Appendix A Pactola Project Area Public Involvement and Collaboration 

APPENDIX A 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

AND 

COLLABORATION 

Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 3 

APPENDIX A –PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COLLABORATION 

During the project development and analysis period, collaborative efforts were made to involve, 

interact, and cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Pactola Project. Part of this 

effort included public scoping as discussed below. 

Scoping 

Scoping is the process of obtaining public comments about proposed Federal actions to help 

determine the breadth of issues to be addressed by project actions. The Pactola Project was 

entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in June 2010. A scoping letter soliciting 

comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the Pactola

Project Area was mailed to approximately 400 members of the public, American Indian Tribes, 

other public agencies, adjacent property owners, organizations, and Forest Service specialists on 

July 28, 2010. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register

on Monday, August 9, 2010. The Notice of Intent and Scoping letter were also made available

on the Black Hills National Forest website in August 2010. 

A mailing list of property/land owners was generated for the project area by obtaining names and 

addresses from property tax roles held in the Pennington and Lawrence County Department of 

Equalization. The counties’ databases were queried for property/land owners within or near the project 

area. Approximately 324 names were generated. Scoping letters were mailed to these contacts. 

Also, other groups or individuals who are known to have or may have interest in management of the 

National Forest (and specifically this project area) were included on the mailing list and contacted 

with a scoping letter. The scoping mailing list is held in the Pactola Project File. 

A public meeting was held at the Silver City Community Hall in Silver City, SD on Tuesday, 

August 24, 2010. At the meeting, key members of the ID Team presented the project proposal to 

the public, questions were answered, concerns and issues were solicited and documented for 

consideration. The public scoping period for this project ended on September 8, 2010. 

Approximately 195 comments were received in writing via regular mail, email, telephone, 

facsimile, and personal contact. All scoping comments and agency responses are summarized in 

the Scoping database held in the Project File. 

Some key interest groups consulted with and/or involved in the planning process were the South 

Dakota Department of Agriculture – Division of Resource Conservation and Forestry and 

Division of Wildland Fire Suppression, and the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce (Agriculture 

and Natural Resource Committee). Specialists also met with individuals, as well as the Silver 

City Volunteer Fire Department to discuss additional treatments surrounding the community of 

Silver City and other private lands. A concerted effort was made to engage in consultation 

regarding the project with Tribal contacts known to have interest in management of the National 

Forest. Information was provided and feedback obtained from the Black Hills NF Advisory 

Board – a group of representatives from a broad spectrum of interest groups, agencies, and local 

government that advise the Black Hills National Forest on management issues. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 4 

Opportunity to Comment 

The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the Pactola Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) during the 45-day comment period. This comment period began when a Notice of 

Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register on Friday, May 6, 2011. A Legal Notice 

was published in the Rapid City Journal, newspaper of record, on Saturday, May 7, 2011 announcing 

an Opportunity to Comment on the Pactola DEIS. A news release was made available to the public 

on the BHNF website on May 19, 2011. A news release was published in the Hill City Prevailer on 

May 25, 2011. The comment period ended on June 20, 2011. The Mystic Ranger District received 

14 responses, including letters, emails, phone calls, facsimiles, and meeting with individuals at the 

Mystic Ranger District Office in Rapid City. These responses have been analyzed using a process 

called content analysis. 

Comment Content Analysis and Agency Response Process 

Content analysis is a method developed by a specialized Forest Service unit, the Content Analysis 

Team (CAT), for analyzing public comment. This method employs both qualitative and quantitative 

approaches. It is a systematic process designed to provide a mailing list of respondents, distinguish 

specific comments in each response, evaluate similar comments from different responses, and from 

those, identify specific concerns. 

The content analysis process strives to identify all relevant issues, not just those represented by the 

majority of respondents. In addition to capturing relevant factual input, the content analysis identifies 

the relative emotion and strength of public sentiment behind particular viewpoints. The intention of 

the content analysis process is to represent the public’s viewpoints and concerns as fairly as possible, 

and to present those concerns in such a way as to assist the ID Team in effectively responding to them. 

The ID Team reviewed the public comment statements and considered the substance of the concerns, 

evaluated whether they triggered a change in the environmental analysis, and drafted responses. For 

some comments, they reviewed the original letter or other input to ascertain the full context for the 

concern statement. 

The ID Team provided any recommendations for adjustments to the DEIS analysis or documentation 

to the Team Leader for review, consideration, and action. The ID Team provided responses to 14 

letters and 115 public comments. Some comments were received late, and thus not formally 

addressed in Appendix A of the FEIS (NEPA, Title I, Sec. 104(b)(g)). No public comment, including 

late comments, on the DEIS generated the need for reanalysis of the alternatives. Additional 

discussions and/or factual and clarifying information have been incorporated in the document. 

In general, the ID Team responded in the following ways to public concerns as prescribed in the 40 

CFR 1503.4. 

• Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 

• Supplement, improve, or modify analysis. 

• Make factual corrections. 

• Explaining why the comments do not need further Forest Service response. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 5 

In response to the comments on the DEIS, the ID Team has made factual and clarifying corrections in 

the document, and/or explained why changes are not warranted. Minimal response (basically 

acknowledgement) has been made to concerns stating a position or an opinion. However, these 

positions and opinions have been compiled by the ID Team for consideration by the Responsible 

Official. Some specific suggestions for management of the project area may be adopted by the 

Responsible Official, other specific concerns are beyond the authority of the Forest Service and 

beyond the scope of the DEIS or determined to be impractical. None of the comments necessitated 

reanalysis of alternatives. 

The following is a list of individuals and organizations that commented on the Pactola Project Area 

DEIS: 

Name Group City State

Mr. Patrick Breen Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. John & Marian Clark Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Carson Engelskiger Black Hills Forest Rapid City South Dakota 

Resource Association 

Mr. & Mrs. John & Tonya Gomez Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Stephen Hoffman Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Roger & Darlene Kehm Kehm Joint Living Trust Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Mr. John S. Persell Biodiversity Conservation Laramie Wyoming 

 Alliance 

Mr. & Mrs. Phil & Vicki Schlief Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Robert Stewart, US Dept. of the Interior Denver Colorado 

Regional Environmental Officer 

Mr. Larry Svoboda US Environmental Protection Denver Colorado 

 Agency, Region 8 

Ms. Janet Thompson Kingsley Iowa 

Mr. Jim Thomson Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Theresa Tucker Plymouth Minnesota 

Mr. Josh Van Vlack Neiman Timber Co. Hill City South Dakota 

Public Comment on the Draft EIS 

Public comment on the Draft EIS was rich and varied, and reflects, for the most part, respondents’ 

livelihood, lifestyle, and/or position/opinion on issues or concerns. 

In general, the majority of the respondents living within and adjacent to the project area are very 

supportive of vegetation management to reduce the mountain pine beetle infestation and the risk of 

wildfire under the action alternatives. The following are sample excerpts from original responses: 

“My preference would be Alternative C.” (Letter 2, Comment 1) 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 6 

“We believe thinning is a very good method for slowing down the infestation. Adequate 

separation between trees is conducive to a healthier forest and reduced fire danger. In the private 

land that we own we have taken forest management seriously by thinning (non-commercially 

and at our expense) over 200 acres, 134 acres by China Gulch Road in 2005 and 71 acres in 

Gorman Gulch in 2009. Now we're happy to see that our efforts will not be in vain and that the 

surrounding public land will be treated as well.” (Letter 7, Comment 2) 

“I have read the EIS and my wife and I are grateful for the work the FS staff has put into this 

project. As a member of the Silver City Volunteer Fire Department and a resident of Silver City 

we are in support of either option B or C. We would lean more toward option C for the additional 

fire protection and concerns about MPB killing even more trees in the areas that don't get treated 

in option B.” (Letter 11, Comment 1) 

Agency Response to Public Comments 

In the content analysis process, each response is assigned a unique number (ID) and given a number 

(Letter Number). This ID allows analysts to link specific comments to the original letter. All 

respondents’ names and addresses are entered into a project-specific database, enabling creation of a 

complete list of all respondents. Each comment is given a number (Comment Number) and is coded 

by response. The following report: Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

contains the complete list of respondents’ comments and the Agency’s response. Original letters are 

held in the Pactola Project File at the Mystic Ranger District Office in Rapid City. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 7 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

1 1 Fire/Fuels

Kehm, David and Janet

Comment:

We have noted before - be very careful about the pre-designated burns. (They can & do get out of control).

Agency Response: 

Prescribed fire is implemented only after a comprehensive Burn Plan has been written and reviewed. Critical elements within a burn 

plan define environmental conditions (time of year, weather, fuel conditions) in which we can burn. Other elements plan for safety 

(firefighter and public), personnel requirements, and contingency resources in the event of an escape.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

1 2 Fire/Fuels

Kehm, David and Janet

Comment:

Also - Please get with the National Park Service. We agree no fireworks by anybody in the National Forest. The NPS should agree 

to this also.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. The USFS supports South Dakota State Law prohibiting fireworks within the Black Hills Fire Protection District.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

2 1 Plan

Clark, John

Comment:

My preference would be Alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

3 1 Plan

Thompson, Janet

Comment:

I have no comments, please keep me informed.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

4 1 Plan

Thomson, Jim

Comment:

I have no comments, please keep me informed.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

5 1 Plan

Tucker, Theresa

Comment:

I have no comments, please keep me informed.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 8 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

6 1 Plan

Breen, Patrick

Comment:

I received the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Pactola Project. I am a full time resident of Silver City. After review I 

endorse Alternative C.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 1 Veg

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

We are all concerned about the spread of the Mountain Pine Beetle. Every month brings newly found evidence of infestation.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 2 Veg

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

We believe thinning is a very good method for slowing down the infestation. Adequate separation between trees is conducive to a 

healthier forest and reduced fire danger. In the private land that we own we have taken forest management seriously by thinning 

(non-commercially and at our expense) over 200 acres, 134 acres by China Gulch Road in 2005 and 71 acres in Gorman Gulch in 

2009. Now we're happy to see that our efforts will not be in vain and that the surrounding public land will be treated as well.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 3 Fire/Fuels

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

We also own 80 acres by middle nugget (FSR 675.1) and we are happy with the results of the prescribed burning that took place in 

the last few years. Our land is mostly meadow and therefore does not require treatment at this time.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. Maintaining prescribed fire treatments within this area would continue to move the area to its historic fire return 

interval and improve big game winter range.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 4 Plan

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

We are generally in favor of your project plan. Alternative C is preferred because of the added treatment and the fact that you will 

address the hardest hit areas.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 5 Veg

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

1. As shown in Alternative C, the cable logging upstream from Silver City is necessary.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 9 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 6 Veg

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

2. Both sides of Gorman Gulch (FSR 141.2B) commercial and non-commercial thinning is needed to reduce infestation spread, 

reduce fuels, 

 and increase fire protection. The area is easily accessible and has heavy concentration of trees. Alternative C is preferred. 

3. The West side of Sunnyside Gulch (FSR 671). Same reason as #2. Alternative C is preferred with cable road construction. 

5. The area just east of Silver City and west of Pactola lake along FSR 251.1K. Alternative C is preferred.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 7 Fire/Fuels

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

4. We recommend a 60 foot clear cut fire buffer on the south side of Silver City. We recommend that the fire buffer coincide with the 

top of the 

 ridge on the south side of Silver City. The residents of Silver City will gladly help with this fire line. It is unsure whether the 

treatment on 

 Alternative C accomplishes this but we like the intent and hope that this area is treated.

Agency Response: 

Commercial thinning is proposed in both Alternatives B and C directly south of Silver City. Treatments include commercial thinning 

that would open up the overstory and reduce fire hazard rating. This type of treatment would reduce the potential for a crown fire. 

Fuel breaks would also be constructed in the vicinity of Silver City. 

Including a 60 foot clear cut on a ridge above Silver City would not necessarily improve fire protection for structures in the valley 

bottom. With possible spotting distances of upwards to a half a mile, common to large fires in the Black Hills, the proposed 

commercial treatments in both Alternatives B and C would have a more positive effect than a clear cut on a ridge top.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 8 Trans

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

6. IMPORTANT. Middle Nugget (FSR 675.1 and vicinity). Alternatives B and C are very similar in this entire area. We are confused 

by the new 

 road construction to the west of our property on Middle Nugget. We don't believe that a new road is needed since the existing 

trails on top 

 of the ridge are adequate and the plan does not call for any treatment on the bottom of the gulch. Constructing a new road has 

quite a bit of 

 expense and will invariably affect the soils on that slope. We propose that you call us to discuss alternatives. It may be possible to 

go 

 through our land instead of building a new road just for this purpose. We are not in favor of the FS building a new road at that 

location.

Agency Response: 

Forest Service staff would contact landowners in regards to obtaining rights-of-way (ROW) through private property prior to 

constructing a new road around private, if the terrain is feasible to access National Forest lands from private. If obtaining a ROW is 

unsuccessful, a new road may be needed to access the proposed treatment sites. Engineering staff would inspect the area and 

propose alternative routes to access the site which would then be verified and approved by Forest and District Resource Specialists. 

The selected route on forest would be closed and revegetated after treatment activities are completed. See pgs. 94-100 and 242-

245 of the DEIS.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 10 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 9 Trans

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

7. Middle Nugget (FSR 675.1A). On alternatives B & C there appears to be road maintenance around 675.1A. We are especially 

concerned 

 with a segment that brings a road from the East on to the bottom of the gulch. This road today is basically non-existing. Since no 

treatment 

 is prescribed for the bottom meadow, we question the purpose of creating a road to go down to the meadow. The motorized travel 

plan 

 opened many previously closed trails around this area. Now, this project is creating and opening new ones. We are opposed to 

the creation 

 and expansion of roads.

Agency Response: 

There is no proposal to extend NFSR 675.1A to the bottom of Middle Nugget Gulch. NFSR 675.1A is a closed forest system road 

and not open to motorized travel and would only be open to the timber purchaser and their contractors during their operation period. 

See DEIS, Appendix E, Maps 7-9.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 10 Trans

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

8. Middle Nugget (FSR 675.1G). The legend on the transportation map is confusing. Nearby FSR 249 is colored white and 675.1G 

is also 

 white. However one road is open and the other is not. We hope to keep FSR 675.1G closed and should see no traffic as part of 

this project 

 since there is little treatment prescribed for that stretch.

Agency Response: 

The Transportation System maps, Maps 8 and 9 in Appendix E of the DEIS, show the transportation system needed for the 

alternatives for the Pactola Project and not travel management roads open to public use. Travel management, as per the Forestwide Travel Management FEIS/ROD and 2010 MVUM, is shown on Map 7. NFSR 675.1G is closed to motorized public travel. 

The white symbol shown on the Transportation System maps are labeled “No Entry” which means that these roads would not be 

utilized for this project. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

7 11 Plan

Gomez, John and Tonya

Comment:

Thank you for your consideration on these points. We applaud the Mystic Ranger Office for undergoing this project and trying to be 

proactive against the Mountain Pine Beetle and potentially catastrophic forest fires.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 11 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

8 1 Wildlife

Department of the Interior

Comment:

Chapter 4: Bibliography/References

Page 285: The correct Peterson 1995 citation and link is:

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists' Union. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center Online. Version 06JUL2000). Available electronically: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sdatlas/index.htm.

Page 286: There is a more recent reference for the Sauer et al. 2008 citation listed in the references section. Suggest that the final 

EIS include the most recent publication (2011) and the text be updated to include any new information in the analyses and 

discussion, and if applicable, provide revised mitigation options based on the updated information. The updated citation is:

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird 

Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available 

electronically: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Agency Response: 

References have been updated in final documents. The information gathered from these two original references did not change; 

therefore no changes to the FEIS, including mitigation were necessary.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 1 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

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 alternatives (e.g., harvest, prescribed 

fire, 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.

Agency Response: 

The Black Hills National Forest also concurs that aquatic resources within the Pactola Project Area are of high resource and social 

value. The need to protect these resources from adverse impacts that may be associated with the continued spread of mountain 

pine beetle is presented in Chap. 1 of the DEIS, pg. 11. Design criteria and mitigation measures to protect aquatic resources is 

listed in the DEIS, Appendix B. These measures apply to proposed management activities under both action alternatives aimed at 

treating and preventing further MPB infestations. 

Potential impacts to aquatic resources were analyzed for all three alternatives associated with the Pactola Project. A summary of 

this effects analysis is presented in Chap. 3 of the DEIS, pgs. 32-94. More detailed supporting information is located in the project 

file and is available upon request.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 12 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 2 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

Data and Consultation: We appreciate the qualitative discussion of water quality provided in the DEIS and recommend expanding it 

to include Escherichia coli, nutrient concentrations, water temperatures, and turbidity data, if they exist. In addition, numerous 

sections include references to more detailed data and/or maps contained in the project file. To more adequately inform the reader, 

we recommend incorporating a summary of these data and/or maps into the appropriate sections of the FEIS. Data and/or maps of 

particular interest are those referenced in the following sections: Stream Flow Regime; Water Quality; and Wetlands, Riparian 

Areas, and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems.

Agency Response: 

Escherichia coli, nutrient concentrations, water temperatures, and turbidity were not specifically discussed in the water quality 

section of the DEIS because all streams and water bodies within the Pactola Project Area are listed as fully supporting Stateassigned beneficial uses (SD DENR, 2010). 

The USGS maintains a stream discharge gage on Rapid Creek, above Pactola Reservoir (Station 06410500). Water temperature 

and specific conductance are the only water quality parameters monitored at this site. SD DENR monitors Rapid Creek monthly in 

the vicinity of the Pactola Project for the water quality parameters listed by the commenter at station 47 (Storet 460647). Results for 

this site have not indicated a problem with any of the water quality parameters monitored. Language has been added to the water 

quality discussion in Chap.3 of the FEIS to clarify this topic. 

Supporting data and maps were not included in the DEIS in the interest of keeping the document as concise as possible (per CEQ 

1500.3). However, this information was used to present the existing resource conditions and effects analysis of watershed 

resources, as summarized in Chap. 3 of the DEIS on pgs. 32-94. Maps of stream flow regime, water quality, wetlands, riparian 

areas, and ground-water dependent ecosystems are located in the project file and are available upon request. Maps and supporting 

information for current and past water quality are also available from the SD DENR at the following web link: 

http://denr.sd.gov/documents.aspx#Surface

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 3 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

The Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains Section notes that "streams within the watershed analysis area have not yet been 

rigorously surveyed and evaluated for stream stability." We recommend that these surveys be completed and results provided in the 

FEIS. In addition, this section notes that more detailed field investigations and basic water quality monitoring should be completed 

on Jim Creek, Kelley Gulch, and Nugget Gulch in order to determine if beneficial uses and water quality criteria are threatened. We 

also recommend inclusion of these data in the FEIS.

Agency Response: 

Qualitative assessments of stream stability were completed in 2009 by a USFS hydrologist. General stream health assessments 

have been completed for the perennial streams and many of the intermittent streams as well in accordance with Region 2 and 

Forest Plan Guidance. The full discussion regarding assessments of stream stability within the Pactola Project Area is presented on 

pg. 76 of the DEIS. 

Rigorous assessments of stream stability require extensive surveying and data collection to initially characterize the stream type, 

followed by repeat annual re-surveying of the site characteristics to determine stability and long-term trend, in accordance with the 

Rosgen method of stream classification and stability assessment (Rosgen, 1996). This level of survey would not be necessary 

and/or feasible given the timeframe associated with the need to reduce the threat and spread of MPB in the Pactola Project Area. 

Although the current stream assessments are qualitative in nature, these general stream stability assessments incorporated the 

complex geomorphic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and biologic principles associated with overall stream stability and stream health. 

Language has been added to the FEIS to clarify the types of stream surveys that were completed for the Pactola Project analysis. 

Results of the general stream health assessments for Jim Creek, Kelley Gulch, and Nugget Gulch indicated that these streams had 

departures in their geomorphic, hydrologic, and/or biotic integrity relative to their natural, potential condition (See DEIS, pg. 76). This 

could indicate that water quality may be affected, according to the USFS Region 2 stream health assessment protocol. None of 

these three streams are listed on the 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment (SD DENR, 

2010). Follow-up field investigation of these three streams was recommended by the USFS hydrologist to quantitatively validate or 

revise the general stream health assessments. Stream health assessment field forms are located in the project file and are available 

upon request. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 13 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 4 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

The Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems Section is unclear regarding consultation with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to determine the applicability of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit requirements to 

wetlands in the area. Please clarify in the FEIS.

Agency Response: 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater Dependant ecosystems are specifically discussed in the DEIS, pgs. 87-93. Design 

Criteria has been included to protect all wetlands in the Pactola Project (See DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-1 through B-4). These 

measures apply to all wetlands in the Pactola Project Area, regardless of whether each individual wetland meets the regulatory 

definition of “jurisdictional wetland.” No alteration of any wetland would take place. If dredge or fill material needs to be placed in 

wetlands to construct road crossings, consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be necessary, also permitting under 

Section 404 of the CWA may be necessary as well. Additional language has been added to Chap. 3, Watershed, Geology, and Soils 

section of the FEIS on wetlands.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 5 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

Impaired Waterbodies: Although no waterbodies within the project area are currently listed as impaired by the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR), Pactola Lake has been identified as a high quality waterbody 

vulnerable to nutrient enrichment and sedimentation from natural soil erosion, recreational activities, and various silvicultural 

activities. We recommend including a discussion of how the proposed project might affect this waterbody and water quality 

parameters given that treatments are proposed directly adjacent to the reservoir.

Agency Response: 

Potential impacts to water resources throughout the Pactola Project Area, which is part of the overall contributing watershed area to 

Pactola Reservoir, were presented in the DEIS pgs. 69-94. Potential impacts to water quality in Pactola Reservoir and throughout 

the Project Area is addressed (See DEIS, pgs. 79-86) for each of the alternatives, as well as cumulative effects. Potential impacts to 

water quality in Pactola Reservoir are also disclosed in the Fisheries section (See DEIS, pgs. 226-230) and in the Fisheries 

Specialist Report. 

The design criterion in Appendix B of the FEIS has been updated to specifically address operational requirements adjacent to 

Pactola Reservoir.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 14 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 6 Range/Weeds

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

Range-Related Impacts to Aquatic Resources: The project area overlaps three cattle grazing allotments on the Mystic Ranger 

District and one allotment on the Northern Hills Ranger District. Fencing and range improvements have been designed and 

constructed in a manner to protect aquatic resources from adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing. The DEIS notes that, 

in order to continue functioning as intended, these fences and various range improvements (e.g., water developments, spring 

exclosures, corrals) would need protection from project activities such as road construction, harvest machinery operation, and 

prescribed fire application. To clarify, please identify measures that would be used to provide these protections.

