It is bounded by private land 

on 3 sides. 

30404-15 is a 17 acres and a 4B stand. It has a Low risk 

for MPB and very high fire hazard. There is MPB 

activity within this stand currently. It is nearly 

surrounded by private land. 

30404-10 is a SS 4C stand with a High MPB risk and 

very high fire hazard. It is proposed as GSH and would 

be treated as logging operability allows (11 and 12 

discussed above). Site 13 is rock. Site 14 is only 

proposed for sanitation as the stand is extremely steep and 

rocky but could be sanitized where possible. 

We agree that time is of the essence in implementing this 

project to reduce the potential for mountain pine beetle 

caused mortality in this area. The expedited procedures 

of the HFRA act are one way in which the Forest Service 

is responding to this urgent need. Once a decision has 

been made on this project, implementation may occur. 

55f Other properties represented by this letter include portions of 

Boot-Hill Ranch Estates, Super 8, Comfort Inn, Holiday Inn 

Express, Best Western, Econo Lodge, vacant land owned by 

Plump & Lump, SHS Development, and Tennyson Investments. 

We agree that the MPB epidemic occurring within the 

Vestal project area should be addressed aggressively due 

in part to the extensive amount of private lands and 

businesses occurring within this area. Therefore, the 
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I

I-199 

All of these properties exist within the Vestal Project area and 

some of them share boundaries with National Forest. Every 

property will be affected either directly or indirectly from how 

you proceed with the proposed project.

Private land owners are relying on the government to mitigate 

the damage caused by MPB and the Vestal Project needs to be 

modified in order to achieve success. This disaster needs to be 

treated uniquely and aggressively, a generic timber sale is not 

the solution. Changes in the scope of the project to include 

alternatives that will offer immediate and long term benefits 

should be considered.

Once again, I would like to thank you and everyone who 

contributed to this project, as I trust you all to have the same 

desire to save our National Forest. Please consider my 

comments in order to improve the negative impacts of the 

Vestal Project, as without modification I am concerned that we 

will no longer have a forest to manage.

proposed action was designed to accomplish this. The 

treatments proposed are for the purpose of reducing MPB 

risk and fire hazard throughout this landscape. These 

treatments are those specifically recommended by Forest 

Health Entomologists with extensive experience on MPB, 

including extensive local experience (see Chapter 4 of the 

EIS). Preventative thinning to reduce stand density and 

therefore MPB risk, and direct suppression (sanitation) to 

remove beetle larvae from the woods. 

We are not aware of other landscape level treatments that 

have been shown to be effective in reducing MPB caused 

mortality. 

Preventative spraying is occurring at developed recreation 

sites, such as Bismark lake. Spraying is an expensive 

treatment, not feasible on a landscape scale. 

Projections of SS (which notes tree size and density) at 

year 2018 are shown in Table 4 of the EIS. We expect 

dramatic changes on this landscape in the No Action 

alternative due to MPB. 

Alternatives that were considered but not in detail are 

discussed on pages 25-27 of the Vestal EIS.