Agency Response: 

The following design criteria have been added to the FEIS, Appendix B in the Range and Noxious Weeds/Invasive Plants section. 

1) Range improvements and fences to be protected by the service/logging contractor during the life of the service contract or forest 

products sale will be delineated on the project map. Fences need to be kept intact during the grazing season, and water 

developments maintained if damaged to prevent erosion from discharging water. If a service contract or product sale is active, any 

fence crossings created by the contractor need to be repaired each day during the grazing season. 

2). When possible, design vegetative treatments or prescribed burning units so targeted area extends to the top of a slope. If 

additional fencing is needed for livestock control, it would be built along ridgelines for ease of construction and to avoid obstructing 

future logging activities at mid-slope or lower in a treatment unit. 

3). If MPB mortality, timber sale activities, or prescribed fire treatments remove natural barriers to cattle distribution, or create roads 

or trails which allow cattle to enter portions of an allotment not previously accessible, then additional range improvements such as 

allotment boundary or pasture fencing, cattleguards, and water developments would need to be funded. Such work may include 

renovation or extension of existing structures. These improvements allow for cattle control and better distribution across the new 

range areas. Some stock ponds have substantial drainages which need to be maintained and cleared of debris during and after 

service or product sale activities. Separate NEPA analysis would be conducted for each range improvement as needed.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 15 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 7 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

Water Quality Impacts of Beetle Epidemic: We recommend the FEIS include a watershed analysis that includes a comparison of 

changes in runoff and flow characteristics resulting from taking no action on the beetle-killed trees versus harvesting them. Since the 

science is still unclear with respect to impacts from the beetle epidemic and the beetle kill impacts to watersheds will vary by 

watershed, we recommend that the FEIS disclose the positive and negative impacts of both leaving the beetle-killed trees in place 

and removing them within this particular project area, as well as in the broader context of beetle-killed trees in the Black Hills 

National Forest.

In addition, 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. 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 note the DEIS reference to use of the Pactola Lake by 

Silver City and Rapid City residents for domestic water purposes. EPA recommends that the FEIS assess the potential for organic 

loading impacts to drinking water treatment and supplies.

Agency Response: 

A discussion of annual water yield is presented in the DEIS on pgs. 69-71. Stream flow regime and potential changes in runoff is 

discussed on DEIS pgs. 71-75. These discussions summarize water yield research on the Black Hills and in similar ponderosa pine 

forests on the Colorado Front Range. Published data on MPB effects on annual water yield and/or stream flow characteristics for 

low elevation, ponderosa pine ecosystems is lacking at this time. Therefore, a more qualitative comparison of potential changes in 

annual water yield and stream flow was made between each of the action alternatives and Alternative A - No Action. Addressing the 

effects of MPB epidemic for the Black Hills region is beyond the scope of the Pactola DEIS. 

Design Criteria has been included in the Pactola Project to minimize runoff, erosion, and contaminant transport to water resources 

(See DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-1 through B-17). Water quality in Pactola Reservoir is monitored by the South Dakota Department of 

the Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR). The SD DENR has determined that the USFS WCPs meet or exceed the SD 

Forestry BMPs in accordance with both State and Federal water quality requirements (USDA Forest Service, 2009g). Throughout 

the soil and water resources section (See DEIS, pgs. 40-94) it is explained that “[WCP] measures are designed to control runoff and 

erosion for a 10 year storm event” and based on typical storm characteristics for the Black Hills area (e.g., intensity, duration, 

frequency, spatial and temporal variances in precipitation, etc.). It is reasonable to expect that WCP measures would control storm 

runoff, erosion, and transport of sediment and contaminants to water resources in the Pactola Project. By controlling runoff and 

erosion, any potential for organic loading is also controlled.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 16 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 8 Trans

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

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 Pactola Project Alternative B would 

implement 27 miles of road reconstruction and 3 miles of new road construction to facilitate treatment activities. Alternative C would 

implement 29 miles of road reconstruction and 19 miles of new road construction. The DEIS notes that the new roads would be 

closed when activities are completed, but it appears that there may be caveats on which roads would be closed. Please address this 

point and provide total closure mileage in the FEIS.

We support the DEIS monitoring recommendations related to road maintenance, reconstruction and new construction activities. 

Since it is often difficult to effectively close roads in the Black Hills and negative environmental impacts associated with the new 

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.

In addition, given the recent court conclusion that logging roads arc point sources and thus require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits as a source of industrial stormwater, we recommend the FEIS acknowledge that any new and 

recommissioned logging roads necessary for the project may require permit coverage. See Northwest Envt’l Def. Ctr. v. Marvin 

Brown, Oregon State Forester no. 07-35266 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010).

Agency Response: 

The transportation necessary for management activities would utilize the existing transportation network to the maximum extent 

possible. The amount of road reconstruction proposed is necessary to carry out the actions proposed in Alternatives B and C. All 

road work and mitigation measures would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria (See DEIS, Appendix B, 

pgs. B-1 through B-11 and B-17 through B-20). 

Alternatives B and C would close all newly constructed roads and NFSR conversion roads. Additionally, Alternative B would close 

approximately 13 miles of unauthorized roads used for temporary access after use as part of timber operations and Alternative C 

would close approximately 12 miles of temporary roads. Therefore, approximately 17 miles and 34 miles of road would be closed 

under Alternatives B and C respectively. There may be an opportunity to close additional system roads utilized for treatment 

activities and not identified as a motorized route under the Travel Management Plan from timber operations. 

Road closure design criteria is listed in the DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-19. “Roads used for logging operations will be closed as part of 

post-use maintenance activities by the Timber Purchaser.” Timber contractors are legally bound by the timber sale contract to 

perform specified road closure work. Timber Sale Administrators and Engineering Representatives must inspect completed road 

work and accept it as effective prior to each individual timber sale unit and overall sale to be considered completed. Road closure 

effectiveness is also monitored by district personnel as part of post-sale activities, depending on the availability of funding. See 

DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-20. 

Although South Dakota is not within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, the Forest Service is aware of the 9th Circuit Court ruling on 

NEDC v. Brown. Currently, the federal regulations have not been changed with respect to the NEDC v. Brown ruling. At such time 

that the federal regulations are changed, the Forest Service will comply with all permitting requirements that may apply to 

management activities associated with the Pactola Project. All other permitting requirements that currently apply will be followed.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 17 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 9 Hydro/Soils

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

1) Aquatic resources in the project area are of critical importance, requiring evaluation and mitigation of associated impacts. 

Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring: The DEIS notes that stream channels and wetlands in the project area are 

already impaired and unstable systems, and groundwater in the Black Hills can have high contamination potential. Given the 

importance of the high quality waterbodies and wetlands in the area, as well as surface water use and groundwater wells for 

residential and municipal water supplies, commercial and industrial uses, livestock water, and irrigation, we recommend all relevant, 

reasonable monitoring and mitigation measures to protect these water sources even if they are outside the jurisdiction of USFS.

Appendix B, Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring, notes that Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) and South 

Dakota Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to protect these aquatic resources. We recommend that the 

applicable WCPs and BMPs be listed in the FEIS along with a discussion of how the USFS intends to ensure that these design 

criteria are properly implemented and adhered to in order to ensure that no substantial or long-lasting effects to aquatic resources 

result from project activities.

We support the extensive list of project design criteria to protect aquatic resources, including special requirements for high quality 

wetland resources such as springs and fens. To ensure that project activities do not adversely impact aquatic resources, we 

recommend expanding the list as follows:

• Require revegetation of all disturbed areas with native seed mix 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 mechanical vegetation treatments and prescribed burning.

• Monitor breakdown of hydrophobic soils for live years following prescribed burns.

• Monitor impacts to water quality from treatments proposed adjacent to Pactola Lake.

• Monitor stream channel stability.

• Develop a monitoring plan and schedule to assess the effectiveness of road closures.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 7. 

The water resources section of the DEIS discloses that impacted stream channels and wetlands exist within the Pactola Project 

Area. (See DEIS, pgs. 75-79 and 87-93). The primary sources of instability were identified as roads and cattle concentration in 

riparian and wetland areas. Many of these existing instabilities can be corrected as part of timber management operations (e.g., 

road realignment, culvert removal or upgrade, road drainage improvements, etc) as presented in the analysis on DEIS, pg. 92. 

Improvement needs associated with cattle grazing are beyond the scope and authority of the Pactola Project, but would be pursued 

through changes in grazing management (See DEIS, pgs. 92-93). 

Design Criteria and mitigation measures come from several sources including USFS Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs), 

South Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs), Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and industry standard methods 

(See DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-1). All applicable WCPs and SD BMPs pertaining to project implementation have been included in the 

design criteria and mitigation measures listed in Appendix B. Some of the WCP and BMP measures that apply to the planning of 

USFS actions were not listed in DEIS Appendix B in the interest of keeping the Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring 

list concise and pertinent to project implementation. A complete listing of all applicable WCP and BMP measures for all aspects of 

the project (planning and implementation) is contained in Appendix B of the Geologic, Soil, and Water Resources specialist report 

(See DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-1). The Geologic, Soil, and Water Resource Specialist Report is located in the project file and is 

available upon request. 

Design Criteria and mitigation measures apply to all Federal undertakings associated with the Pactola Project, including those that 

occur on non-federal lands (e.g., right-of-way and road use for access to forest stands, etc.). These measures are intended to 

protect aquatic resources on Federal lands, as well as those upstream or downstream of Federal lands. Additional design criteria 

have been added to Appendix B of the FEIS. 

Monitoring of design criteria implementation and effectiveness is accomplished through several avenues. Design criteria becomes 

part of the implementation plan and, if necessary, identified in vegetative treatment contracts, road contracts and prescribed burn 

plans. Vegetative treatment and road contracts are closely monitored by USFS personnel to ensure compliance with contract 

requirements. Therefore, compliance with design criteria would be achieved. 

Implementation monitoring is also performed by various resource specialists, including the hydrologist during routine field visits 

during and after project implementation to determine if a design criterion is being followed and to determine the effectiveness of the 

design criteria. Effectiveness monitoring is completed by watershed personnel as part of annual WCP/BMP monitoring efforts 

published in the Black Hills National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports. References to the WCP/BMP monitoring is 

presented throughout watershed resources assessment (See DEIS, pgs. 32-93); a specific discussion of this monitoring and the 

proven effectiveness is presented in the water quality section on DEIS pgs. 83-84. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 18 

Some of the monitoring items for watershed and soil resources were inadvertently missing from Appendix B of the DEIS. A 

monitoring list for Watershed, Geology, and Soils Resources has been added to the FEIS. 

Design criteria have been modified in the FEIS to clarify revegetation and monitoring of disturbed areas (e.g., seeding). 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 6 for additional range design criteria. 

Design criteria have been added to the FEIS to monitor the breakdown of hydrophobic soils following the application of prescribed 

fire. 

Design criteria have been modified in the FEIS to specifically address operational requirements adjacent to Pactola Reservoir. 

Monitoring of stream stability is done concurrent with project implementation by the project hydrologist, wildlife/fisheries biologists, 

engineering personnel, and timber sale administrators. Monitoring of stream stability on streams with “Diminished” stream health 

according to USFS Region 2 protocols, including but not limited to Jim Creek, Kelley Gulch, and Nugget Gulch, has been included in 

the FEIS monitoring list in Appendix B. 

Road closure design criteria is listed in the DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-19 states, "All temporary roads and newly constructed system 

roads used to access harvested units would be closed after management activity is completed, unless the Black Hills National 

Forest Travel Management Plan or Road Management Objective state otherwise." Timber contractors are legally bound by the 

timber sale contract to perform specified road closure work. Timber Sale Administrators must inspect completed road work and 

accept it as effective prior to each individual timber sale unit and the overall sale to be considered completed. Road closure 

effectiveness is also monitored by district personnel as part of post-sale funded activities. Some unauthorized roads may be closed 

as part of post-sale area improvement activities.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 10 Fire/Fuels

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

2) Air quality impacts associated with the project are a critical concern that must be fully evaluated.

The project area is near the population center of Rapid City, as well as two mandatory Class I Federal areas (Wind Cave National 

Park and Badlands National Park). In addition to health-based standards to protect ambient air quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires special protection of visibility in the nation's large National Parks and Wilderness Areas (identified as mandatory Class I 

Federal areas). EPA's CAA implementing regulations require states to submit State Implementation Plans that, among other things, 

demonstrate attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal. Actions by Federal Land Managers that lack adequate mitigation of air quality impacts could impede a state's ability to 

meet CAA requirements.

Data: The DEIS includes some qualitative discussion of air quality, noting that current fine particle pollutant levels in the State of 

South Dakota are in attainment status and identifies the two mandatory Class I Federal areas in the region. While we are pleased to 

see that there is an Air Quality section in the DEIS, EPA is concerned that no specific air quality data regarding existing conditions 

are provided. Given EPA's concerns regarding air quality, we recommend that USFS position itself (and others) to fully evaluate 

impacts resulting from the alternatives by providing a thorough characterization of existing air quality conditions in the area. To that 

end, we recommend the FEIS include the following:

• Identification of sensitive receptors (such as population centers and Class I and Sensitive Class II areas in the vicinity).

• Airshed classifications and baseline conditions at nearby population centers.

• Disclosure of any regional concerns (e.g., PM 10 and PM2.s issues in the area).

• Trending of air quality at the nearby Class I Federal areas over the past several years.

Such data are readily available from the SDDENR and/or the EPA AirExplorer web site (http://www.epa.gov/airexplorer/ and the 

VIEWS site for air quality related values (AQRVs) (http://views.cira.colostate.edu/web/). Information regarding current conditions will 

be an important tool for monitoring the impacts of the various project activities. Decision-makers will need to understand baseline 

conditions in an effort to ensure that the Pactola Project activities, when combined with air quality impacts from external sources, do 

not adversely impact the NAAQS. 

Agency Response: 

The FEIS for the 1997 Revised LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1996) presented information on the affected environment of air quality 

in the Black Hills region on pages III-15 to III-18 which generally presented information on the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The Forest Plan Phase II FEIS (pgs. III-442-447) identified some activities that could potentially affect air 

quality in the Forest. 

Additional air quality language has been added to the FEIS, Chap. 3, Fire and Fuels section. 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comments 12 and 13.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 19 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 11 Fire/Fuels

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

2) Air quality impacts associated with the project are a critical concern that must be fully evaluated. 

Prescribed Fire: The Pactola Project action alternatives both include the application of prescribed burning to approximately 5,000 

acres. This significant prescribed fire activity may cause degradation of air quality in the region. The DEIS notes that prior to ignition 

the USFS must demonstrate that smoke emissions would be in full compliance with the NAAQS. This demonstration would include 

weather forecasting and test fire observation. While we realize the individual bum plans prepared for this project would quantify 

expected emissions, we recommend that an estimate of predicted emissions be disclosed in the FEIS. Such information is 

necessary to fully inform the public as well as the decision-maker to ensure protection of air quality if the prescribed bums are 

ultimately conducted.

We support the prescribed fire design criteria and monitoring recommendations outlined in Appendix B of the DEIS. However, we 

recommend elaborating on these requirements in the FEIS to provide more specifics regarding: (1) requirements for the 

incorporation of the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (July 2008) into the site-specific 

bum plans designed for each prescribed burn conducted under this project; and (2) how the public will be notified of pending burns. 

We also recommend that USFS consult with SDDENR for any modeling, mitigation, or other measures required under State 

regulations or the State Implementation Plan to address CAA requirements.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comments 10, 12, and 13.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 20 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 12 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

2) Air quality impacts associated with the project are a critical concern that must be fully evaluated. 

Harvest-Related, Transportation-Related, and Dust-Related Emissions: Air quality is also negatively impacted by emissions from 

heavy diesel equipment and helicopters utilized for harvesting/thinning of trees, idling trucks used for transportation of wood 

products, and dust generated from proposed activities. EPA is concerned that the DEIS does not contain an inventory of predicted 

emissions that would be associated with the harvesting/thinning of trees and the associated project activities. We recommend that 

the FEIS include such an emissions inventory. If emissions are significant, then we recommend the FEIS also include an air impact 

analysis presenting direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of these activities.

Further, these emissions could be addressed through project design criteria and monitoring. Example measures to consider include 

the following:

• Prohibit unnecessary id ling of transportation trucks;

• Use low-sulfur or alternative fuels;

• Require heavy diesel equipment to use cleanest available engines or retrofits with diesel particulate control technology;

• Maintain engines;

• Expand application area for dust abatement measures and require detailed plans for dust control;

• Require prompt revegetation along new roadways and monitor for five years after revegetation to ensure success; and

• Monitor effectiveness of road closures after project completion.

Indirect Emissions: We recommend disclosure of indirect impacts from use of harvested and/or thinned trees for fuel. For instance, if 

any of the harvested timber would be used as feedstock for supplying fuel at a facility that provides heat and/or power, or would be 

converted to wood pellets or biofuels, then we suggest a discussion of specific uses and related air quality impacts, including 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There may be mitigation options available to address these indirect emissions.

Agency Response: 

Air quality within the Black Hills NF was addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. 

The EIS stated that air quality within the Black Hills NF is generally very good. Air quality is better than national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for all pollutants. 

A solid working relationship exists between the Black Hills NF and the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources. There have 

been few, if any, problems identified and communicated to the Black Hills NF regarding negative impacts to air quality relating to 

prescribed fire activity in the last 10 years. The only case of known impacts was a short term event that lasted less than two hours. 

The USFS believes that the design criteria listed in on Appendix B (pg. B-22) of the DEIS for Fire/Fuels have shown to be effective 

in past prescribed fires. The same design criteria should be effective under the selected alternative for this project. 

See DEIS, Chap. 3 pg. 132 for Existing Condition discussion for Air Quality. Also see DEIS, Chap. 3, pgs. 139-140 for Direct/Indirect 

Effects discussion of Prescribed Fire for Alternatives B and C as it relates to Air Quality. DEIS, Chap. 3, pg. 144 discusses 

Cumulative Effects of Prescribed Fire as it relates to Air Quality. Additional air quality language has been added to the FEIS, Chap. 

3, Fire and Fuels section. 

USFS contracts specify the forest materials that are allowed to be harvested. The contracts do not specify how the harvested 

materials are to be used. The contract purchaser ultimately decides what they will do with the harvested forest materials. To our 

knowledge, most forest products produced from the Black Hills National Forest are used for lumber and post and poles. It is 

reasonable to assume that some of the materials could be used for alternative fuel purposes. We do not know the quantity of forest 

materials that would be used for alternative fuels within the Pactola Project. 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 13 for greenhouse gas emissions discussion.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 21 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 13 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

2) Air quality impacts associated with the project are a critical concern that must be fully evaluated. 

Climate Change: We applaud the USFS for embracing the management challenges posed by climate change, and we understand 

the difficulties in quantifying impacts. We suggest expanding the DEIS Climate Change Section to include a discussion of how the 

USFS can reduce the impacts of project activities on climate change and monitor for effects of climate change on forest resources. 

Also, to fully inform decision-makers and the public of project activity GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts, we 

recommend analysis and disclosure of GHG emissions using a four-step approach:

1. Quantify and disclose projected annual and total project lifetime cumulative GHG emissions in C02-equavalent terms and 

translate the emissions into equivalencies that are easily understood from the public stand point (e.g., annual GHG 

emissions from x number of motor vehicles, see, https://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/calculator.html).

2. Qualitatively discuss the link between GHGs and climate change, and the potential impacts of climate change.

3. Include a summary discussion of ongoing and projected regional climate change impacts relevant to the action area 

based on U.S. Global Change Research Program assessments. EPA also recommends identification of any potential 

need to adapt the proposed action to these effects, as well as any potential impacts from the proposed action that may be 

exacerbated by climate change. 

4. Analyze reasonable alternatives and/or potential means to mitigate project-related GHG emissions.

Agency Response: 

This comment appears to suggest that the USFS follow draft CEQ guidance issued for public comment on February 23, 2010 

(75FR8046). In the draft guidance, CEQ specifically stated that there is currently no Federally established protocol for assessing the 

effects of land management practices on atmospheric carbon release and sequestration at a landscape scale, and thus CEQ did not 

identify any protocol for NEPA analysis of proposed land management actions. 

Presently there are no nationally accepted protocols that could help the agency to analyze effects of actions on the very broad topic 

of climate change. The USFS believes that both carbon emissions and adaptation effects of this project are too small to 

meaningfully evaluate at this time, given current knowledge and technology. For this reason, we do not believe it would be 

productive to attempt to quantify potential emissions or carbon sequestration benefits from this project. Similarly, we do not believe 

that any one alternative would have effects measurably distinct from another using these parameters, thus it would not be 

productive to develop and analyze an alternative to address the effects of climate change. 

The Forest Service recognizes that a changing climate can pose challenges to the suitable management of forests and grasslands. 

To help guide agency actions in addressing this challenge, the Forest Service has developed the Strategic Framework for 

Responding to Climate Change (USDA-FS, 2008). One of the stated goals in this framework is to “Promote the management of 

forests and grasslands to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gasses, while sustaining the multiple benefits and services of these 

ecosystems.” This project contributes toward meeting the agency’s goal of mitigating the buildup of greenhouse gasses by 

managing the forested landscape within the project area so that it is more resilient to deforestation or catastrophic loss, thereby 

maintaining or increasing its ability to sequester carbon. 

The purpose for the Pactola Project is to address the MPB insect infestation and wildfire hazard. The DEIS discloses the potential 

for large scale wildfire in the project area. Such fires can contribute large amounts of carbon dioxide, other gases and particulates 

into the atmosphere. The action alternatives (B and C) directly reduce the wildfire hazard, thereby reducing the potential for 

uncontrolled release of these pollutants. Much of the material removed from the area under the action alternatives would be 

manufactured into useful products resulting in carbon sequestration of these trees. Additional growth of trees remaining after 

treatments and vigorous growth of new and younger trees is projected. The analysis shows that Alternatives B and C are expected 

to maintain a forest cover now and into the future. Alternative A could lose a large amount of forest cover (note Jasper, Battle Creek 

and other area fires), and make available a large amount of dead and down trees for combustion during a wildfire. Alternative A -No 

Action is likely to add more carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere than either of the action alternatives.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 22 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 14 Heritage

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

National Historic Preservation Act: As noted in the DEIS, concurrence is still pending from the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) for several additional sites involving roadside or mechanical treatments. We recommend follow-up with 

the South Dakota SHPO to ensure that compliance with National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation requirements 

can be adequately documented in the FEIS. In addition, to more adequately inform the reader, we suggest explanation of the tribal 

recommendations for landscape treatments to enhance areas for tribal use.

Agency Response: 

The Heritage Resource Reports were sent to the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SD SHPO) for Review and 

Compliance for comment and eligibility determination for the heritage resources located within the project area. The SHPO letter 

dated June 4, 2010, has concurred with the determination of “No Historic Properties Affected.” Also, the SHPO letter dated April 25, 

2011, has concurred with the determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” for several additional sites involving roadside or 

mechanical treatments. Likewise the reports were also sent to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and tribal groups requesting the 

reports, for their review and comment, and additional recommendations for the protection of American Indian traditional use sites. 

Follow-up contact was made with the Tribal representatives, either no additional information was received or there were no 

concerns on the environmental document. In similar analyses, tribal representatives recommended landscape treatments that were 

implemented to enhance areas for tribal use. For the Pactola Project, no landscape level treatments were recommended to enhance 

areas for tribal use.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 15 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

Environmental Justice: Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low Income Populations," applies to federal agencies that conduct activities that could substantially affect human health or the 

environment. In accordance with this order, we recommend that an EIS disclose and evaluate any environmental justice concerns 

associated with potential impacts to rural low income communities from project activities. Close coordination with any potentially 

impacted Native American tribes is encouraged.

The Pactola Project DEIS includes brief reference to an environmental justice review and notes that no communities in the project 

area were identified as containing low-income or minority populations as defined by E.O. 12898. To ensure a robust analysis, we 

encourage the USFS to consult the Council on Environmental Quality's new posting of resources on NEPA and environmental 

justice at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa_information/agency_resources.html.

There may be water quality and/or air quality impacts of particular concern to the health of local residents; therefore, EPA 

recommends the following:

• Disclosure of whether and where environmental justice communities are located in the impact Area, including a 

 description of the methodology and criteria utilized for identifying low income and minority communities, the 

sources of the data used for these analyses, and the references used for establishing the criteria. 

• To the extent that information is available, a discussion of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental 

impacts of project activities on these communities.

• An evaluation of the socio-economic impacts to the local communities, including any additional loading placed on local 

communities' abilities to provide necessary public services and amenities associated with development resulting from the 

project activities. Such impacts may include housing and school needs for project workers and families, burdening water, 

waste and wastewater handling facilities, and increased road traffic with associated dust and hazardous material spill 

potential. We recommend that methods to avoid or minimize such impacts be discussed in the FEIS.

Agency Response: 

An Environmental Justice Analysis was done for Rapid City, SD, as well 57745 Zip Code, SD (which include the communities of Hill 

City, SD and Rochford, SD). Full Environmental Justice Analysis Reports for these two areas are held in the Pactola Project File at 

the Mystic Ranger Station. 

As stated on pg. 267 of the DEIS, “None of the communities in the project area contain low-income or minority populations as 

defined by Executive Order 12898. During the course of this analysis, no alternative resulted in any identifiable effects or issues 

specific to any minority or low-income population or community. The agency has considered all input from persons or groups 

regardless of age, race, income status, or other social and economic characteristics.”
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 23 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

9 16 Plan

Environmental Protection Agency

Comment:

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•2). The "EC" rating indicates that EPA review has identified environmental impacts that need to be avoided in order 

to fully protect the environment. The "2" rating indicates that EPA has identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion 

that we recommend for inclusion in the FEIS. Because a preferred alternative was not identified in the DEIS, we are rating the DEIS 

based on Alternatives B and C (we do not rate the no action alternative). A full description of EPA's rating system is enclosed.

Although Alternatives B and C received an EC-2 rating in this review, we do not view them as equivalent. The difference in proposed 

new road construction mileage between the two action alternatives is substantial - 3 miles under Alternative B and 19 miles under 

Alternative C. Therefore, EPA recommends Alternative B as the environmentally-preferable action alternative primarily due to fewer 

impacts to aquatic resources resulting from new road construction. Although it is the USFS's intent to close all new roads upon 

project completion, the difficulty of ensuring complete closure of these roads may result in long-term environmental impacts.

Agency Response: 

Comments and EPA’s rating (“EC-2”) is acknowledged. We also acknowledge the EPA’s comment that Alternative B is the 

environmentally preferable action alternative.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

10 1 Trans

Hoffman, Stephen

Comment:

The Draft EIS fails to adequately address the transportation impact of Alternatives B and C on private landowners in the Sunnyside 

Gulch area. As I have previously commented, the existing one-lane road on Sunnside Gulch with its numerous blind corners is even 

now hazardous for those using it on a daily basis. The Draft EIS speaks vaguely about "reconstruction" on unspecified roads, it does 

not identify these roads nor does it make clear what this "reconstruction" would actually entail. Worse, the Draft EIS admits that with 

declining budgets, the Forest Service has been unable to continue to meet even its current "standard" of virtual neglect of its roads. 

It is accordingly clear that there will be no meaningful "reconstruction" of these wholly inadequate roads of Sunnyside Gulch, and the 

addition of the heavy traffic necessarily entailed by Alternatives B and C on these roads will inevitably lead to serious and perhaps 

fatal accidents on the roads.

Agency Response: 

Road reconstruction on Sunnyside Gulch Road NFSR 671 would comply with road design criteria in which safety issues would be 

addressed (See DEIS, pg. 98)(See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 8). The design would include, but not be limited to, 

realignment, curve widening, and turnouts to improve site distance and public safety. 

Timber sale contracts also have a contract provision for safety which requires the Purchaser to furnish, install and maintain all 

temporary traffic controls that provide the road user with adequate warning of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions 

associated with Purchaser’s operations (Provision B6.33).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 1 Plan

Schlief, Phil and Vicki

Comment:

I have read the EIS and my wife and I are grateful for the work the FS staff has put into this project. As a member of the Silver City 

Volunteer Fire Department and a resident of Silver City we are in support of either option B or C. We would lean more toward option 

C for the additional fire protection and concerns about MPB killing even more trees in the areas that don't get treated in option B.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 24 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 2 Visuals

Schlief, Phil and Vicki

Comment:

We do understand the concerns with additional logging in option C and wonder what the visual effects would be? Our property looks 

out from Silver City to the Northeast and it sure would be discouraging if the view we have changed drastically (like what could 

happen in option A).

Agency Response: 

See DEIS, pgs. 245-256 for Scenic Quality section. 

In alternative C, looking northeast from Silver City: 

Foreground (from Silver City to approximately 1⁄2 mile distant): treatments would restore meadows and hardwoods – depending upon 

the existing amount of hardwoods, this area may appear as an opening, but that should change within the next few years as the 

hardwoods sprout, then an increase in fall color should be evident. Treatments in ponderosa pine stands would maintain a forested 

tree canopy, but at a reduced density. 

 

Middleground (1⁄2 mile to 4 mile distant): Treatments in ponderosa pine stands would maintain a forested tree canopy, but at a 

reduced density to reduce the susceptibility to MPB. However, in Alternative C cable-type logging systems would be employed. 

Cable logging creates effects that would be visually evident in the form of vertical “skyline corridors,” or openings, in the forest 

canopy. Logs dragged up the steep slopes of these corridors scrape away the ground cover vegetation and expose the soil. The 

brown/tan color of exposed soil can create a color contrast, with the green vegetation, that is visually dominant. If full suspension of 

the logs can be achieved, the scraped away vegetation and soil contrast can be reduced. Due to the orientation of the hillsides, the 

skyline corridors would tend to be more evident in the afternoon, when the full sun is shining on the slope. Corridors are designed 

with reduced width to limit visual impacts, but viewer location in alignment with the corridors will determine the level of visibility. 

Once vegetation (grass, shrubs, trees) grow in these corridors, the soil color contrast would no longer be evident. During the winter 

months, when snow is present on the hillside, these corridors would also be highly evident. 

Approximately 1 1⁄2 miles distant along the skyline, the forest canopy vegetation would be removed. The ridge tops would appear as 

open “bald” hills. Small seedling-sized trees would be present, but not visually evident from that viewing distance. It would likely take 

15-25 years before the trees on these hill tops are of sufficient size to visually change the appearance of the “bald” ridge tops. 

Helicopter logging would not require road construction or skyline corridors, therefore the contrast between soil and vegetation would 

be less (See DEIS, pg. 255) 

Based on treatments proposed in Alternative C, it is likely that the view from Silver City would undergo changes in the next 3-15 

years. Changes as a result of treatments would appear more drastic immediately following harvest activities, but should become 

less apparent as understory vegetation responds to more light. Under Alternative A, if treatments did not occur, mountain pine 

beetle would continue to change the view both Foreground to Middleground in areas not treated, thus dramatically changing the 

view from current conditions.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 3 Wildlife

Schlief, Phil and Vicki

Comment:

We also heard some comments from a wildlife person about Bighorn sheep and wondered if the small meadow above the pond 

(Gomez property) could be made larger for increased habitat for Bighorns?

Agency Response: 

Alternatives B and C identify the area adjacent to the Silver City Community Hall to undergo Meadow Restoration which would 

remove all conifer in the meadow to the historic grassland soil type. The treatment may expand the current meadow’s size while 

enhancing wildlife habitat, including bighorn sheep foraging habitat.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

11 4 Plan

Schlief, Phil and Vicki

Comment:

In summary we feel that option A with the current MPB infestation would not be a good choice and the increased risk of catastrophic 

fire would be very high. Option B and C both have benefits with C being better for fire protection but possibly worse for scenic 

beauty.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 25 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 1 Plan

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

I. The two action alternatives are so similar that they provide the public and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) very little room for 

comparison and contrast of environmental impacts.

While it is refreshing to see USFS include more than one action alternative, unlike other Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) 

projects the agency has authorized in recent years, Alternative C differs from Alternative B only slightly: Alternative C additionally 

treats 400 acres along roads, includes 1,270 acres of cable and/or helicopter logging, and 500 acres of helicopter logging in 

otherwise “inaccessible” areas. While a difference of 2,170 acres of treated area is notable, within the context of the 26,017-acre 

project area, the contrast between the two action alternatives does not allow for thorough consideration of impacts from varying 

degrees of manmade disturbance to vegetation and habitat.

Agency Response: 

Alternative C was developed in response to public comments received during the scoping period. Specifically, it responds to 

concerns about safety and access on roadways (ingress/egress) and the use of alternative logging techniques (e.g., 

helicopter/cable) (See DEIS, pgs. 20-21). 

The Purpose Of and Need for Action is discussed in the DEIS on pgs. 10-11 for the Pactola Project Area.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 2 Plan

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

II. USFS should provide a definition of “environmentally sound” as used in the DEIS.

USFS states that the Black Hills Forest Plan provides management direction for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and 

services from BHNF “in an environmentally sound manner.” Please provide a definition for “environmentally sound” as used in the 

Forest Plan or in the Pactola Project DEIS. This term can have many different definitions depending on the perspective of the 

speaker and the audience, and as such should be clarified in this instance.

Agency Response: 

The National Forest Management Act directed that the National Forest System be administered in accord with the concepts of 

multiple use and sustained yield as set forth in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and that by the year 2000 "the major 

portion of planned intensive multiple-use sustained-yield management procedures...be installed and operating on an 

environmentally-sound basis." (16 USC 1607). The Record of Decision for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan for the Black Hills National 

Forest states the following: "The purpose of the Forest Plan is to provide a framework for multiple use and the sustained yield of 

goods and services from National Forest System lands in an environmentally sound manner" (ROD, pg. 4). Neither the NFMA law 

nor the Forest Plan EIS defined the term, environmentally sound, and this project will not attempt to state a definition where those 

sources have not. However, the Revised Forest Plan, as amended, was developed to comply with the NFMA law, including Section 

1607. This project is consistent with the direction in the Revised Forest Plan, as amended, and incorporated the best science 

available. The Forest Service stands by its statement in the DEIS.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 26 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 3 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

III. The proposed Pactola Project is premised on faulty theories about combating mountain pine beetle infestation and reducing 

wildfire risk through logging.

As an initial point, the Black Hills are indeed heavily settled compared to some other units of the National Forest System. Pactola 

DEIS, p. 2. Insects and fire naturally occur in the Black Hills and have throughout history. Pactola DEIS, p. 3. Mountain pine beetles 

are a native species. Fire has a significant frequency in ponderosa pine forests. Despite awareness of these two natural forest 

disturbance mechanisms, insects and fire, humans have willingly built homes, roads, cabins, campgrounds, and other infrastructure 

in these areas. USFS has a history of suppressing fires that historically would have naturally “shap[ed] and contribut[ed] to the 

structure and composition of . . . the Black Hills.” Pactola DEIS, p. 3. Now, after decades of fire suppression, leading to more 

densely stocked stands, the same agency that caused the mountain pine beetle and wildfire “risk” seeks to eliminate thousands of 

acres of vegetation and habitat to reduce that “risk.”

Agency Response: 

The Purpose and Need of the Pactola Project (See DEIS, pgs. 10-12) primary point is “to reduce the threat to ecosystem 

components, including forest resources...” Reducing stand density is the primary mechanism for reducing insect and fire hazard as 

defined by the Forest Plan (FP II-46-47). Mountain pine beetles are at epidemic levels in many areas of the Black Hills and are 

beginning to infest the project area. Active thinning ahead and around beetle infestations is an effective strategy (Sheppard and 

Battaglia 2002, Schmid et al. 2007, Fettig et al. 2007). A casual comparison of aerial photography of the infestations in the central 

and southern hills over the past five years demonstrates the effectiveness of thinning the forest ahead of beetle outbreaks by 

increasing individual tree and stand vigor (www.ForestPhoto.com, keyword “aerial”); the Pactola Project is designed to do just that. 

Alternatives B and C are designed to treat vegetation on a broad landscape scale to reduce the threat to ecosystem components, 

including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (MPB) epidemic and to reduce the potential for large scale wildfire 

(See DEIS, pgs. 19-22).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 4 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

III. The proposed Pactola Project is premised on faulty theories about combating mountain pine beetle infestation and reducing 

wildfire risk through logging. 

Yet USFS also contends that the “probability” of wildfire to homes and communities will remain high despite any efforts on National 

Forest lands to reduce risks. Pactola DEIS, p. 264. The probability of a wildfire occurring on any given acre of land is actually quite 

low, as science noted below indicates. But another concern is why USFS aims to harvest such large amounts of timber in the name 

of protecting human infrastructure and lives when the probability will remain high regardless. If the same “probability” will remain, 

does that justify hundreds of thousands of federal dollars, possibly even more than a million, to be spent on road construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance? Further, those who choose to live in ponderosa pine forests where fires occur at frequent 

intervals should not solely dictate federal agency action when they assumed the risk by moving into this natural fire regime. Pactola 

DEIS, p. 264. USFS should make better efforts to communicate the inherent risks to those living within or near BHNF or considering 

moving there and what those people can reasonably expect from a cash-strapped federal agency in this economic climate, rather 

than allow management of the Forest to be controlled by public fear of insects and fire.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 3. 

Proposed actions by the Forest Service would not reduce fire risk, only the fire hazard. 

The State of South Dakota is responsible for fires on private lands and has programs in place for educating the public to the hazards 

and risks associated with Wildland fire. Forest Plan Goal 7 emphasizes cooperation with individuals, organizations and other 

agencies with coordination planning and project implementation. The Forest Service supports educating the public of the risk and 

hazards associated with living within the Forest boundaries. Alternatives B and C were developed from issues raised during 

scoping, most of which concerned the imminent insect epidemic, increased fuel loading as a result of MPB mortality and the 

protection of forest resources and private land from large-scale wildfire. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 27 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 5 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

A. Scientific studies relied upon by USFS do not support logging to combat mountain pine beetle epidemics. USFS proposes the 

Pactola Project under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, legislation enacted to “expedite the approval of 

hazardous fuel reduction and forest health restoration projects.” HFRA itself is inherently flawed and based on public fear of insects 

and fire stoked by timber industry lobbyists. Scientists have continued to refine their understanding of beetles, fire, and forests since 

HFRA’s enactment in 2003. USFS justifies the Pactola Project by asserting that logging will reduce the spread of mountain pine 

beetles and reduce wildfire risk. Neither of these premises is supported by conclusive science. USFS must provide the public with 

maps and data showing mountain pine beetle and wildfire risk in the project area, and specific scientific examples supporting 

logging to combat mountain pine beetles and reduce wildfire risk. USFS must consider the best available science and responsible 

opposing science, including both science the agency has noted and not previously considered in other BHNF project analyses.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comments 3 and 4, for discussion on fuel hazard. 

Existing fire hazard map is located in Pactola DEIS, pg. 133. Existing MPB Hazard map is located in Appendix F of the Silviculturist 

Report. Discussion on vegetation can be found in the DEIS, pgs. 102-128. Specific data by stand can be found in the Pactola 

Project file. 

 

The Phase II Amendment FEIS, to which the Pactola DEIS tiers, found the primary stand attributes that influence crown‐fire initiation 

and fire spread are surface‐fuel loading, canopy‐base height, and canopy‐bulk density. These attributes can be directly managed by 

vegetation treatments (FP Phase II FEIS pg III‐350). 

The Pactola DEIS references several pieces of scientific literature supporting the idea that active forest management will reduce 

pine beetle risk and fire hazard. 

Schmid and Mata (2005) conducted research plots in the Black Hills National Forest and their results showed that 77% of pine trees 

in an uncut control block (basal area greater than 110 square feet of basal area) became infested while only 9% of the trees in a 

block thinned to 60‐70 basal area were infested over a 17 year period. They recommended stands should be managed on a 

landscape basis to increase the effectiveness of partial cutting. 

In their review examining 498 scientific publications, Fettig et al. (2007) concluded “Factors involving tree density are consistently 

associated with the occurrence and severity of bark beetle infestations. Management to reduce stand or landscape-level 

susceptibility to bark beetles must address factors related to tree density. Accordingly, thinning has long been advocated as a 

preventative measure to reduce the amount of bark beetle-caused tree mortality and its effectiveness for this purpose is supported 

by the scientific literature.” 

All known responsible science conducted in ponderosa pine supports the value of thinning in reducing subsequent mortality from 

MPB (Fettig et al. 2007). 

Research specific to the Black Hills concludes that silvicultural treatment to reduce tree density is successful in reducing mortality 

from mountain pine beetle infestations. The Black Hills National Forest included this science in the recent Phase II Forest Plan 

amendment (Allen and Cook, 2008). 

To be effective in reducing MPB mortality, thinning, in addition to sanitation, is necessary in overstocked stands of relatively large 

diameter trees (McCambridge et al. 1982). 

 

McCambridge and Stevens (1982) reported evidence that thinning can reduce MPB-caused mortality, and was consistent with 

subjective observations that thinning dense, second-growth ponderosa pine is effective in preventing unacceptable levels of beetlecaused mortality in the Black Hills. 

Both prescribed fire and mechanical techniques can be used to change the forest structure and encourage the regeneration and 

development of ponderosa pine, especially as an early seral species, within interspersed mosaics. If the structure were changed, 

such forests may be resistant and resilient to native insects and diseases, uncharacteristically severe wildfires, and be beneficial to 

many wildlife species (Graham and Jain 2005). 

Pollett and Omi (2002) found that, in ponderosa pine stands, treatments that reduce density and change the composition of stands 

will reduce probability of crown fires, decrease the severity of impacts, and enhance fire suppression effectiveness and safety. 

Graham et al (2004) found that thinning followed by prescribed burning was particularly effective in reducing the risk of high intensity 

fire in ponderosa pine. The commenter does not provide citations for scientific research refuting these findings.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 28 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 6 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

In testimony before U.S. House of Representative Subcommittees on the mountain pine beetle outbreak, Rocky Mountain Regional 

Forester Rick Cables stated, “It is clear that we can’t stop this current infestation. Thinning stands has proved ineffective.” 

By premising yet another project on combating beetle infestation, USFS apparently deems its own Regional Forester’s testimony to 

be inaccurate, but provides no conclusive evidence logging will stop beetles’ spread. What specific examples demonstrate that the 

circumstances in the Black Hills are different from those the Regional Forester describes in Region 2? What specific examples 

support the USFS’ proposition that logging in the Black Hills will stop the spread of beetles? How are those examples similar or 

different from the Pactola Project area?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 5. 

The statements of the Regional Forester are taken out of context. Mr. Cable’s testimony is referring to the Colorado beetle forests 

where millions of acres of beetle‐killed trees, predominantly lodgepole pine, already cover the landscape. Mr. Cables’ comments 

were specific to expanses of uniform stands of overstocked lodgepole pine with extreme populations of MPB. Thinning of lodgepole 

stands cause the stand to fall apart due to their propensity to windthrow. Lodgepole pine’s lateral roots develop horizontally outward 

compared to ponderosa pines which grow obliquely downward, making ponderosa pine more resilient to thinning. In contrast, while 

beetles are at epidemic levels in the Black Hills and intensifying, the evidence is clear that thinning ponderosa pine, which is 

dominant in the Black Hills, ahead of beetle infestations is effective (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002, Schmid et al. 2007). 

Projects, such as the Pactola Project, are designed to thin forest stands ahead of the beetle outbreaks and remove MPB infested 

trees, thereby removing fuels, reducing MPB numbers, increasing individual tree and stand vigor and resilience, and creating 

conditions less suitable for beetle infestation and high-intensity wildfire. 

Long-term research in the Black Hills summarized in Schmid et al (2007) found that “the greater the size of the partial cut, the lower 

the percentage of subsequent total mortality in the cut stand” and concludes that “Constant silvicultural action is a must if the BHNF 

is to ever extricate itself from the periodic appearances of MPB epidemics in its timber managed areas.” 

Differences between what Mr. Cables was addressing and the Pactola Project include: Host species, (lodgepole vs. ponderosa 

pine), stage of MPB infestation, and size of the MPB population.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 29 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 7 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

The more large trees are removed, the more smaller trees will likely be infested. USFS owes the public an explanation why, in the 

face of such clear statements from the Regional Forester, it continues to proceed with projects based on an assumption that cutting 

down trees will actually reduce the beetle infestation. In the face of a plethora of science questioning the efficacy of logging to stop 

the beetles’ spread, USFS owes the public and is required under NEPA to demonstrate a science-based rationale for such projects, 

explaining why opposing science does not apply to the facts at hand. See Black et al., Battling forest insects may be counterproductive (2010).

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comments 5 and 6. 

The commenter refers to the document “Battling forest insects may be counter-productive (Black et al. 2010).” This is a news 

release published in the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation on March 2, 2010 regarding the paper titled “Insects and 

Roadless Forests: A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives” (Black, et al. 2010). 

Black et. al (2010) specifically addresses a recent proposal to exempt national forest roadless areas in Colorado from protections 

under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, in part to address insect outbreaks and perceived fire risk in these forests. The 

overall conclusion of the paper, which itself is a review of other studies, is that thinning to stop an already well established beetle 

infestation in overstocked lodgepole pine is not effective, especially in a roadless area. In contrast, the Pactola Project is located in a 

well roaded area of South Dakota ponderosa pine. The Pactola project is focused on the scientific principles of maintaining living 

resilient ponderosa pine forests in the Black Hills. The Black et al. paper finds both evidence against and support for the type of 

strategy proposed in Pactola and states on page 15 that “...if a bark beetle infestation is relatively small and concentrated in a 

limited area, it may be feasible to reduce the population growth by removing infested trees from a forest stand or thinning a stand to 

reduce stress on trees...” and “Several studies across the west have shown that thinning reduces the amount of mortality caused by 

mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine stands” and “some scientists and managers recommend thinning as a viable management 

strategy for managing bark beetles in these forest ecosystems” (Black et al, 2010, pg. 14-15). 

“Constant silvicultural action is a must if the BHNF is to ever extricate itself from the periodic appearances of MPB epidemics in its 

timber managed areas” (Schmid et al. 2007). 

These statements support the purpose and need of the Pactola Project. 

See also USDA Forest Service. 2005c. pg III-359 through III-366.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 30 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 8 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

Scientific literature often referred to by USFS, Shepperd and Battaglia 2002, does not provide “evidence” that makes it “clear that 

thinning ponderosa pine” will be effective if there is in fact an epidemic of mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills. Instead, 

Shepperd and Battaglia say that “[s]everal silvicultural activities can be used to minimize the chance that endemic mountain pine 

beetle populations may become epidemic.” Shepperd and Battaglia, Ecology, Silviculture, and Management of Black Hills 

Ponderosa Pine, page 22 (USFS 2002) (emphasis added). The authors further state, “[o]ne key to inhibiting epidemic mountain pine 

beetle populations is to maintain a healthy population of trees that can resist mountain pine beetle attack.” Id. (emphasis added). 

USFS repeatedly describes the mountain pine beetle outbreak in the Pactola Project area as an epidemic, rendering the agency’s 

reliance on Shepperd and Battaglia 2002 for this project meritless. See Pactola DEIS, pp. iv and 130. What other scientific study or 

studies can USFS provide the public that conclusively indicate a mountain pine beetle epidemic can be effectively controlled through 

timber harvesting of any type? Please state it clearly by name, author, and publication, with pinpoint citations to specific page 

numbers in the FEIS itself.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comments 5, 6, and 7. 

“The mountain pine beetle is at epidemic levels across parts of this area right now and is going to continue to increase across the 

entire project area over the next few years.” (USDA Forest Service 2010d) 

Presented below are direct quotes for several research projects completed in the Black Hills regarding stand characteristics and 

their relation to MPB epidemics. 

“Although numerous factors contribute to epidemic MPB populations, over-stocked PP stands are the major contributor to MPB 

epidemics.” (Schmid et al. 2007) 

“These results are consistent with subjective observations that thinning dense, second-growth ponderosa pine is effective in 

preventing unacceptable levels of beetle-caused mortality in the Black Hills.” (McCambridge and Stevens, 1982) 

In addition, success on a landscape level will need to incorporate the sanitation of infested stands as well as thinning of susceptible 

stands to decrease the chance of infestation, since sanitation cuts are only effective on a stand level. (USDA Forest Service 1999a) 

“I have made numerous observations of recently treated stands of ponderosa pine on the Mystic Ranger District with little or no 

mortality immediately adjacent to untreated stands that have been infested by MPB with mortality rates of trees > 9 inches dbh 

exceeding 50%. The untreated stands were still green when the harvesting occurred.” (Randall Rick, 2011)
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 31 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 9 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

Regional Forester Rick Cables asserts USFS has changed its “focus from prevention to reducing risks to public safety and 

infrastructure.” Statement of Rick Cables. The authors of Battling forest insects may be counter-productive similarly suggest USFS 

funds would be better used by mitigating risks around buildings and communities, not needlessly logging far from such 

infrastructure. “Overall,” the authors conclude, “it is going to be much less expensive, more effective and less damaging to focus 

fire-hazard reduction efforts [in response to beetle outbreaks] around communities and homes than it would be to try to make a 

wholesale modification of forest structure over large landscapes.” See Black et al., page 22. USFS asserts most of the Pactola 

Project is considered wildland-urban interface (WUI). The agency should clarify the distance between human infrastructure in the 

project area, and whether it is attempting to modify forest structure over a large landscape. What does BHNF consider a large 

landscape? More than 26,017 acres?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 7. 

Mr. Cables was speaking about the pine beetle situation in the lodgepole pine stands of Colorado, not ponderosa pine stands in 

South Dakota. The beetle infestation in Colorado is far more advanced as compared to South Dakota and mitigating risk there may 

be an appropriate strategy. However, the beetle infestation within the Black Hills continues to expand offering opportunities where 

forest modification could have a positive effect on existing forest structure. 

The Forest Plan states that actual Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) boundaries will be determined in the planning process or in 

community wildfire protection plans. Both the Pennington and Lawrence County’s CWPP’s use 1⁄2, 1 1⁄2, and 3 mile buffers in their 

plans. The 1⁄2 mile buffer is to reduce fire line intensities near communities, the 1 1⁄2 mile is a transitional zone and the 3 mile is to 

reduce “uncontrolled high intensity wildfire...” Crown fire in the Black Hills can progress at two to three miles per hour and can have 

spotting distances of greater than a half mile. Most structures lost during wildfires are a result of embers washing over them. 

Proposed treatments would allow for lower intensity fires across the landscape, decreasing the potential for embers showers within 

the WUI. In addition, proposed treatments will also protect other values as risk within the forest including timber, wildlife habitat, 

viewsheds, etc.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 10 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

USFS must take a complete hard look at the efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine beetle infestation, and must consider and 

respond to the best available science and responsible opposing science regarding the efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine 

beetle infestation in a manner available to the entire public.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comments 5, 6, 7, and 8. 

Schmid and Mata (2005) stated that reduced long-term tree mortality will be accomplished when an area of sufficient size is 

managed so that thinned stands are separated from unmanaged stands by natural buffers or those of lower tree density.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 11 Plan

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

USFS cannot authorize a project based on such a clearly flawed purpose and need unless it adjusts the project to legitimately 

protect public safety and infrastructure solely within the wildland-urban interface. Unfortunately, USFS did not include its responses 

to scoping comments in the DEIS, but only in a project file not readily accessible absent further inquiries to the agency, so the public 

cannot quickly see how USFS has already addressed previous comments.

Agency Response: 

The purpose and need of the Pactola Project was identified in the Scoping Letter dated July 28, 2010. The purpose and need for the 

Pactola Project is listed and further discussed in DEIS, pgs. 10-11. 

Comments received during the scoping period were used to help in defining issues, develop alternatives and mitigation measures, 

and analyze effects. Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the Pactola Project Core ID Team indentified 

three prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities (mountain pine beetle/wildfire and fuels hazard/vegetation and 

wildlife habitat diversity). Comments received and the agency “response to comments” are summarized in the Pactola Project File 

located at the Mystic Ranger District, Rapid City office, and are available upon request. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 32 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 12 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. Scientific studies question the value of logging, thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments to reduce fire risk, given the low 

probability of fire visiting a treated site and the inherent damage to watersheds and habitat in the meantime.

USFS asserted the fire behavior and severity “factor that can most effectively be manipulated by humans is fuels.” See Nautilus 

DEIS, page 70. The agency went on to describe three different types of fuels: surface, ladder, and aerial. Id. USFS “uses structural 

stages as a proxy for these features to estimate crown fire hazard.” Id. This means the agency has not really assessed whether 

these fuels are present in a project area, but has decided, because it earlier assigned stands to various structural stage 

classifications, its fire hazard ratings are credible. However, the structural stage classifications include many trees that do not fit the 

respective size criteria, and so this “proxy” approach is flawed from that start. How does this “proxy” approach relate to the Pactola 

Project? Will USFS actually conduct on-the-ground determinations of the presence or absence of fuels before assigning fire hazard 

ratings based merely on structural stage classifications?

Agency Response: 

The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment analysis determined structural stage to be the best indicator for fire hazard ratings (FP FEIS, 

Chap. II-3, Chap.III-385 and Appendix B-14, Table B-5).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 13 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. Scientific studies question the value of logging, thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments to reduce fire risk, given the low 

probability of fire visiting a treated site and the inherent damage to watersheds and habitat in the meantime. 

Furthermore, the agency’s wildfire risk reduction analysis must consider the probability a wildfire of significant size and potential 

destruction will visit any given piece of land in the project area. Published science shows only “2 to 4.2% of areas treated to reduce 

fuels are likely to encounter fires that would otherwise be high or high-moderate severity without treatment.” Rhodes and Baker, Fire 

Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness, and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests, Open Forest Sci. J., 1-7, p. 3 

(2008). Furthermore, “[i]n the remaining 95.8-98.0% of treated areas, potentially adverse treatment effects on watersheds are not 

counterbalanced by Benefits from reduced fire severity.” Id.

Agency Response: 

The referenced Rhodes and Baker paper is based on a probabilistic approach related to fire severity utilizing fire data throughout a 

large area of the West. Such data was not focused on ponderosa pine undergoing a mountain pine beetle epidemic and the resultant 

fuel loadings, nor did it include the Black Hills in South Dakota. It assumed random fuel treatments as compared to the landscape 

approach included in the Pactola Project DEIS. It also did not consider the value of vegetation treatments (both mechanical and 

prescribed fire) in providing for safe fire suppression efforts that could limit the size of any fires that do occur. Finally, it did not address 

the value of using mechanical treatments to reduce the spread of MPB’s. The paper is of limited value in evaluating the current MPB 

epidemic within and adjacent to the Pactola Project Area. 

The goal of the Pactola Project is not to predict where a fire will occur, but to modify fuels reducing insect and fire hazard across a 

relatively large landscape. The Forest Plan Phase II FEIS used the program PROBACRE to determine fire probabilities and states, 

“During a 10-year period within the Forest, the probability that cumulatively fires will burn more than 25,000 acres is almost 100%.” 

The topography and fuel loading within and around the project area could lend itself to large fire growth. The odds may be low for a 

given acre within the project area, but typical summer fire conditions within the Black Hills can increase the potential for an ignition 

to grow rapidly within the project area. As stated on pg. 3 of the DEIS, wildfires have burned over 296,000 acres of land in the Black 

Hills since 1980. Intense fires have covered large areas, moving as far as 11 miles in one day and as fast as five miles in three 

hours. Treatments in the project area could reduce the potential for a high severity fire in the event an ignition occurs.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 33 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 14 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. Scientific studies question the value of logging, thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments to reduce fire risk, given the low 

probability of fire visiting a treated site and the inherent damage to watersheds and habitat in the meantime. 

Put another way, “over a 20-year period, about 2.0-4.2% of untreated areas would be expected to burn at high or high-moderate 

severity.” Id. The authors go on to calculate that “it would take about 720 years (36 cycles of treatments), on average, before it is 

expected that high severity fire affects slightly more than 50% of treated areas while fuels are reduced. Treatments would have to be 

repeated at 20-year intervals for 340 years (17 cycles of treatments) before high-moderate severity fire is expected to encounter 

more than 50% of treated areas. Even after this duration of repeated treatments, it is likely that almost 50% of treated areas will be 

cumulatively affected by repeated treatments without compensatory benefits from reduced fire severity.” Id. (emphasis added).

Agency Response: 

Treatments are intended to address fire hazards, not risks. 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 13.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 15 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. Scientific studies question the value of logging, thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments to reduce fire risk, given the low 

probability of fire visiting a treated site and the inherent damage to watersheds and habitat in the meantime. 

In addition, “thinning lets in sunlight and wind, both of which dry out the forest interior and increase flammability,” again casting 

doubt on USFS’ “logging to reduce wildfire risk” premise for the Pactola Project. Lawrence, Gridlock on the National Forests, 

Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health (2001), available at 

http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/tnl1201.asp. Research demonstrates the time, energy, and money spent on fuels treatments could 

be better used elsewhere, and in fact is more detrimental than beneficial to forest ecosystems, particularly to watersheds and water 

quality.

Agency Response: 

The purpose and need for the Pactola Project is primarily to reduce the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, 

from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. The Forest Plan determined that actions to reduce the insect 

hazard would also provide a reduction in fire hazard. Although thinning may have the potential to become dryer, so too does the 

spread of mountain pine beetles that kills the trees and opens the canopy. Thinning also helps break up the continuity of ladder and 

aerial fuels, and reduces the amount of fuel loading on the ground. 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 13.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 34 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 16 Fire/Fuels

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. Scientific studies question the value of logging, thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments to reduce fire risk, given the low 

probability of fire visiting a treated site and the inherent damage to watersheds and habitat in the meantime. 

USFS apparently deems extensive “fuels reduction” treatments far from structures and infrastructure necessary because the 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans for Pennington and Lawrence Counties places the entire project area within the WUI. CWPPs 

are mere recommendations, not mandates with which USFS must comply, given the science indicating the futility of and ecosystem 

injury caused by most fuels treatments. In light of the low probability of a wildfire ever actually coming within three miles of an 

alleged “at-risk community,” USFS should not rush to undertake extensive vegetation treatments (under any name—pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial harvest, etc.) beyond one-half mile of structures, when taxpayer resources would be better spent within onehalf mile of inhabited structures. Science makes clear that climate conditions, not “fuels,” bring about wildfires. USFS must assess 

the actual probability of wildfire visiting particular parts of the Pactola Project area, and consider the best available science and take 

a hard look at such probability to comply with NFMA and NEPA.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 9. 

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 encourages communities to prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(CWPP) which identifies areas of wildlife-urban interface (WUI) and recommends the types and methods of treatments on Federal 

and non-Federal land. Pennington and Lawrence counties have completed a CWPP which designates most of the Pactola Project 

Areas as a WUI for the purposes covered by HFRA (See DEIS, pg. 10). 

Forest Plan Goal 10-06 states “develop fuel management and protection strategies for intermixed land ownerships in partnership 

with private, state, and other federal agencies.” The Pactola Project is consistent with Forest Plan direction. 

Weather is the driving force behind wildfire, however fuels are the primary factor in fire severity. As stated on pg. 4 of the DEIS, fires 

burning in heavy fuels would be difficult and dangerous to suppress. Fuel treatments proposed are intended to reduce fire severity 

assisting in protecting all values at risk, not just infrastructure, within the project area.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 17 Plan

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

IV. The Pactola Project must comply with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the NFMA planning regulations, the 1999 

Appeal Decision of the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the 2000 Settlement Agreement between BCA et al. and 

USFS.

Agency Response: 

This issue is outside the scope of the Pactola Project. The Phase II Amendment, satisfying the 2000 Settlement Agreement, was 

completed in October 2005 and the Forest Plan as amended by Phase II was implemented in March 2006. The Phase II 

Amendment Record of Decision was upheld on appeal and neither that document nor the amended Forest Plan has been 

challenged in court. Therefore, the amended Forest Plan is legal and is currently the programmatic document directing management 

of the Black Hills National Forest. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 35 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 18 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

V. The Pactola Project must ensure viable populations of wildlife on the Black Hills National Forest.

Agency Response: 

The 1982 planning rule is no longer applicable. The 2000 planning rule is in effect (July 15, 2009 letter from Joel Holtrop, Deputy 

Chief of National Forest System, to Regional Foresters). 

Viable Populations are defined as a population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure 

the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed species) within the 

planning area (FSM 2670.5). 

Biological Evaluations (BE) were completed for the Pactola Project following FSM 2670.4 (FSM R2_2600-2011-1) A summary of 

these documents can be found on pgs. 218- 219, 230-232 and in Appendix D of the Pactola Project DEIS. These BEs are a review 

of Forest Service actions in sufficient detail to: 1) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); 2) ensure 

that actions do not contribute to loss of viability of native or desired non-native plant or animal species, or cause a trend towards 

listing under the ESA; and 3) provide a standard by which to ensure that endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species 

and critical habitats receive full consideration in Forest Service decision-making. The use of applicable research literature, local 

knowledge and expertise and other information was accessed to provide factual and scientific basis to this review. Documentation 

can be found in the Pactola Project file. 

Forest Plan Objective 221 states “Monitoring will be conducted at a Forest-wide level, not at the project level and will be done for 

habitats or populations.” For each species analyzed in the Biological Evaluation, the most recent forest-wide monitoring and 

evaluation information was used to make a determination under FSM 2672.42 (FSM_R2_2670-2011-1).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 19 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

A. USFS must comply with its own legally flawed Forest Plan regarding MIS.

The Pactola Project must be brought into compliance with Forest Plan directions regarding MIS, including Objective 238, and a 

USFS must take an accurate hard look at the effects on each MIS and science related to MIS habitat.

Agency Response: 

The analysis of Management Indicator Species (MIS) can be found in the DEIS pgs. 180-197, 222-226, and 230. More detailed 

analysis of MIS species can be found in the Pactola Project Wildlife and Fish Specialist Reports (FSM 2621) and the Pactola Project 

file. To complete the analysis, the most current scientific literature and data pertaining to these species was used. The most recent 

forest-wide monitoring and evaluation information was summarized. For MIS such as the black-backed woodpecker and white-tailed 

deer, all alternatives would slightly affect pine structural stage habitat, very large tree components, snag densities and spruce 

habitats Forest-wide (1%). None of the alternatives would influence the Forest-wide population trend, Forest-wide habitat trend, or 

attainment of Objective 238. Therefore, these species are likely to persist. 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 23.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 36 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 20 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

B. The Pactola Project must provide adequate protections to Region 2 Sensitive Species.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 18. 

The Forest Service Manual 2670.5 defines Sensitive species as those plants and animal species identified by a regional forester for 

which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers 

or density or b) Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing 

distribution. 

The Rocky Mountain Regional Forester recently released his Sensitive Species list (FMS_R2_2670_2011-1), approved June 10, 

2011. The criterion used to select these Sensitive species (2672.11) is included in the supplement. The American three-toed 

woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) was dropped from the list and the Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) was added to the list. Therefore, 

changes to the Pactola Project Biological Evaluation were necessary. Appendix D in the FEIS has been changed to reflect the new 

R2 Regional Forester’s direction and the updated Biological Evaluation.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 37 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 21 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

C. The Pactola Project must adequately protect and comply with Forest Plan Standards regarding northern goshawks.

The Pactola Project raises particular concerns for northern goshawks, a Region 2 Sensitive Species for which the flawed Phase II 

Amendment developed Standards. The Pactola Project must comply with the mandates of the 2000 Settlement Agreement and 

Standards 3108(a) and (b) and Objective 221.

Agency Response: 

A summary of the effects and determination of the action alternatives on the northern goshawk was presented in the DEIS, 

Appendix D. 

The Pactola Project Wildlife and Fish Biological Evaluation (BE) includes the full analysis of the effects of the proposed action 

alternatives as they pertain to the northern goshawk. There are two known territories located within the project boundary and two 

known territories located within 1⁄2 mile of the project boundary. Not all of the goshawk nests (territories) have been located. Based 

on suspected territory size and gap analysis, there is a potential for three additional territories to occur in or adjacent to the project 

boundary. 

Standard 3108 requires setting aside at least 180 acres of nesting habitat within 1⁄2 mile of historically active nests. For each 

historical territory, the identified nest stands are identified and their sizes range from 96 acres to 218. Standard 3108 does not 

prohibit treatment in goshawk nest areas, but states that “vegetation management activities within nest areas shall be limited to 

those that maintain or enhance the stand’s value for goshawk” (Forest Plan, page II‐35). Design criteria for management of northern 

goshawk stands in the Pactola Project can be found in Appendix B of the DEIS. 

The two territories within the 1⁄2 mile of the boundary may be affected by vegetative treatment. Some stands within close proximity of 

these nests that are not currently suitable were left untreated in the Pactola Project Area to provide for these two territories. Since 

MPB activity is greater in most of the goshawk nest stands there is a potential that nest stand characteristics may be lost in the next 

5-10 years due to pine mortality above and beyond treatment objectives. The Seth Timber Sale is underway with plans to treat most 

of the identified 60 acre suitable nesting habitat. Treatments within these nest stands designed to maintain the stands value for 

goshawks while protecting private residences and access from fire. The second territory is located within the Rochford Research 

Project Area. These nest stands were found during the Pactola field reconnaissance in 2009. The nest stand and most of the 

surrounding area has succumbed to MPB mortality which would preclude these areas being suitable for nesting goshawks in a 

couple of years. 

Potential mortality could affect individuals as a result of MPB mortality (nest tree falls) and/or loss of nests or disturbance during 

critical periods could occur during harvest operations and road use. Adherence to Forest Plan standards, guidelines and project 

design criteria would provide suitable habitat for the northern goshawk. None of the alternatives would notably decrease the amount 

of habitat at the Forest-wide scale. Therefore, all alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221. As a result a determination 

was made for all alternatives “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” for the northern goshawk.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 38 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 22 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

D. The Pactola Project must adequately protect Species of Local Concern. 

The Pactola Project must comply with Objective 221 regarding Species of Local Concern (SOLC), and provide adequate information 

to the public to justify its conclusions of compliance. USFS must adequately assess how the Pactola Project will contribute to habitat 

fragmentation (for any species).

The Pactola Project will result in less mature old-growth and/or near-old-growth, snags, and various structural stages relied on by 

many SOLC. USFS must expressly guarantee that no occupied nest trees will be cut to comply with Standard 3204 (nest 

protection).

We raise concerns about loss of SS 4C and other appropriately-sized trees that somehow have been included in other structural 

stages, as well as the loss of snags and general compliance regarding the northern flying squirrel and the myotis SOLC. We also 

raise concerns about SOLC protections for bat species, the meadow jumping mouse, and snail species. Regarding the SOLC snail 

species, there must be concrete, adequate protections for “unknown” colonies. USFS must clarify in detail in the environmental 

impact statement itself how the Pactola Project will affect these SOLC and how USFS intends to meet Objective 221 and NFMA’s 

habitat diversity mandate.

The analysis for the Pactola Project must take a true, in-depth “hard look” at the effects to each Species of Local Concern, and 

identify factual support in the record readily available to the public for conclusions that Objective 221 and Forest Plan standards 

have been met.

Agency Response: 

Objective 221 is to “conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and species of local concern.” (Forest Plan, pg. I‐9) 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are defined as species that do not meet the criteria for sensitive species status but show a 

decline in only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local area (r2_BH_2600-2005-1). 

These SOLC species are analyzed in the DEIS on pgs. 197- 218, 222-226, and 233-242. Design criteria for the management of 

SOLC habitat in the Pactola Project can be found in Appendix B of the DEIS. A more detailed analysis for SOLC species can be 

found in the wildlife, fish, and botany specialist reports and Pactola Project file. 

The wildlife, fish and botany specialist reports tier directly to the revised Forest Plan and the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment EIS 

(USDA Forest Service 1996, 2005a) and the associated Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluations (Appendices H and C 

respectively)(See DEIS, pg.158). Fragmentation and connectivity of habitat communities as it relates to MIS species were analyzed 

as part of the Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 1996), and analyzed in relation to SOLC species in the Phase II EIS (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). The applicable research literature, local knowledge, and expertise for SOLC species was taken in to account 

to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on these species. 

Neither the black‐and‐white warbler, nor its suitable habitat was identified in the Pactola Project area, therefore this species was 

dropped from further analysis (See DEIS, pg. 199). The meadow jumping mouse was analyzed and summarized in the DEIS pgs. 

198, 208-212, and 222-226. The northern flying squirrel was analyzed and summarized in the DEIS, pgs.198, 214-216, and 222-226. 

Several SOLC bats were analyzed (long-eared Myotis, long-legged myotis, northern myotis and small-footed myotis) were analyzed 

in the DEIS, pgs. 198, 205-208, and 222-226. Three of the four SOLC snails were analyzed and summarized in the DEIS, pgs. 199-

200, 212-214, and 222-226. All alternatives decrease pine structural stage habitat short-term by varying degrees, including SS4C. 

Long-term, Alternatives B and C would provide pine habitat for these species more than Alternative A. None of the alternatives would 

notably decrease the amount of SS5, SS4C, mature trees or snag habitat at the Forest-wide scale. All alternatives would be 

consistent with Objective 221. Therefore, SOLC species are likely to persist long-term.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 39 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 23 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

E. The FEIS must adequately assess and provide for necessary snag habitat.

Objective 211 directs USFS to “provide an average of 3 hard snags greater than 9-inch dbh and 25 feet high per acre, welldispersed across the forest, 25 percent of which are greater than 14-inch dbh.” 

The Pactola Project must offer adequate compliance with Objective 211 and Standards 2301, 2304, or 2305, as they relate to snag 

retention and density. USFS must take a hard look at snag density and population viability implications that actually take into 

account the facts regarding species’ needs and what is occurring on the ground and will occur as a result of implementation of the 

Pactola Project regarding snags. Objective 211 and Standards 2301, 2304, and 2305 must be followed and the public must be 

provided clear information and assurances of how snag density will be retained and increased.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 18. 

Snags are discussed in the DEIS on pgs. 121, 127, and 168-170. 

According to the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report (FPMER), Forest-wide the average number of hard snags >9” dbh is 

3.5 snags per acre, 23% of these snags are >14” dbh per acre (0.8 snags/ac.). In addition, large areas affected by wildfire and 

insects it is estimated that snags >9” dbh is above 17.8 per acre forest wide. Therefore, the snag densities forest-wide are above 

Forest Objective 211 (USDA Forest Service 2010c) and should be adequate to meet snag dependant species such as pygmy 

nuthatch, Lewis’s woodpecker, and fringe-tailed myotis habitat requirements. 

In all MAs in Pactola Project Area, the average hard snag density is 4.7 snags/acre (>9” dbh). In addition, MPB mortality is 

increasing, which would provide additional hard/soft snags short-term in the Pactola Project Area, many of which are greater than 

12” dbh. Currently, snag densities in Pactola Project Area are well above Objective 211 (See DEIS, pgs. 168-170).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 24 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

E. The FEIS must adequately assess and provide for necessary snag habitat.

Despite the fact that MIS and SOLC depend on 15-inch dbh or larger snags for survival (nesting, etc.), USFS only aspires to retain 

snags greater than 9-inch dbh, with one quarter of those greater than 14-inch dbh. Published science already reveals that snags 

greater than 15 inches dbh average only 0.7 per acre. See Spiering, D.J. and R.L. Knight, Snag density and use by cavity-nesting 

birds in managed stands of the Black Hills National Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 214:40-52 (2005). This is entirely 

insufficient to support viable populations of pygmy nuthatches, Lewis’s woodpeckers, and Black Hills fringe-tailed myotis, as well as 

other non-MIS, SS, or SOLC, which require snags of 15-inch dbh or greater. See Phase II Appeal, page 27. Many other species 

require snags of smaller diameters, but such snag densities also have no guarantee of occurrence or retention across the project 

area. See Phase II Appeal, page 30.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 23. 

The reference, Spiering and Knight (2005) was reviewed for this analysis (See DEIS, pg. 292). This comment is directed at Forest 

Plan Objective 211 and is not specific to the Pactola Project. The issue of snag density and diameter was analyzed under the Phase 

II Amendment FEIS, which was upheld on appeal and was not challenged in court. Therefore, the amended Forest Plan, including 

Objective 211, is valid. 

To protect the public and forest users from falling trees, snags may be removed in concentrated recreation use areas (Pactola 

Campground/Picnic areas), along roads, in fuel breaks and in areas where harvest operations are concentrated (decks/skid trails).
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 40 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 25 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

F. The FEIS must adequately assess and provide for necessary old-growth habitat. 

USFS owes the public more intellectual honesty and transparency on how it calculates what it considers old-growth and what 

scientists actually consider old-growth for habitat purposes. USFS must recalculate current old-growth habitat based on actual 

existing tree size, not Management Area goals or prescriptions that include trees as small as 7 inches dbh. USFS must take a hard 

look at impacts to old-growth habitat, taking into account the actual probability of stand-replacing fires and beetle infestation and the 

efficacy of logging to prevent both events. USFS must provide the public with a more clearly stated line of logic supporting its 

conclusion that cutting down 24,863 acres and an unspecified amount of board feet will contribute to BHNF old-growth objectives. 

USFS should also provide an understory map of the project area.

Agency Response: 

Existing forest-wide structural stages and changes to these structural stages as a result of the alternatives are summarized in the 

DEIS, pgs. 102-128, and in more detail in the silviculture specialist report. 

Current condition indicates that 34% of the project area is in the 160 year age classes or older with 28% of pine stands in unsuitable 

area (steep slopes, erosive soils etc.) and 6% in more actively managed stands (See DEIS, pg. 106). Currently there are no stands 

within the project area classified as late successional SS5. Stands are usually designated SS5 after they are reviewed at the project 

level (field verified). There are over 900 acres within the project area that have the age and stand structure characteristics for SS5 

and an additional 9,700 acres of SS4B that would be available to grow into older, denser late successional stands (See DEIS, pg. 

107). In Alternative B, 900 acres would be classified as SS5. Stands will be treated from below to enhance late successional 

characteristics. An additional 700 acres of SS4B and 4C stands would be treated from below to make them less susceptible to high 

intensity fires and MPB infestation but treatments would maintain their closed canopy condition (See DEIS, pg. 120). In Alternative 

C, 700 acres would be designated as SS5. Approximately 900 acres of SS4B and 4C would be treated from below to make them 

less susceptible to high intensity fires and MPB infestation but would maintain a closed canopy condition (See DEIS, pg. 127). 

Mortality from MPB was calculated into the post structural stage distribution for all alternatives. It is estimated that 70% of the 

untreated closed canopy stands would be converted to open canopy stands by MPB activity. Commercial and non-commercial 

treatment would leave over 3,600 (Alt. B) and 4,000 acres (Alt. C) more in SS4 than the no action alternative. These remaining large 

diameter and older stands would grow into late successional stands much earlier than the younger stands created by MPB activity in 

Alternative A. 

Pactola Project DEIS, Table 3‐12 on pg. 105 shows that in management areas 5.1 and 5.4, there are currently 50,437 and 52,865 

acres of SS4C respectively forest-wide. For both MAs, the current acreage in SS4C is at least twice as much (11% in 5.1 and 16% 

in 5.4) as the Forest‐wide objective (5%). Forest‐wide, there exists an abundance of SS4C that could develop into SS5 over time. 

Currently, there is less than 1% designated in SS5 forest-wide.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 41 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 26 Wildlife

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

F. The FEIS must adequately assess and provide for necessary old-growth habitat. 

USFS considers “mature and old-growth forests” on the BHNF to be structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5. See Rattlesnake FEIS, 

Appendix C, page 13 (citations omitted). We express concern the agency has included trees of inappropriate size in these various 

categories. Even more frustrating, the trees USFS considers as old-growth habitat are not of the size the oldgrowth dependentspecies actually prefer. By USFS’ own admission, goshawks and other species select for trees 15 inches in diameter or more. 

Phase II FEIS; see also Phase II Biological Evaluation. Yet structural stage 4, much of it classified as goshawk habitat (and thus oldgrowth) by USFS, includes trees as small as seven inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). Phase II FEIS, Appendix E, page 74. 

This means that by default, the only real, existing oldgrowth habitat (by USFS’ questionable designations) can supposedly be found 

in SS 5. Meeting objectives for old-growth across the BHNF and especially in the project area will likely be severely delayed well 

beyond 60 years by the Pactola Project. How many board feet will be cut under the Pactola Project? How much old-growth and 

near-old-growth will be cut down, taking into consideration not merely structural stage classifications but also actual ages and dbh of 

trees?

Agency Response: 

Structural stage 4 forest is not considered old growth, as the commenter asserts. By Forest Plan definition, SS4 is “mature” and SS5 

is “late succession” (often referred to as old growth). Late succession stands (SS5) are typified by trees that are 16 inches in 

diameter (or larger) and at least 160 years old (See DEIS, pg. 321). Smaller trees may be present, but the older, larger size classes 

are predominant. Mature stands (SS4) contain trees that are greater than 9 inches in diameter and not yet 160 years old. Density in 

mature stands can vary, with less dense stands (less than 40% canopy cover) classified as SS4A, intermediate stands (greater than 

40% canopy cover, but less than 70%) classified as SS4B, and the most dense stands (canopy cover greater than 70%) classified 

as SS4C. 

Changes in wildlife habitat provided by various pine structural stages effects are summarized in the DEIS, pgs. 163-172. Designation 

of a stand as goshawk habitat does not automatically classify that stand as late-succession SS5. The Phase II Amendment Biological 

Evaluation (pg. C‐BE‐233) states that goshawks prefer mature and old stands with canopy closure greater than 50 percent. 

Ponderosa pine structural stages 4C and 5...likely best meet these conditions in the Black Hills...Structural stage 4B may also provide 

some additional nesting habitat. When identifying nest areas in addition to known nest areas in territories, wildlife biologists select 

habitat that is preferably SS4C or SS5, but may include SS3C and SS4B if stand conditions meet other goshawk nesting 

characteristics. Many of these stands may contain several trees 15 inches or greater in diameter but may not meet other SS5 criteria. 

Since dense stand conditions are more susceptible to MPB attack, it is likely that late successional and goshawk nest stands (SS3C, 

4B, 4C, and 5) would experience severe tree mortality if left untreated to reduce beetle risk.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 27 Range/Weeds

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

G. The Pactola Project will unnecessarily increase noxious weed infestations.

If the Nautilus Project analysis is any indication, noxious weed infestations will increase under any Pactola Project action alternative. 

The agency can easily limit such infestations by reducing the number of acres “treated” and subject to soil disturbance, reducing the 

number of miles of road work associated with the project, and reducing the amount of equipment movement in and out of the project 

area by implementing no or less intense and less extensive “treatments.”

Agency Response: 

The Pactola DEIS fully acknowledges that noxious weed infestations may increase as a result of Alternatives B and C (See DEIS, 

pgs 154-157). Design criteria intended to minimize the spread of noxious weeds are listed in Appendix B on pgs. B-22 and B-23 of 

the Pactola DEIS. 

As presented in the Fire and Fuels section in Chap. 3 of the DEIS, the fire hazard is highest for Alternative A -No Action (See DEIS, 

pgs 134-135 and 143). Experience in the Black Hills demonstrates that wildfires result in large weed infestations (See DEIS, pg 

155).
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 42 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 28 Range/Weeds

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

G. The Pactola Project will unnecessarily increase noxious weed infestations. 

USFS can and should save itself the time and money required for seeding and mitigation measures and treatment. Such measures 

will be required under Standards and Guidelines 4301, 4302, 4304, 4306, and 4308 in order to comply with the Forest Plan. Table 3-

40 on page 130 of the Nautilus DEIS makes clear there will be great expense involved in both treatment and monitoring of noxious 

weed infestations under HFRA projects such as this, taxpayer money that could be better used for projects that genuinely support 

native wildlife habitat and vegetation, as opposed to massive logging projects that will eliminate native wildlife habitat and 

vegetation, such as the Pactola Project proposes.

Agency Response: 

The Deciding Official (District Ranger) would consider various factors, including costs and benefits, within the Decision Framework 

noted on pg. 12 of the Pactola DEIS. Design criteria intended to minimize the spread of noxious weeds are listed on pgs. B-22 and 

B-23 of the Pactola DEIS, Appendix B. 

Other design criteria such as “General Soil Requirements for All Operations” (DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-5 through B-6) would 

reduce the amount of disturbance associated with the spread of noxious weeds. 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 27 regarding the relationship between wildfire and noxious weeds.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 29 Range/Weeds

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

G. The Pactola Project will unnecessarily increase noxious weed infestations. 

“Travel management plays a role in the spread of noxious weeds,” USFS acknowledges. See Nautilus DEIS, page 130. Roads, 

trails, off-road vehicles, and even snowmobiles admittedly spread weed seeds. Id, pages 130-131. “Proposed actions may increase 

the likelihood of offroad motorized travel due to expansion of the road system and removal of vegetation allowing access to new 

areas,” the agency says. USFS should capitalize on this foresight and proactively limit such road expansion and vegetation removal, 

since it is limited budget-wise regarding treatment and monitoring of noxious weeds as well as enforcement of road closures and offroad vehicle use. Rather than resign itself to the inevitability of noxious weed spread, USFS should take the opportunity to prevent 

the spread by eliminating all or at least most of the road work and vegetation removal proposed.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comments 27 and 28.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 43 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 30 Trans

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VI. USFS should not allow any new or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project area.

Despite an over-abundance of roads in the project area, and the BHNF’s mind-bogglingly higher actual route density than any other 

National Forest System unit in Region 2, USFS proposes up to 19 new miles of road, 29 reconstructed road miles, and 72 miles of 

road maintenance work in Alternative C. This amount of road work is fiscally irresponsible in this economic climate, as well as 

ecologically unsound. Alternative B only proposes 3 new miles of road, but nearly the same number of miles of road reconstruction 

and maintenance. Science has made clear over and over that roads are the primary source of sediment delivery that damages 

watersheds in our national forests. “Roads have well-documented, significant and widespread ecological impacts across multiple 

scales, often far beyond the area of the road ‘footprint’, with negative effects on biological integrity in both terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems.” Carnefix and Frissell 2009. Adding active road use to the project area will create adverse impacts not outweighed by 

any benefits from fuel and beetle treatments. Route densities will increase further for nearly every watershed in the project area. 

USFS acknowledges that “[m]otorized vehicles have damaged roads and riparian areas when conditions are wet or in cases where 

streams were crossed,” and further seems to resign itself to the fact that “[i]ncreased use by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) can be 

expected . . . and are likely to continue to degrade wildlife habitat both directly and due to habitat fragmentation.” See Nautilus DEIS, 

page 103. “The use of some open roads . . . has also contributed to the establishment of noxious weeds, and the erosion and 

degradation of riparian areas due to increasing sedimentation and changes in stream morphology.” Id. USFS should provide 

detailed statements of fiscal commitment in terms of maintenance costs, etc., for the miles of roads proposed for construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance under the action alternatives.

Agency Response: 

The proposed maintenance and reconstruction are on roads that are already a part of the National Forest Road System and most 

are well established travelways that have existed for decades. Maintenance and reconstruction on these routes would improve 

drainage, protect roadbeds from damage, and ensure safe passage. Through the use of design criteria and BMPs, sediment 

delivery to water resources should be minimized. Research has demonstrated that improved road design, construction, and 

maintenance can reduce road-related erosion (Gucinski et al., 2000) (See DEIS, pgs. 84-85). Use of these roads under the Pactola 

Project would allow for maintenance funding that would not otherwise be available. 

The amount of road construction proposed is necessary to carry out the actions proposed in Alternatives B and C. All road work and 

mitigation measures would comply with BMPs and road design criteria (See DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-1 through B-11 and B-17 

through B-21). These roads would be closed and revegetated and there would be minimal future maintenance costs, if any, 

associated with these roads. 

Miles of roads and trails designated for public motorized routes would not change as a result of implementation of either action 

alternative. The illegal use of routes by ATVs falls under the authority of the Forest-wide Travel Management Plan. See DEIS, pgs. 

242-245.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 31 Trans

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VI. USFS should not allow any new or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project area. 

USFS should not convert any “non-system” roads or user-created routes into system roads under the Pactola Project.

Agency Response: 

The transportation plan proposes to convert 0.5 miles and 1.5 miles of existing unauthorized roads to system roads under 

Alternatives B and C respectively. These roads would be improved to comply with BMPs and road design criteria (See DEIS, pg. 

98). Improvement of these roads would mitigate negative ecological impacts that may be occurring, such as sedimentation due to 

lack of maintenance. These roads would be closed and revegetated. 

Most of these converted routes are constructed roads that were previously used for harvest activities or other management activities 

and may be used for future management activities.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 44 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 32 Trans

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VI. USFS should not allow any new or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project area. 

USFS must show how any newly constructed, reconstructed, or converted roads relate to the recently issued Travel Management 

Plan and corresponding questions about total route miles, route density, soundscape impacts, enforcement and monitoring 

concerns, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife disturbance and mortality concerns (in particular to SOLC snail species and meadow 

jumping mouse, as noted above).

Agency Response: 

None of the newly constructed routes or converted routes are a part of the road or trail system in the Forest-wide Travel 

Management Plan. All of the reconstructed roads are already a part of the National Forest Road System and are included in the 

Travel Management Plan in some way, either as a road or trail. Some roads are closed to motorized travel, and thus are not shown 

on the Travel Management Plan maps. Refer to Maps 7-9 in the DEIS, Appendix E for comparison. 

Twenty-three miles of designated motorized trails under Alternative B and twenty-five miles of trails under Alternative C would be 

temporarily changed to roads and utilized as haul routes. Eight miles of these trails would be reconstructed under both action 

alternatives to support commercial haul and to protect soil and water resources (See DEIS, pg. 99). Designated trails temporarily 

used as roads would be returned to trails when operations have been completed (See DEIS, pg. 100). 

The new travel decision will have a positive natural resource effect in the Pactola Project Area by reducing the number of routes that 

are available for visitors to travel on. This will result in fewer unclassified stream crossings and results in less impact to sensitive 

wildlife, fish, botanical, and heritage resources. 

The Travel Management Plan FEIS analyzed the impacts of the open road system. Since the Pactola Project does not add any 

open routes to that system, the analysis with the Travel Management FEIS is still valid and no further analysis will be presented in 

the Pactola FEIS. The impacts of the routes added for the purpose of the Pactola Project (new construction and NFSR conversion, 

all of which will be closed to motorized travel following use) were analyzed in the Pactola DEIS. 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 22 to address wildlife related comments.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 45 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 33 Trans

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VI. USFS should not allow any new or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project area. 

Furthermore, USFS must disclose any miles or routes in the water influence zone and assess compliance with Standard 1301 of the 

Forest Plan, which “allow[s] only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition” 

in the WIZ. Standard 1301. USFS asserts that “[f]orest management activities such as tree harvest and prescribed fire can take 

place within the 100-ft WIZ buffer if desired for silvicultural reasons and done so cautiously, with a ‘tread lightly’ approach.” Pactola 

DEIS, p. 84. This statement 

by the agency does not comport with Standard 1301’s plain language. The Pactola DEIS repeatedly makes clear that management 

activity in the WIZ will harm riparian ecosystems. See Pactola DEIS, p. 211. USFS must avoid new stream crossings to maintain the 

health or condition of these streams. A stream crossing, by definition, implicates the water influence zone (i.e., within 100 feet of a 

perennial or intermittent stream, lake, or wetland), and by agency admission, will “destroy the riparian area in the immediate area.” 

See Nautilus DEIS, page 159.

Agency Response: 

The Pactola DEIS states on pg. 84 that “In general, WIZ buffers would be avoided by ground-based equipment except at designated 

crossings, to perform road work, to end-yard any cut trees out of the WIZ, or where specifically approved. Design criteria has been 

included to protect vegetation within the WIZ associated streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies.” 

Page 85 of the DEIS states, “Road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and temporary use of roads within riparian areas and 

at stream crossings have the greatest potential to increase sediment. However, through the Design Criteria and BMPs, sediment 

delivery to water resources would be minimized.” 

Page 211 of the DEIS states, “However, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices and Pactola Project 

design criteria would reduce the effects of treatment and associated activities (e.g., new road construction) on riparian communities 

and aquatic habitats (e.g., water quality) to within Forest Plan limits. Existing access routes used for treatments that have been 

identified as not meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be repaired and improved, increasing water quality, water 

temperatures and maintain connectivity of streams in those areas.” 

Page 211 of the DEIS also states, “In the absence of fire, Alternative B would maintain and improve riparian and stream conditions 

within Forest Plan limits.” 

Page 212 of the DEIS states, “In the absence of fire, Alternative C would maintain and improve and improve riparian and stream 

conditions but would add more negative effects compared to Alternatives A and B.” 

Design criteria and mitigation measures for water resources, water bodies, protected stream courses, wetlands, and WIZ buffers are 

addressed on pgs. B-1 through B-4 in Appendix B of the DEIS. Design criteria and mitigation measures for roads and trails are 

addressed in Appendix B pgs. B-8 through B-11. DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-9 states, “If a stream crossing is absolutely necessary, 

the Zone Hydrologist(s) will be consulted to identify a stable crossing location and any site-specific mitigation needs.” DEIS, 

Appendix B, pg. B-10 states “Engineering personnel should work with Watershed personnel to appropriately size and place 

structures” and “Stream crossings will meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state permits where applicable.” 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 46 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 34 Trans

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VI. USFS should not allow any new or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project area. 

USFS must take a true hard look at the impacts any roads will have on quiet recreation, illegal route use, habitat fragmentation, 

erosion and water quality, wildlife disturbance and direct mortality (especially local science regarding elk susceptibility to vehicle 

collisions and avoidance of roads), relation to and compliance with the TMP, achievement of route density goals, and a comparison 

of local route density to that regionally and nationally across the National Forest System, and must thoughtfully address compliance 

concerns with Standard 1301 and 

remove routes that do not “maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition.” USFS should also 

provide a fen inventory, maps showing the location of wetlands, and maps showing perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream 

locations so the public can more effectively comment on the proposed project.

Agency Response: 

The impacts of the road activities proposed in Alternatives B and C of the Pactola Project are analyzed in Chap. 3 of the DEIS. 

Impacts of the Travel Management Plan are analyzed in the Travel Management Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 2010). Relation 

to and compliance of the Pactola Project with the Travel Management Plan was discussed in the Agency Response to Letter 12, 

Comment 32. 

Elk are not a federally listed Threatened or Endangered species, an R2 Sensitive Species, a Management Indicator Species or a 

Species of Local Concern. Therefore, analysis specific to elk is not required by the Forest Plan and is not presented in the Pactola 

DEIS. However, white-tailed deer are considered a MIS. Effects of roads and disturbance are discussed on pgs. 193-197 of the DEIS. 

Comparison of road density in the Black Hills National Forest to that regionally and nationally is not required by the Forest Plan, nor 

is it made clear in the comments why this analysis would be beneficial to the Pactola Project. 

Discussion of how the Pactola Project complies with Standard 1301 is presented in the Pactola DEIS in the Watershed, Geology, 

and Soils section (See DEIS, pg. 32). 

Maps of fens, wetlands, and streams are located in the project file and are available upon request.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 47 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 35 Veg

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VII. USFS must disclose how many board feet the Pactola Project will cut down, how it relates to annual timber output and ASQ, 

and how it satisfies MUSYA’s “sustainable yield” mandate in relation to other projects Forest-wide.

USFS must disclose how many board feet will be cut under the Pactola Project, how that relates to annual timber output, and how it 

relates to ASQ. USFS must explain this to the public using consistent mathematical calculations and formulas readily provided in the 

environmental impact statement. Guideline 2402 directs USFS to not exceed 202,000 ccf per year during the second decade. Id. 

The annual rate of timber harvest in recent years and upcoming years across the entire Forest is projected to be between 187,000 

ccf to 198,000 ccf. See Five-Year Timber Sale Schedule 2009-2013.

The Pactola Project is just over 2% of the entire BHNF (roughly 26,000 treated acres from 1.2 million acres), so USFS must 

demonstrate clearly that any amount of board feet harvest from this small portion of the Forest will be sustainable, both in relation to 

the project area and Forest-wide. Under NFMA, USFS must “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) (emphasis added). 

Indeed, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA) by name alone calls for sustainability. See 16 U.S.C. § 529. The Pactola 

Project must comply with sustainability mandates and consider a reasonable range of alternatives regarding timber volume 

removed. The Project should be examined for a sustainability assessment that acknowledges the unlikelihood of any given area 

being visited by wildfire and the futility of logging to combat beetle infestation. To comply with NFMA and MUSYA, USFS must 

assess the sustainability of the Pactola Project in the context of “perpetuity,” taking into consideration the actual likelihood of standreplacing fires and the efficacy of “fuels treatments,” as well as the efficacy of logging to combat mountain pine beetle infestations. 

In addition, NEPA requires a thorough “hard look” at the sustainability of this level of timber harvest from such a relatively small 

number of acres compared to the entire BHNF. USFS must provide its analysis in plain language explaining how all of the ASQ 

quantifications relate to one another.

Agency Response: 

Total estimated volume for timber and other products removed is listed for each action alternative on pgs. 20-21 of Pactola DEIS. 

ASQ is addressed in the Forest Plan. See the Black Hills FY09 monitoring and evaluation report (USDA Forest Service, 2010c). 

The Pactola Project analyzes the effects of harvesting between 49,600 ccf and 71,600 ccf of timber. This does not guarantee that all 

of that volume will be harvested, nor will all of it be harvested in a single year. 

Disclosure of the cumulative effects from all alternatives is presented in Chap. 3 of the DEIS. Sustainability estimates were analyzed 

as part of the FEIS Phase II and 1997 FEIS (USDA Forest Service, 1996 and 2005a). The action alternatives are in full compliance 

with the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 48 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 36 Veg 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

VIII. USFS must disclose any proposed timber harvest of trees that have not yet achieved culmination of mean annual increment 

(CMAI) and allow full public participation in order to comply with NFMA.

As USFS has acknowledged elsewhere, “NFMA generally prohibits the harvest of stands before they reach their maximum growth 

rate.” See Nautilus DEIS, page 38, citing 16 U.S.C. 1604(m). NFMA contains an exception in 16 U.S.C. § 1604(m)(2) which 

contemplates “consideration given to other multiple uses of the forest, including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and 

range.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604(m)(2). The exception of (m)(2) also requires public participation. 

USFS must conduct, with appropriate statutorily-compliant public participation, an assessment of (i.e., a true hard look at) the need 

for pre-CMAI harvests in light of the futility of combating mountain pine beetles through logging and the low probability of wildfire 

actually occurring in a treated area, and a clearly articulated indication on the record of how USFS has shown compliance with the 

congressional intent of (m)(2) (not a mere recitation of the types of harvests it will use in pre-CMAI stands).

Agency Response: 

CMAI applies only to stands being regenerated. 

16 USC S1604(m). National Forest System land and resource management plans: Establishment of standards to ensure 

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth; silvicultural practices; salvage harvesting; exceptions The Secretary shall 

establish— 

(1) standards to insure that, prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the National Forest System shall generally have reached the 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth (calculated on the basis of cubic measurement or other methods of calculation at 

the discretion of the Secretary): Provided, That these standards shall not preclude the use of sound silvicultural practices, such as 

thinning or other stand improvement measures: Provided further, That these standards shall not preclude the Secretary from salvage 

or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow or other catastrophe, or which are in 

imminent danger from insect or disease attack; 

For more information on CMAI see Appendix A - Silvicultural Findings of Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Policy and 

Appendix B - CMAI, in the Silviculturist Report for Pactola Project Area, available upon request. Also, see Appendix F – Silviculture 

Findings and CMAI in the FEIS.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

12 37 Plan

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

Comment:

IX. USFS must adequately respond to public comments, consider the best available science, and take a hard look at opposing 

science in the environmental impact statement itself.

Many commenters, including us, will ask USFS to acknowledge, review, respond to, and discuss the science and professional 

opinions that contradict USFS’ justifications for logging to combat mountain pine beetles and reduce wildfire risk, and other scientific 

concerns. 

The responsible opposing science presented in these comments must be addressed in the final statement itself, as must all 

comments, whether or not a specific piece of literature is cited. We remind USFS of its duty to “insure the professional integrity, 

including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. 

Furthermore, analysis “information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public 

scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.” Id. § 1500.1(b). Merely citing to agency employee-generated research literature, even 

when peer-reviewed, risks failing to consider the best available science, failing to respond to responsible opposing science, and 

failing to adhere to “professional” and “scientific integrity.”

Agency Response: 

The specialists in the Pactola Project DEIS have utilized best available science, including the most recent Forest Plan Monitoring 

Report, the Phase II Amendment FEIS, species conservation assessments, peer-reviewed journal articles, and citations submitted 

during public involvement have also been reviewed. A declaration for the use of best available science is also contained in the 

Pactola Project File for each resource specialist.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 49 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 1 Veg

Neiman Timber Company

Comment:

As we have stated throughout the process beginning with the initial project scoping, we wish to see the maximum area treated within 

the project area. For this reason we support Alternative C, but we also feel that more can be done. It is disturbing to us to see only 

10,440 acres, 42%, of the project area receiving treatments that will directly reduce the impact and threat of MPB. (7,194 Thinning 

acres+1,041 Removal Cut acres+436 Roadside Treatment acres+1,269 Cable Logging acres+500 Helicopter Logging acres=10,440 

MPB acres of MPB related treatment/24,863 USFS acres within the project).

By overlaying the treatment shapefile over a slope-classified DEM we were able to identify 3,200 acres listed as "No Treatment" in 

Alt. C that are operable with conventional logging equipment and near existing road templates (Orange Stripe on the map below). 

These areas should not be overlooked if the projects' intent is minimizing MPB risk. We encourage treating these areas along with 

the adjacent stands; at the very minimum sanitation efforts should be allowed in these areas if MPB are identified in these areas.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. The majority of the areas identified on your map included sites which have been treated in recent timber sales and 

are not ready for another commercial entry at this time. Other areas include Research Natural Areas (MA 2.2), stands with low 

stocking (SS3A, SS4A), inoperable ground and white spruce stands. 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 4 regarding sanitation.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 2 Trans

Neiman Timber Company

Comment:

Travel and Recreation Use 

One of the design criteria in this section states that harvest activities within the Hwy 385/Silver City Rd./Jenny Gulch Rd./and 

Rochford Rd. area is limited to December 15 through May 15th. A large quantity of the volume removed from this area would be 

required to be hauled on either the Silver City Rd. or the Rochford Rd. Both of these roads are subject to load limits beginning in the 

end of February through early April, and therefore log trucks would be prohibited during this time. As a result the operating period 

would be limited to approximately eight weeks in the winter and approximately five weeks in the spring. This narrow window is 

impractical and too restrictive to conduct efficient harvesting activities.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 28.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 50 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 3 Wildlife

Neiman Timber Company

Comment:

We feel that the broad spectrum of restrictions and special requirements within the wildlife design criteria may prove 

counterproductive to the Purpose and Need of this project. Restricting the timing and location of treatments has the potential to 

directly and negatively impact the very species the restrictions were designed to protect, should MPB infestations go untreated in 

these areas. Timing is absolutely critical to effectively managing MPB, and yet the timing of activities is limited rather than the 

activities themselves. A summary of the restrictions are listed below, illustrating the limited windows when work can be done: 

Heron: March 1-August1

Bighorn Sheep: April 1-June 15

Bald Eagle: February 1-September 1, and again November 1-April 1

Northern Goshawk: April 1-August 15

Other Raptors: April 1-August 15

We must applaud the Forest Service for utilizing management to protect and improve Northern goshawk habitat. We are pleased to 

see wildlife managers taking action to protect these areas from MPB mortality.

Agency Response: 

The purpose and need for action in the Pactola Project area is based on direction provided by the FP, national level policy, and law. 

The primary emphasis is to: a) Reduce the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing insect and 

disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. b) Move toward achieving desired land and resource conditions, as provided by the FP. c) 

Restore resource conditions to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem and to help protect local communities and resources from 

large-scale wildfire by reducing hazardous fuels (See DEIS, pg. 11). 

Project implementation could begin in Fall 2011 (See DEIS, pg. 12), but could take up to 15 years to complete all treatments 

proposed in the action alternatives. Although expediency is important in achieving these project specific objectives, the FP directs 

among other resource values “to conserve or enhance habitat” for MIS, R2 Sensitive, SOLC species and other resident and 

migratory wildlife, fish and plant species (FP Objectives 217-221) which may include design criteria and mitigation that would ensure 

adherence to FP direction, national policy and applicable laws. 

Design criteria and mitigation measures that address project specific concerns or FP standards and guidelines can be found in 

Appendix B of the DEIS. For wildlife species, timing restrictions are specific to known use areas and are limited in size, the most 

being one mile radius from the use area. These restrictions would not preclude treatment in other areas of the project area. 

Rationale for timing restrictions for these specific wildlife species can be found in the Pactola Project wildlife specialist reports.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 51 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

13 4 Visuals

Neiman Timber Company

Comment:

Scenery: Transition Zones 

By retaining transitional buffers adjacent to private property, untreated islands of timber are created that can act as conduits to 

spread beetles from Forest Service property to private ownership and vice versa. We have continually promoted buffer free 

harvesting, taking management activities directly to property and administrative boundaries, thus maximizing the MPB resistance 

and minimizing untreated fuels near private property. We feel this approach should also be used around the research natural areas 

and no treatment areas.

Additionally, in stands listed as high and moderate fire hazard rating, retaining transitional buffers by "feathering" directly contradicts 

the Forest Plan Scenery Management Guideline 5605. Guideline 5605 states "[T]he scale of vegetation manipulation around at-risk 

communities will be on a landscape scale. The design will borrow from the prairie-forest-edge character to create an open 

landscape with trees scattered across it." The author of this section sites the Forest Plan as the source of the "feathering" guidance 

but fails to site the section for reference. The list of units that require "feathering" under alternatives B and C is shockingly extensive, 

and seemingly counterintuitive to the overriding objective of mitigating the MPB epidemic.

Agency Response: 

Objective 402 in the BKNF LRMP: “Provide natural appearing landscapes...” Having transitional buffers, 1 1⁄2 - 3 tree heights in 

width, from treated to untreated areas (e.g., private land, research natural areas, etc.) creates a more natural appearance of the 

vegetation covering the landscape. These transition zones are still treated, removing trees, and reducing the density of trees to be in 

line with basal area recommendations to support the reduction of the spread of mountain pine beetles, as identified by the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. They do not leave “untreated islands of timber” within the treatment unit. 

Retaining transitional buffers by “feathering” is in line with Objective 402, and Forested Landscapes – Structural Diversity Guideline 

2105 “When developing openings in vegetative communities, copy naturally shaped edges.” – Although Overstory Removals, 

Liberation Cuts and Seed Cuts are not classified as “openings” from a silviculture standpoint, they do create an opening from a 

visual standpoint. Feathering helps achieve a natural appearing “edge” between treated and untreated areas. 

Silviculture and Timber Harvest Guideline 2414 “For travel corridors and other places where scenic quality is emphasized, manage 

tree stands to enhance the scenic quality...” – the majority of the harvest areas are visible from US Hwy 385, Pactola Visitor Center, 

Pactola Reservoir, and the community of Silver City. 

Feathering is only prescribed adjacent to untreated areas - not between adjacent units that remove the overstory trees. As a result, 

the vegetation is being treated on a landscape basis, with feathering only around the outer edge of the entire grouping of contiguous 

units. 

With regard to Guideline 5605, “feathering” is the management attempt to duplicate the natural forest-prairie edge from scattered 

trees to dense forest. 

Guideline 5611 “Vary stand densities to create vegetative diversity in areas with an adopted scenic integrity objective of Moderate or 

High” – Feathering the edges of units varies the stand density around the edge of the unit.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 1 Plan

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

We support the use of HFRA Authorities for the Pactola Project and would like to see treatments implemented as soon as possible. 

We find the purpose and need to be appropriate and would like to see the Pactola Project reflect this in the chosen alternative. As 

such, we would support Alternative C, which treats more acres than Alternative B, including many stands that are in and around 

sensitive areas at risk of being negatively impacted by the pine beetle.

Agency Response:

Comment noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 52 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 2 Veg

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

Mountain Pine Beetles

We have a crisis with the current pine beetle epidemic plaguing the Black Hills National Forest. We need to work to find ways to get 

in and treat the largest extent of acreage possible. Approximately 92% of the project area is at medium to high risk of infestation. As 

stated in the beginning of the DEIS, the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. While we 

agree with this, we feel modifications could be made that better support this statement.

Could you please clarify Table 2-1. Alternative A states the largest reduction in pine beetle acres at low risk with 12,095. Is this 

correct following treatments? Conversely, Alternative C – the alternative that commercially treats the most acres, gives the least 

reduction to MPB risk rating. The same trend is also shown regarding fire hazard rating. Also the RX burn acreages are stated as 

5,000 acres here and 5,037 acres elsewhere in the document.

Agency Response: 

The Pactola Project addresses mountain pine beetle hazard versus risk (See DEIS, pg. 104) 

According to the existing Insect Rating Guide for the Black Hills National Forest (Forest Plan Amendment FEIS Chap. III-385 and 

Appendix B-14 Table 5, FEIS Chap. II-3), to achieve a MPB hazard rating of low, a stand would have to consist of grass/forb, 

seedling or open sapling/pole conditions. All pine stands identified with a Structural Stage 4, mature, have a MPB hazard rating of 

medium or high. Only stands with a structural stage of 1, 2, or 3A are categorized as a MPB hazard rating of low. Insect ratings in 

Table 2-1 of the DEIS would be for post treatment conditions for sites treated in Alternatives B and C. For all stands in Alternative A, 

and untreated stands in Alternatives B and C, insect ratings are based on structural stages 3 to 5 years from present using 

estimates developed by Kurt Allen, Entomologist, Forest Health, Rapid City Service Center (USDA Forest Service, 2010d).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 3 Trans

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

After looking at the Pactola Project DEIS, it seems that with roughly 40% of the project area receiving commercial treatments, there 

exists the potential to treat more acres at risk to MPB. 

On page 42 of the DEIS, it states that 18% of the project area has slopes greater than 40%. While we understand it is costly to build 

roads on steep grades, we would ask the Mystic Ranger District to look for areas where roads could be extended or constructed for 

short distances on terrain temporarily exceeding 40%, where it makes sense, which could allow access in to significant portions of 

acreage that are not currently proposed for treated. There may be more upfront costs associated with this, but it could be an option. 

After completion of the treatments, the roads would technically become an asset to the forest and allow for future re-entry and fire 

fighting purposes.

Agency Response: 

Alternative C was developed and analyzed in response to comments received concerning the Pactola Project Area’s hazard rating 

for MPB infestation and Fire hazard rating, as well as suggestions to consider alternative logging techniques, e.g., cable and 

helicopter logging. 

Roads would need to be constructed/reconstructed to access these additional treatment areas (e.g., cable logging units). These 

roads and additional areas to be treated are reflected in Alternative C as presented in the DEIS (See DEIS, pgs. 20-22).

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 4 Veg

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

We would also recommend a sanitation clause that allows sanitation throughout the project boundaries. In many of these areas that 

are hard to access or in isolated pockets, sanitation can do a lot of good in stopping further infestation. We would support including 

new sanitation into current or proposed sales. In areas away from commercial treatments, we recommend cutting and chunking 

these trees to kill infested trees.

Agency Response: 

Sanitation harvest to remove infested pine trees may be conducted in areas near or adjacent to identified stands in order to limit the 

expansion of MPB population (See DEIS, pg. 19). Helicopter logging of an additional 500 acres outside of the treatment areas to remove 

“green hits” of MPB infestations in areas that are not accessible by other means could occur in Alternative C (See DEIS, pg. 21). 

Sanitation treatments outside of the Pactola Project’s proposed action and its alternatives are beyond the scope of this project.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 53 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 5 Veg

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

Below, are some potential stands that may be able to be incorporated for commercial thinning purposes, when looking at the 

thinning already proposed in Alternative C. The structural stages and stocking of these stands are unknown, but appear to be 

mature. Some stands may not be ready for entry at this point.

• Stand 091401_6 is moderate slope which may be able to be accessed with ground-based equipment from FID 350 or 

Silver City Rd 191(FID 127). This could also allow access into stands 091401_15 and 091401_5 with ground equipment 

as well. FID 350 also ends on a ridge that allows cable yarding access to a number of valleys in this area as well.

• FID 348 and FID 347 (both temp cable roads) both have components of cable yarding on them. We would recommend 

looking into adding cable yarding units off the end of each of these roads, which would open up a few more stands for 

treatment.

• Is it possible to extend FID 356 (temp cable road) farther along the ridge to cable yard stand 091401_7?

• There may be an opportunity to add more cable ground to stand 091402_1 through FID 357 (temp cable road). One side 

of the road is already proposed for cable ground.

• Stand 091401_1 may also be able to have ground based equipment in it through FR 252.

• Stand 090305_22 is proposed for commercial thinning. The adjacent stand, 090305_23 may also be able to have 

treatments in the western corner fairly easy. There are mountain pine beetle pockets in that stand.

• The eastern forested portion of stand 090201_20 is able to be treated with ground based equipment. The adjacent stand 

proposed for commercial thinning.

• Stand 090201_13 appears to be accessible for thinning to ground based equipment through FID 538 (temp cable road).

• Stand 090103_1 could be cable yarded through access of FR 437 and FID 351 (temp cable road). It is a west facing 

slope, but appears to have overstocked stands. The east slope of this ridge is already proposed for cable yarding.

• Stands 090101_31, 090101_33, 090103_22 and 090101_55(east end) all form a ridge that appears to be cable yarded 

through existing roads 437.1H and 437.1E.

• Stand 090102_23 appears to be available to ground based operations via FR 671.1A.

• FID 539 (temp cable road) could be used to cable the northern portion of stand 091502_8. It appears to be heavily 

stocked and there is proposed cable ground adjacent to it.

• Stand 060402_7 appears to be dense. The stand adjacent to is proposed for commercial thinning. 

• Stands 091504_12, 091504_10, 091504_11, and 091504_14 are all along the western edge of the project. There appears 

to be high levels of mountain pine beetles in this area. The terrain may be too steep to allow for ground equipment, but 

may be worth looking at.

• Stand 090103_6 is proposed for commercial thinning. This stand ends at a ridge that borders potential cable ground in 

stand 090103_7. FID 549 (temp road into stand proposed for commercial thinning) could be used to access this cable 

ground. 

• Stands 091403_12 and 091403_13 are relatively flat and may be able to be accessed with ground equipment. There is 

also pine beetle activity in these stands, and adjacent to them outside the project boundary. 

• Stand 091401_19 may be suitable as cable ground via the temp road at the top of the ridge (FID 360).

Agency Response: 

There are various reasons why stands were not considered, but eliminated from vegetative treatment in Alternative B and C. 

Examples include, but are not limited to the following: 

• Stands were recently treated and did not need additional silvicultural treatment. 

• Stands had low stocking or volume. 

• Stands were designated as landscape old growth. 

• Stands were located on steep inaccessible slopes where road construction cost would exceed the value of treatment of 

the stand. 

• Stands could not be accessed due to their proximity to Pactola Lake. 

• Stands were within a designated Research Natural Area. 

• Stands were located on highly erodible soils or have a high potential for mass movement. 

• Stands were inaccessible without extensive and expensive road construction. 

• Stands may be left to meet Forest Plan management area direction, to move toward structural stage objectives and to 

meet Forest Plan standards. 

• Operable portions of sites identified as inoperable may be treated with adjacent sites scheduled for treatment if operability 

is the only limiting factor.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 54 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 6 Veg

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

What part of the project area is the heli-logging proposed? It appears a map is in the project file, but omitted in the DEIS materials. 

Could this information and map please be included in the FEIS if Alternative C is selected?

Agency Response: 

In Alternative C, approximately 1,270 acres of cable and/or helicopter logging was identified (DEIS, Appendix E, Map 5). Helicopter 

logging of an additional 500 acres outside of treatment areas to remove “green hits’ of MPB infestations in areas that are not 

accessible by other means may occur. These additional areas have not been identified at this time but are intended to respond to 

isolated pockets of MPB infestation that if left untreated could spread to un-infested stands. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 7 Veg

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

We recognize and support the efforts to treat the areas in and around the town of Silver City. These treatments are much needed 

and well placed. Treatments along the Silver City road are also supported by our Association under Alternative C.

Agency Response: 

Comments noted.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 55 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 8 Fire/Fuels

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

Fire and Fuels

We support the 5,037 acres of prescribed burning proposed in the Pactola Project. Whenever possible, we would like to see even 

more prescribed burning follow mechanical treatments. We would also offer the following recommendations to be incorporated in 

future direction of the Pactola Project.

1.) Mortality limits of 10% or less in stands.

2.) Salvage clause allowing for the option of quick and efficient salvage of saleable timber in areas exceeding the set mortality limits, 

or if the 

 prescribed burn does get away.

3.) Burn objectives.

4.) We strongly urge prescribed burning to be done in stands that have had mechanical treatments prior to burning.

5.) We caution the US Forest Service against burning following precommercial thinnings where the slash is left on the forest floor. 

We would 

 recommend burning in this scenario only in cases where the slash is minimal or the stand densities are low enough that the 

residual stand 

 will not be damaged and the prescribed burn will be of low enough that the residual stand will not be damaged and the prescribed 

burn will 

 be of low intensity. 

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 

1) Mortality limits for prescribed fire are on a graduated scale and are written by the District Silviculturalist and are included in 

individual burn plans. Smaller diameter trees have a much higher accepted mortality limit than larger diameter trees (e.g., 0”-.3” dbh 

40% acceptable mortality, 3”-5” dbh 40% acceptable mortality, and 5”-9” dbh 10% acceptable mortality). A typical Silvicultural 

prescription for a prescribed fire on the Black Hills NF would limit mortality to less than 5% for trees greater than 9” dbh and less 

than 1% for trees greater than 16” dbh. 

2) Areas proposed for prescribed fire, for the most part, are also scheduled for commercial treatment prior to burning. 

3) Burn objectives are written during the implementation phase of the proposed burn project. Burn objectives consider management 

area direction (e.g., big game winter range emphasis), silviculture prescriptions, fuel hazard and site specific conditions such slope, 

aspect and proximity to private land. 

4) Comment noted. Areas proposed for prescribed fire for the most part are also scheduled for commercial treatment prior to burning. 

5) One of the goals of prescribed fire is fuels reduction, especially where fuel loading is above acceptable limits (FP Guideline 

4110). Non-commercial thinning of slash is generally found in smaller pockets spread across the project area. When areas of slash 

are encountered during prescribed fire operations, ignition patterns are generally altered to reduce fire intensities, but to avoid 

thinning slash all together can be impractical some cases.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 9 Plan

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

The Design Criteria (DC) for the Pactola Project are repetitive with some Standards and Guidelines repeated up to three times. At 

just under 40 pages in length, we feel that the DC could be condensed and shortened in length. Listing Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines is not necessary. In the end, the DC should give requirements, in addition to those in the Forest Plan, that are unique 

and specific to the Pactola Project, with the necessary rationale stated.

Agency Response: 

Appendix B – Design Criteria, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring has been updated in the FEIS.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 56 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 10 Hydro/Soils

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-4 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Please delete ‘swales’. This term is not defined in the Black Hills LRMP or in the Pactola Project DEIS. Generally speaking, any dip 

or depression may be referred to as a swale, which can be excessive throughout the project area. We do not support use of this 

term in the FEIS.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 7. 

Swales are included in the discussion of stream flow regime on pgs. 71-72 of the DEIS. Swales are formally defined in the USFS 

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (FSH 2509.25), with this term being used in several of the 

recommended practices. A definition for “swales” had been added to the FEIS glossary; the discussion of swales and Table 3-5 has 

also been updated in the FEIS to further clarify the term and differentiate it from perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. 

“Swale” is defined in the FEIS as the following: A landform feature lower in elevation than adjacent hillslopes, usually present in 

headwater areas of limited areal extent, generally without display of a defined watercourse or channel that may or may not flow 

water in response to snowmelt or rainfall. Swales exhibit little evidence of surface runoff and may be underlain by porous soils and 

bedrock that readily accepts infiltrating water. These are areas where soil moisture concentrates that often do not exhibit pedalogic 

or botanic evidence of saturated conditions (USDA Forest Service, 2006c). 

While non-Forest Service entities and private landowners are encouraged to employ SD Forestry BMPs, Federal agencies are held 

to a higher standard. As such, the USFS is required to use WCPs for all Forest Service undertakings.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 11 Hydro/Soils

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-4 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

“Do not cut vegetation within 50’ of a stream bank, lake, pond, wetland etc”. While we understand the need to avoid vegetation 

treatments within these sensitive areas, we would recommend that sanitation treatments that remove mountain pine beetle infested 

trees, be allowed in these sites so long as they occur on frozen or dry ground conditions and in a careful manner. The various resource 

concerns meant to be protected by limiting vegetation treatments in these areas can be compromised if mountain pine beetles are 

allowed to persist and kill the large mature trees associated with these areas. Things like stream bank stabilization, maintaining stream 

shading or ensuring wetland integrity would be not be possible if the ponderosa pine over story were to be damaged.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comments 7 and 9. 

Vegetation management within 50 feet of each stream bank, lake, pond, wetland, spring, or other water body generally should not 

take place. Leaving this vegetation intact provides bank stability and shading necessary to maintain water temperatures for aquatic 

species within individual water bodies, as well as the overall connected network of springs, wetlands, streams, and lakes. 

However, there may be instances where it may be both necessary and beneficial to water resources and dependent plant and 

animal species to treat within this 50 foot buffer. Site specific consultation with the Hydrologist would take place to determine if 

treatment can be accomplished while protecting water resources and maintaining compliance with all soil and water related law, 

regulation, and policy. Site specific requirements would be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on the resource concerns, 

proposed type of treatment and methods, topography, etc.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 57 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 12 Hydro/Soils

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-5 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Please look for ways to incorporate sanitation in and around the 100’ buffer of gauge house, equipment, and associated control 

section. We would not want dead or damaged trees to be able to fall and damage concerned items in this area.

Agency Response: 

In order to protect the gauge house site from damage (such as through dead fall) or to prevent a significant alteration of the 

established stream flow rating curve, design criteria listed in the DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-4 and B-5, allows limited treatment 

through site specific consultation with the Hydrologist and USGS personnel.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 13 Hydro/Soils

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-5 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Under harvest and skidding operations, we would recommend modifying terminology in the first bullet to read “Avoid ground-based 

harvest and skidding equipment operations on sustained slopes steeper than 40% if absolutely necessary.” Some areas may be 

able to be skidded on with tractor equipment that yards downhill. With the large areas of steep ground within the project area, we 

would hope that every effort is made to treat high risk stands.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 9, Comment 7. 

As stated in the Design Criteria (See DEIS, Appendix B, pg. B-5), ground-based harvest and skidding equipment operations should 

be avoided on sustained slopes steeper than 40%. This requirement comes from USFS Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practice 

(WCP #9g). Areas with sustained slopes steeper than 40% require suspended logging operations, such as cable or helicopter 

logging as proposed and analyzed under Alternative C.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 58 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 14 Hydro/Soils

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-6 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

In the Pactola Project DC, please omit terminology that references “...contribute to Waters of the United States”. It can be argued 

that all areas eventually contribute to Water of the United States and such any requirement pertaining to areas that do contribute to 

these waters, taken out of context, could be open for interpretation. The Forest Plan already complies with the Clean Water Act and 

further reference is unnecessary.

Agency Response: 

The Forest Plan incorporates the WCP Handbook definition in its reference to “Waters of the United States” for specific 

management direction (e.g., Guideline 4111). 

Federal law (40 CFR 230) assigns regulatory authority to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over “Waters of the United 

States.” Thus, the phrase is a regulatory definition pertaining to these agencies’ jurisdiction over any waters meeting the definition. 

The definition for “Waters of the United States” as presented in 40 CFR 230.3 is given below: 

“The term Waters of the United States means: 

(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign 

commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 

(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 

(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, 

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could 

affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: 

(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or 

(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; 

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;

(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section; 

(6) The territorial sea; 

(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through 

(6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment 

ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) 

which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.” 

-- Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 230.3 

The summarized version of this legal definition provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and further clarified in the Region 2 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) has been added to the FEIS glossary. 

“Waters of the United States” is defined in the FEIS as the following: Includes essentially all surface waters such as navigable 

waters and their tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of 

these waters (US Army Corps of Engineers, refer also to 40 CFR 230.3). Waters of the United States include perennial and 

intermittent streams, lakes, wetlands, and their tributaries.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 59 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 15 Veg 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-14 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Under Slash Piling and Burning, we feel it would be helpful to provide direction to remove all live merchantable trees during harvest 

activities that may become scorched during the pile burning process.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. Removal of trees that could be affected by pile burning is available through the timber sale contract provisions.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 16 Fire/Fuels

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-22 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

The Pactola Project DC gives roughly 1⁄2 page of specific direction to fire and fuels. We would like to see specific parameters in the 

form of objectives and specific mortality limits.

Agency Response: 

Prescribed burn units are laid out after the NEPA process is complete and often after other treatments have already taken place. 

The results of these treatments often will help in the creation of the objectives for a given prescribed fire project. The objectives are 

generally geared towards reducing fuel loads and habitat improvement. Mortality limits are set by the District Silviculturalist and are 

tiered to the management area in which the burn unit is located.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 17 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-25 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

There are numerous wildlife restrictions throughout the DC, including herons, big horn sheep, bald eagle, bald eagle (winter), 

goshawk, raptors, etc. While we support the need to protect certain species, some of these restrictions in conjunction with other 

requirements, greatly hamper the ability to effectively implement the purpose and need of the Pactola Project. Wherever possible, 

we would support giving flexibility in these situations so that necessary treatments can be conducted.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 16. 

Design criteria are not intended to hamper the ability to effectively implement the project decision. Design criteria are applied in 

order to protect resources and forest users, as well as minimize impacts resulting from implementing action alternatives (See DEIS, 

pg. 22). Design criteria become part of the implementation plan and if necessary identified in vegetative treatment contracts to help 

purchasers to adequately assess project work plan and costs. Modifications to design criteria rarely occur but may be necessary 

based on unforeseen conditions. A change in design criteria usually involves resource specialists, line officers and other interested 

parties to resolve any issues. However, there is limited flexibility when laws may be broken or where FP standards may be violated.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 60 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 18 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-25 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Standard 1104 in the DC is actually a Guideline. Furthermore under this note is reference to “Keep harvest activities out of 

ephemeral drainages” in referring to soil concerns. While we agree with the need to protect soils in these areas, terminology such as 

‘ephemeral drainages’ can be very broad and depending on how it is interpreted, restrict access to large areas that need to be 

treated. We support language that modifies this DC to “whenever possible” or “during periods when soils are dry or frozen”. We 

would also recommend similar language as it relates to the northern leopard frog. The current language could easily be interpreted 

as “no disturbance in areas adjacent to streams, ponds, or other wet areas”. 

Similar language on page B-30 (third paragraph from the bottom) gives direction that “Roads that cross perennial or intermittent 

streams should be reconstructed and/or constructed to maintain water flow regimes”. Perennial and intermittent streams could easily 

be considered ephemeral drainages, in which case the two areas of direction would contradict one another (essentially allowing for 

roads in perennial stream beds, but not timber harvest in ephemeral drainages?). Please clarify in the FEIS.

Agency Response: 

The design criteria on pg. B-25 of the DEIS, Appendix B states “ Minimize soil compaction by reducing off-road vehicle passes, by 

skidding on snow, frozen or dry soil conditions or by off-ground logging systems (Guideline 1104). Limit the amount of disturbances 

caused by harvest activities that could compact soils adjacent to northern leopard frog breeding areas (e.g., streams, ponds). Keep 

harvest activities out of ephemeral drainages to prevent soil rutting and soil compaction while reducing the potential for sediment to 

move into intermittent and perennials stream during high precipitation periods.” 

Ephemeral Streams are defined in the DEIS, pg. 308 and in the Black Hills LRMP (Chap. 5 Glossary). 

“Standard 1104” has been corrected to “Guideline 1104” in the FEIS. The last sentence in this design criteria has been changed to: 

Follow design criteria identified to protect geology, soil, and water resources especially in the WIZ (See DEIS, Appendix B, pgs. B-1 

through B-17). 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 19 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-26 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Could you please elaborate on the DC to “Reduce the potential for future conflicts with beaver expansion in suitable habitat”.

Agency Response: 

Riparian habitat and Beaver are discussed in the DEIS, pgs. 177-181 and 186-189. 

The statement it is not clear in the DEIS mostly due to the page break. This statement is associated with design and construct all 

stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows and 

allow free movement of resident aquatic life (Standard 1203). A subpart of this design criteria was also “Evaluate and correct if 

necessary, system and temporary roads (location/crossings) used for treatment activities for in-stream barriers for fish, potential 

beaver/road conflicts and riparian/ stream health concerns.” The second sub-part was “reduce the potential for future conflicts with 

beaver expansion in suitable habitat.” 

Roads/trails and temporary roads are typically found in drainages due to gentle slope and gradient. Most of the current roads in the 

Pactola Project Area are in close proximity to optimum beaver habitat (water and hardwoods). The beaver is considered a MIS and 

the FP goal is to maintain and enhance habitat for this species. However, conflicts arise between maintaining adequate road access 

and beaver management, mostly when beaver dam construction impact the structure of the road or causes flooding. In the past, 

beaver were removed from the drainage to maintain the travel system. With the number of roads in the project area and the 

potential to construct more roads, this makes it difficult to maintain and enhance habitat for beaver. 

These design criteria focused on any roads that would be reconstructed or constructed in the future to reduce the potential for future 

conflicts when roads are adjacent to optimum beaver habitat. Changes in road design, and the placement of culverts, etc. could 

reduce the beaver’s instinct to build a dam in a particular location (e.g., noise, flow) which can influence a more positive outcome for 

beaver to remain in suitable habitat. Road design can also reduce the potential effects of “ponding” of water/flooding on roads 

adjacent to beaver colonies. 

Design criteria regarding roads and beaver conflict has been clarified in the FEIS.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 61 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 20 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-27 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Pertaining to the DC that states “Protect and preserve potential bald eagle roost areas and nest sites by retaining mature trees and 

old growth stands, particularly within 1⁄2 mile of water”, we would recommend omitting this sentence in the FEIS. The Forest Plan 

defines mature trees as those 9” and greater. This DC could easily be interpretated as no commercial timber harvests within 1⁄2 mile 

of water sources. We feel the second sentence in the DC gets to the intent and is adequate in preserving these areas.

Agency Response: 

Since the Pactola Project Area has a greater potential to provide optimum habitat for bald eagles, design criteria specific to the 

management and protection of bald eagle habitat was included. 

Although this species is no longer considered “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides direction on management of this species. As part of the 

delisting process, the US Fish and Wildlife Service further defined “disturb” under 50 CFR 22.3 as meaning: 

“to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific 

information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior (72 FR 31139).” This definition expands the area of influence of habitat alterations in bald 

eagle use areas and to adjacent areas. “Removal of trees is not in itself a violation of the Eagle Act. The impacts of such 

action can be a violation, however, if the loss of the trees kills an eagle, or agitates or bothers a bald or golden eagle to 

the degree that results in injury or interferes with breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits substantially enough to cause a 

decrease in productivity or nest abandonment, or create the likelihood of such outcomes. However, if the large trees are 

only occasionally used, the probability of such an outcome is lower than if the trees were within a traditional communal 

roost site or were the primary perch trees used by eagles in an important foraging area” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Final Rule 2007). 

In 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued the Final National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (72 FR 31156; June 5, 

2007) that are to be used in conjunction with this new definition of the term ‘‘disturb.’’ These guidelines were used as a basis for the 

design criteria in the Pactola Project Area, especially if new bald eagle use areas are found during the course of implementation. As 

stated in the Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 17, design criteria are applied in order to protect resources and forest users, 

including timber sale purchasers and operators from violating laws that could result in fines from state and other federal agencies. 

The proposed action alternatives identify treatment to occur within 1⁄2 mile of water, especially adjacent to Pactola Lake. The first 

sentence was a more general statement with the following sentences being more specific in guidance. Omitting the first sentence 

would not identify the need to protect and preserve bald eagle nesting and winter roosting habitat within 1⁄2 mile of foraging sites, 

especially when sanitation treatments may occur outside of the proposed areas in Alternatives B and C.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 21 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-27 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

In areas meant to protect bald eagle sites, we recommend terminology that would allow some form of sanitation in these areas 

(even cutting and chunking). We agree these areas are important to protect, and conducting sanitation in these areas would ensure 

the desired conditions (large and mature trees) are able to remain after the current pine beetle epidemic subsides.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Responses to Letter 13, Comment 3 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 20. 

There is no terminology in the design criteria to prevent treatment in use areas. Design criteria states “Vegetative treatment within 

known winter communal roost sites should be limited to those that enhance and maintain the roost site characteristics.” This allows 

for some form of treatment, but only to enhance roost site characteristics. Treatment could include sanitation. Roost characteristics 

“large diameters, open branched ponderosa pine” may be susceptible to MPB attack, but it would depend on age of the trees and 

stand density. Timing restrictions would restrict activities for a short period of time during critical use periods.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 62 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 22 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-27 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

In reference to the DC to “Minimize potentially disruptive activities in the eagles’ direct flight path between their nests and roost sites 

and important foraging areas”, where are these areas and how extensive are they? This type of vague and broad terminology, given 

the large number of streams and water sources, can be argued throughout the entire project area. We recommend revising this DC 

to be more specific.

In the biological evaluation as it relates to the bald eagle, there is specific mention that the mountain pine beetle would cause 

mortality to winter roost sites and nesting trees, which we agree with. The pine beetle would also likely negatively impact many of 

the other areas of concern in and around the habitat for the bald eagle. We recommend allowing sanitation to occur in these areas.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 20. 

Historically, bald and golden eagle winter observations were common in the Pactola Project Area, usually observed along the open 

waters in the tail races of Pactola Dam and along US Hwy 385. Since 2007, bald eagle observations during the breeding season 

have increased on the forest, including the first known nesting pair on the Deerfield Reservoir. Two communal winter roost sites 

have been identified in close proximity of Pactola Reservoir with up to 22 eagles observed at one time. Bald eagles have been 

observed on roost trees within 1⁄2 mile of Pactola Reservoir and along Rapid Creek during the breeding season. Currently, there are 

no known bald eagle nest areas in the project area (See Pactola BE, Appendix A). 

Disruptive activities would include any activities that would fit under the BGEPA definition of “disturb.” Treatments could occur in use 

areas that would enhance bald eagle use area characteristics.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 23 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-28 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Regarding Standard 3103, what is the rationale for a 300’ buffer around snail sites? Both snail sites show signs of pine beetle 

infestation in the vicinity of these areas. Does Standard 3103 and the five sub-categories pertaining to the protection of snail 

colonies, not go far enough?

Agency Response: 

Standard 3103 would be applied to manage known sensitive and SOLC snail species. 

Management activities, such as timber harvesting, that remove canopy cover can increase soil temperature and reduce moisture 

levels. This can cause snails to dry out and possibly die; a major cause of death for snails is desiccation. Even timber harvesting near 

a snail colony could potentially lower existing moisture levels at the colony site, so a buffer area is probably required (Anderson 2004). 

MPB caused mortality and subsequent deadfall would create ground level habitat, and retain micro-site moisture necessary for snail 

life. Vegetative treatment to remove overstory and fuels in these small areas would not be consistent with FP Standard 3103. The 

300ft. (100m.) minimum buffer around known snail colonies was selected because it is a little more than four tree lengths which 

should preserve micro-site conditions. The buffer could be larger if necessary especially if topographic features are used to maintain 

mesic conditions in the colony area. No activities inside this buffer would protect the colony from soil compaction, retain ground litter, 

maintain shade and protection from wind preventing desiccation of snail colony and providing adequate food sources for snails. 

There are only two known sites which are approximately 0.4 acres in size. Protecting these sites would affect approximately two 

acres and would not preclude treatment in adjacent areas.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 63 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 24 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-29 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

We support the direction under this DC regarding the goshawk. Thinning these stands will greatly reduce the risk of pine beetle 

infestation in these stands. We applaud these efforts and recognize the efforts made by the Mystic District to preserve these areas.

Why is this type of direction not duplicated for other areas of concern such as snail colonies, bald eagle nests, marten corridors, 

cave openings & mines, raptor nests, unique botanical areas, and any other areas of concern where mountain pine beetle 

infestation or wildfire could negatively impact?

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 13, Comment 3. 

Forest Plan direction would be followed to protect, maintain and enhance MIS, R2 Sensitive and SOLC species and their habitat. 

Management for northern goshawk stands (Standard 3108) does not preclude treatment in nest areas but does add additional 

protective measures for all projects involving the removal of trees in suitable habitat except those done for the express purpose of 

enhancing goshawk habitat. 

Treatment in the 180 acres of nest habitat would be limited to those that maintain or enhance the stand’s value for goshawk. 

However, these treatments may not greatly reduce the risk of MPB infestation. If treatment cannot enhance or maintain the stand’s 

value for goshawk, then the stand may not be treated. In addition, the 30 acre area around known nest may not be treated based 

on Standard 3204, which protects known raptor nests. Each nest and management of nesting habitat requires a specifically 

designed silvicultural prescription based on site specific characteristics. In other words, treatments in one area may not be the same 

as treatments in another nest stand even within the same project area. 

For other species such as snails, bald eagles, marten, bats, raptors and plants, design criteria is applied in order to protect these 

species and minimize the impact from implementing the action alternatives. There are some design criteria that prohibit treatment 

activities in specific areas which may overlap specific habitat for species such as marten corridors and protecting stream courses.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 25 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-31 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Regarding big game screening, Guideline 3202 gives direction for at least 20% screening, yet the DC pushes for all areas along 

arterial and collector roads, except where public safety is an issue. What is the rationale in doing so? This only complicates 

management of these areas, especially given the current pine beetle epidemic. We support the recommendations stated only in 

Guideline 3202.

Agency Response: 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 17. 

The commenter states that maintaining screening cover complicates management of these areas, but does not specify why or how. 

Screening cover is sometimes referred to as hiding cover. This is defined as vegetation capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult 

deer or elk from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet (LRMP G-33). Guideline 3202 states “provide big 

game screening along at least 20% of the edges of arterial and collector roads. Consider vegetation, slopes, landform, etc. in 

evaluating available screening.” 

White-tailed deer is considered a MIS. Analysis of effects is summarized in the DEIS pgs. 193-197. Currently, 22% of forested 

stands provide screening cover along arterial and collector roads in the Pactola Project Area. Topography along these roads (>30% 

slope) provides an additional 28%. The analysis determined that through vegetation and topography combined, screening cover is 

48%, well above the 20% required in Guideline 3203. Alternative B reduces the forested screening cover to 7% and Alternative C 

reduces the forested screening cover to 5% along these major travel routes. This reduction in forested screening cover is attributed 

to improving public egress (line of sight clearing and fuel treatment). Design criteria to provide “vegetative screening cover” along 

the edges of arterial and collector roads become important as hiding cover is lost due to treatments that open up stands and/or 

stands that succumb to MPB infestation short-term. This screening cover becomes more important in big game winter range (MA 

5.4) to help with maintaining big game energy reserves when the quantity and quality of forage is low.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 64 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 26 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-31 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

Regarding caves and abandoned mines, rather than prohibiting treatments within 500’ of openings, we would urge that sanitation 

efforts be allowed. The Forest Plan allows vegetative treatments in these areas if needed. While we understand the need to protect 

these areas and maintain cave and mine ecosystems, having dense stands experience mortality in and around these areas would 

degrade the desired habitat. We recommend fully utilizing capability defined in Standard 3207.

Agency Response: 

Design criteria have been modified in the FEIS to allow some treatment in these buffers. However, due to the historic mining that 

has occurred in the Pactola Project Area, the likelihood of large mine underground workings are great and their location may not be 

fully documented. Complex mine workings are more conducive to providing critical roosting habitat for bats. To protect the safety of 

the equipment operators from accidental mine collapse and to protect aging mine entrances/openings for bats, motorized equipment 

would be prohibited within the 500 ft. buffer. The 500 ft. distance from a mine would restrict approximately six acres per mine from 

harvest activities.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 27 Botany

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-34 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

In areas of unique botanical sites, we would recommend sanitation efforts be allowed on frozen or snow packed soils. We agree 

these areas should be protected, but they should also be free from pockets of insect infestation that can potentially impact the 

integrity of these sites.

Agency Response: 

There are approximately 30 acres of unique botanical sites that are designated as no treatment areas. These unique botanical sites 

are composed of white spruce and hardwood drainages, and wet meadows. For the most part these areas do not have a large 

ponderosa pine component. 

Although ponderosa pine is not the main component of these areas, pine encroachment can occur within unique botanical sites. 

Forest Plan Objective 221 states “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and species of local concern.” Beetle killed 

trees may open up the canopy allowing more light and precipitation to reach the ground, therefore altering the habitat characteristics 

of these sites. However, timber harvest in unique botanical areas will result in the same alteration of habitat characteristics. Because 

ponderosa pine is not the dominant species in these unique botanical sites, disturbance of sensitive plants resulting from timber 

harvest may outweigh the risks of disturbance from beetle infestation at this time. Cut-and-chunk may be an option in these areas. 

Language has been added to Appendix B of the FEIS. 

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 28 Travel

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-35 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

“Project activities in the areas bounded by Highway 385, Silver City Road, Jenny Gulch Road, and Rochford Road shall be restricted 

to seasonal operations (Dec 15-May 15)”. This area constitutes a large portion of the areas scheduled for treatment. This area is 

also subject to load limits which typically come on around the 3rd week in February through May. That being the case, this allows for 

roughly one month to conduct commercial treatments in these areas, which is largely unrealistic. If there are concerns over truck 

traffic and noise, then to some extent, there are other ways to address these issues rather than restricting access. Part of the 

purpose and need for this project is reducing mountain pine beetles. Restricting operations that accomplish this to roughly a month 

is unrealistic. We would recommend this DC be omitted or modified in the FEIS to allow adequate opportunity to treat these areas. 

Agency Response: 

Language has been modified to this design criteria in the FEIS, Appendix B to provide additional time to treat these areas.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 65 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 29 Visuals

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-35 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

There seems to be some concern over the resulting scenery from forest management practices along trails, private property, and 

other untreated areas. Again we would reference the need to reduce susceptibility to infestation in these stands. Forest 

management is an on-going dynamic process, and where two areas of management adjoin, there will always be some form of ‘line’ 

that is present when one side is managed at a time. We would recommend prioritizing effective treatments over scenic objectives. 

Would a pine beetle ravaged hillside or a fire burned landscape accomplish these scenic objectives?

Nowhere in the Forest Plan under Scenery Management or Trails, is there direction to “feather” stands. Furthermore, all 

recommendations to Scenery in the Forest Plan are in the form of Guidelines, which are “preferred or advisable courses of action”. 

We would hope the current pine beetle epidemic would take precedence over visual concerns.

Agency Response: 

Objective 402 in the BKNF LRMP: “Provide natural appearing landscapes...” Having transitional buffers, 1 1⁄2 - 3 tree heights in 

width, from treated to untreated areas (e.g. - private land, etc.) creates a more natural appearance of the vegetation covering the 

landscape. These transition zones are still treated, removing trees, and reducing the density of trees to be in line with basal area 

recommendations to support the reduction of the spread of mountain pine beetles, as identified by the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Vegetation killed by insects or wildfires do not create geometric-shaped openings in the vegetation. The ground-based 

cable-type logging systems, the roads above the units, and the maximum harvest utilization of each yarder set up contribute to the 

creation of geometric-shaped openings in the vegetation. Feathering is a management attempt to mimic natural patterns created by 

wildfire and insects. 

Retaining transitional buffers by “feathering” is in line with Objective 402, and Forested Landscapes – Structural Diversity Guideline 

2105 “When developing openings in vegetative communities, copy naturally shaped edges” – Although Overstory Removals, 

Liberation Cuts and Seed Cuts are not classified as “‘openings” from a silviculture standpoint, they do create an opening from a 

visual standpoint. Feathering helps achieve a natural appearing “edge” between treated and untreated areas. 

Silviculture and Timber Harvest Guideline 2414 “For travel corridors and other places where scenic quality is emphasized, manage 

tree stands to enhance the scenic quality...” – the majority of the harvest areas are visible from US Hwy 385, Pactola Visitor Center, 

Pactola Reservoir, and the community of Silver City. 

In addition, the feathering is only prescribed adjacent to untreated areas - not between adjacent units that remove the overstory 

trees. As a result, the vegetation is being treated on a landscape basis, with feathering only around the outer edge of the entire 

grouping of contiguous units. 

Guideline 5611 “Vary stand densities to create vegetative diversity in areas with an adopted scenic integrity objective of Moderate or 

High” – is the direction that provides for the edges of units to be feathered.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 30 Visuals

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-35 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

We recommend omitting reference to restricting precommercial thinning to November through March. 

Agency Response: 

The non-commercial thinning operational period will be increased to October 1st through May 15th along trails including the Centennial, 

Deerfield, and Mickelson Trails. These trails are subject to temporary closure during harvest operations, if needed in response to MPB 

infestation. Minor changes have been made to the Trails design criteria in Appendix B of the FEIS to provide additional flexibility.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 66 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 31 Visuals

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

B-36 [page number in Appendix B of the DEIS] 

We would urge the Mystic Ranger District to delete reference to “tree farms” in the Pactola Project documents. The negative use of 

this term may be easily confused with the Tree Farm program administered by the American Forest Foundation. This is a 

certification program for private landowners that signifies sustainable forestry. There are numerous Tree Farmers throughout the 

Black Hills, (several within the Pactola Project), that may take offense to the negative use of this term by the Black Hills National 

Forest.

Agency Response: 

Language has been modified in the FEIS, Appendix B.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 67 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 32 Wildlife

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

Biological Evaluation

The Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Pactola Project has several references that are inaccurate, unfounded, and misleading. I 

would like to know the basis for stating that “Direct mortality caused by treatment activities and increased road access” will occur to 

bighorn sheep, bald eagles, owls, goshawks or any other animal listed in the BE on the Black Hills National Forest. The statements 

contained in the BE go above and beyond speculation, to say that they will happen. The purchasers, loggers, and truck drivers that 

operate on the Black Hills National Forest complete regular training and education each year. They are out there working because 

they care about the resource they manage. Saying these things will happen during ‘treatment and road activities’ is wrong and 

unjust. Terminology like this must be corrected. 

The BE gives a “doom and gloom” scenario for the action alternatives for many of the species listed. There is very little mention if 

any to the benefits and long term sustainability to the species and habitat once the treatments have been conducted. It is also 

confusing how the Mystic District can publish a BE for two different projects, that give largely different perspectives for the same 

species. 

For instance, look at the bald eagle and compare the Slate Castle DEIS to the Pactola DEIS. While there is some variance between 

specifics on the project, both involved commercial treatments around bald eagle use areas.

Project Effects Summary Determination

Slate Castle Project – 

bald eagle BE 

Potential for some transitory roost sites to be 

lost. Will not affect the bald eagles’ ability to 

roost, breed, or otherwise survive on the BHNF 

or SCPA. 

May impact individuals... but no 

loss of viability 

Pactola Project – 

bald eagle BE 

Direct mortality caused by treatment activities. 

Loss of nest trees and winter roost sites due to 

treatment activities but less than Alternative A. 

Increase in road access may increase potential 

for nest abandonment due to disturbance. 

Potential increase in sediment loads into 

Pactola Lake that could affect foraging 

success. 

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. 

We strongly urge “direct mortality” terminology to be modified to “potential” or “possible” effects on specific habitat components 

throughout the BE. Also, in regards to sedimentation affecting foraging success in Pactola Lake, we would recommend these types 

of highly speculative clauses be modified as well. Timber harvests and road building of today, follow strict and rigorous parameters 

that ensure minimal impacts to the resource. 

Charles Troendle, principle hydrologist and project leader for the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station was quoted 

in the Laramie Boomerang Paper June 1997 as saying:

“Researchers have learned a lot about how to minimize sediment increases from timber cutting and road building in recent years. 

The technology today drastically changes the impacts on sediment transport. Fire causes much more severe sediment problems in 

streams than [timber harvest] does.”

We also would recommend including more explanation in the ‘determination’ section. Not once in the BE, does it claim the action 

alternatives will yield a beneficial impact, yet several times under the ‘no action’ alternative it lists beneficial impacts for a number of 

species. We feel that this only half the “story” and does not address the long term picture, which for much of the ‘no action’ may be 

catastrophic wildfire. For most of the action alternatives, the short term impacts are minimal when compared to the long term 

benefits of conducting treatments.

We would recommend taking another look at the biological evaluation and edit it to reflect factual and rational information the 

species listed.

Agency Response: 

The commenter states that the BE for the Pactola Project has several references that are inaccurate, unfounded, and misleading, 

but does not specifically state what references are inaccurate nor provides information that would support their claim of inaccurate 

or misleading statements. The following should provide information regarding the Biological Evaluation process and to hopefully 

address most of the commenter’s concerns regarding the scientific and factual basis used for the Biological Evaluations. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 68 

See Agency Response to Letter 12, Comment 18. 

Biological Evaluations are a separate review for wildlife, fish, and botany resources of actions and associated mitigations proposed 

in the Pactola Project Environmental Impact Statement and the documentation of those findings (FSM 2672.4). The purpose of the 

BA/BE is to disclose potential effects to federally endangered, threatened or proposed species and to Forest Service Sensitive 

Species (FSM Regional Supplement No 2600-2011-1, dated June 10, 2011) as a result of a “action.” FSM 2670.5 defines “action” 

as “All activities or programs authorized, funded or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon 

the high seas (50 CFR 402.02). Both programmatic and project level proposals are considered to be actions subject to the 

Endangered Species Act.” The BE documents are prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (19 USC 1536 (c)), and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual direction 2672.42 

and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR S402). 

The Biological Evaluation/Assessments are not usually provided in their entirety in the Environmental Documents (See DEIS, pgs. 

218-219 and 230-232). Appendix D of the DEIS is a summary of the BEs completed for the Pactola Project. For wildlife and fish 

species, Appendix D Table 1 (See DEIS, Appendix D, pgs. D-1 through D-17) lists the Sensitive species found in the Black Hills, a 

short description of habitat, whether the species or habitat is present in the project areas, short summary of the effects by alternatives 

and the determination statement (FSM Regional Supplement No. 2600-2011-1). The R2 Sensitive plant species are not included in 

Table 1, but summarized in the DEIS, Appendix D on pgs. D-17 through D-18. As stated in Appendix D of the DEIS, the respective 

Biological Evaluations provide more detailed and descriptive level of analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the species 

and its habitat at the project scale. Design criteria and/or mitigation set forth in the Biological Evaluation must be included in the 

decision documents, implementation plans and/or contracts (FSM 2672.43). This would include any pertinent FP direction. 

Determination statements are defined for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and R2 Sensitive Species in FSM 2672.42 (5) (FSM 

Regional Supplement No. 2600-2011-1). For sensitive species, there are four available determinations. 1) “No impact;” 2) “Beneficial 

impact;” 3) "May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing;" or (4) "Likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing." 

The terminology “direct mortality” was used to save space in the table. This was to indicate that mortality would be a direct effect (40 

CFR 1508.8) to the species versus caused by an indirect effect of the “action.” The wildlife biologist determined that potential direct 

effects to individuals caused by Alternatives B and C would likely move the determination statements from “no impact” and 

“beneficial impact” to a choice between whether the direct effects would cause a trend toward Federal listing or not for that particular 

species. Other criteria could be applied to help with the determination. Rational to support the determinations are found in the BE. 

The commenter compares the differences between the BE summary tables of the Pactola Project and the adjacent Slate Castle 

Project Area. The Pactola Project Area has greater potential to provide bald eagle foraging, roosting and nesting habitat (e.g., 

Pactola Reservoir, Rapid Creek) compared to the Slate Castle Project Area; therefore the analysis of the effects could be different. 

As expected, the Pactola Project Biological Evaluation has provided the DEIS with more detailed design criteria that would ensure 

protection for the bald eagle and its habitat, reducing the impact of the action on this species. As a result, the determination 

statements are the same for both project areas. The BE is more descriptive for the bald eagle stating, “Potential direct effects to the 

bald eagle, northern leopard frog and Black Hills red-bellied snake include loss of nests with young, eggs, and mortality caused by 

machinery.” Therefore, to clarify this distinction, the terminology in Table 1 in Appendix D has been modified from “Direct mortality” 

to “Potential mortality” to accurately reflect the language stated in the BE. 

Alternative A is considered a “No Action” alternative. Mortality caused by MPB effects are part of nature and are not a result of an 

“action” by a federal agency. The wildlife biologist analyzed the effects of the no-action alternative on species and their habitat. For 

several species, the determination statement was either “no impact” or “beneficial impact.” These determinations took into account 

several factors, but mostly focused on whether the species was not affected by the No-Action Alternative or that they are benefited 

by habitat created by MPB effects. For some species, MPB effects may have both short-term and long term effects which may affect 

individuals at the project scale but not at the forest-wide scale. Therefore, the determinations were "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.” 

 

Prior to the completion of the FEIS, the Biological Evaluations has been reviewed and edited, if needed, to clarify the effects analysis 

and rational that supports the determination of effects. Documentation of these BEs can be found in the Pactola Project File.

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 33 Plan

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

Throughout the design criteria, there are numerous restrictions that go above and beyond what is directed in the Forest Plan. While 

some of these issues may seem minor, looking at the bigger picture, they eliminate a large portion of acreage from potentially 

receiving treatments that remove infested trees and significantly lower the risk of future infestation.

Agency Response: 

Design Criteria are incorporated into both Alternatives B and C to protect resources and forest users, as well as minimizing impacts 

from implementing the action alternatives. 

See Agency Response to Letter 14, Comment 9.
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 69 

Pactola DEIS Public Comment and Agency Response Report

Letter No: Comment No: Resource:

14 34 Plan

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Comment:

The BHFRA would support Alternative C, but with modifications aimed at treating more acres not currently proposed for treatment. 

We feel that by looking to incorporate more commercial thinning in at-risk stands, in addition to those proposed in Alternative C, that 

the project can make good progress in reducing the current pine beetle epidemic. Alternative C also makes great strides to treat 

more sensitive areas such as in and around goshawk nesting areas, snail colonies, etc. Alternative B lacks treatments in these 

important areas, which leave these areas at increased risk to pine beetle infestation and wildfires.

Agency Response: 

Comment noted. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 70 

Pactola Project Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement Distribution List 

Name Group City State

Mr. Pete Anderson Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Keith Bartels Mitchell South Dakota 

Mr. Bruce Bessken Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. James Bickett Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. John S. Persell Biodiversity Conservation Laramie Wyoming 

 Alliance 

Mr. Alan J. Michalwicz Black Hills Electric Custer South Dakota 

 Cooperative 

Ms. Judy Bracken Deadwood South Dakota 

Mr. Patrick Breen Silver City South Dakota 

Ms. Myrna Brennick Yankton South Dakota 

Mr. William Burke Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Robert & Arlene Bush Deadwood South Dakota 

Mr. John Clark Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. John & Marian Clark Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Jon & Gail Crane Hill City South Dakota 

Ms. Kari Cundall Everett Washington 

Mr. & Mrs. Robert & Karen Deis Hudson Wisconsin 

Mr. Kevin Eilbeck Rapid City South Dakota 

Eisenbraun Family Trust Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Carson Engelskiger Black Hills Forest Rapid City South Dakota 

Resource Association 

Mr. Richard Fisher Deadwood South Dakota 

Mr. T.J. French Hill City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. John & Tonya Gomez Silver City South Dakota 

Ms. Patsy Grossenburg Hill City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Dave & Elaine Gullickson Brookings South Dakota 

Mr. James Hammett Deadwood South Dakota 

Ms. Florence Hermanson Las Vegas Nevada 

Mr. John Herrman Placerville California 

Ms. Nancy Hilding Prairie Hills Audubon Society Black Hawk South Dakota

Ms. Joann Hoffman Spearfish South Dakota 

Mr. Stephen Hoffman Silver City South Dakota 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 71 

Mr. & Mrs. Everett & Roberta Hoyt Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Alan Huether Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Doug Josten Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Kammerer Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. David & Janet Kehm LeMars Iowa 

Mr. & Mrs. Roger & Darlene Kehm Kehm Joint Living Trust Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Mr. Duane Knutson Brookings South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Dexter & Terrie Koehne Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Brad Kurtz Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Brian Lane Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Roy Larson Silver City South Dakota 

Ms. Sandra Lashley Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Jim Light Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Dennis Luce Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Jim McArthur Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Jim McEntire Nemo South Dakota 

Mr. Randy Meendering Huron South Dakota 

Mr. Doug Michael Louisville Kentucky 

Mr. & Mrs. Hugh & Helen Miner Cavour South Dakota 

Ms. Jeanne Morton Edina Missouri 

Mr. Jared W. McJunkin National Wild Turkey Hermosa South Dakota 

Federation 

Mr. Colin J. Paterson Norbeck Society, Inc. Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Andrea Pretre Long Beach California 

Ms. Bev Prostrolls Deadwood South Dakota 

Mr. John Reeves, Jr. Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Maurice Reiner Omaha Nebraska 

Mr. & Mrs. Ray & Kathy Restow Parker Colorado 

Ms. Lorraine Rye Trustee Renner South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Phil & Vicki Schlief Silver City South Dakota 

Mr. Jeff Sugrue, Fire Chief Silver City Volunteer Silver City South Dakota 

Fire Department 

Mr. & Mrs. Terry & Cindy Skillman Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Jan Sohl Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Steve Sprenger Sprenger Midwest Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Wholesale Lumber Inc. 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 72 

Mr. Doyle Stern Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Mr. Robert Stork Tekamah Nebraska 

Mr. & Mrs. Jeff & Jodi Sugrue Silver City South Dakota 

Ms. Janet Thompson Kingsley Iowa 

Mr. Jim Thomson Rapid City South Dakota 

Ms. Theresa Tucker Plymouth Minnesota 

Mr. Josh Van Vlack Neiman Timber Co. Hill City South Dakota 

Ms. Nadine Vandercook Cedar Rapids Iowa 

Mr. Donovan Wagner Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. Harold Waite Sioux Falls South Dakota 

Mr. Charles Walker 

Ms. Sheila Watkins Koenig Family Trust Topeka Kansas 

Mr. & Mrs. Jack & Stephanie Wellman Rapid City South Dakota 

Mr. & Mrs. Rolland & Laura Willard Rapid City South Dakota 

Robin Willert Lafayette Colorado 

Mr. Jack Ziemer Rapid City South Dakota 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 73 

Congressional: 

Senator Tim Johnson 

Senator John Thune 

Congresswoman Kristi Noem 

Native American Tribes: 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Cultural Program Administrator 

Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma Cultural and Heritage Program 

Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes Of Oklahoma Governor 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe Historical Preservation Officer 

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeavor For Preservation 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Director of Cultural Resource 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation Tribal Chairman 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation Cultural Preservation Office 

Northern Arapaho Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Northern Arapaho Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe President 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe EPA Director 

Oglala Sioux Tribe President 

Oglala Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe President 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office 

Santee Sioux Nation Tribal Chairman 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairperson 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Environmental Protection Specialist 

Yankton Sioux Tribe Tribal Chairman 

Yankton Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Federal Agencies: 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII EIS Review Coordinator 

USDA National Agricultural Library Head, Acquisitions and Serials Branch 

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 
Appendix A Pactola Project Public Involvement & Collaboration A - 74 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Planning and Review 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

US Army Engr. Northwestern Division 

US Coast Guard, Environmental Management CG-443 

FAA Great Lakes Region 

Federal Highway Administration 

US Dept. of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

US Bureau of Reclamation – Rapid City Office

State, County, and Local Agencies: 

South Dakota Governor’s Office – Governor Dennis Duagaard 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Center 

South Dakota Department of Water and Environmental Resources 

South Dakota Department of Transportation 

South Dakota Division of Forestry 

Pennington County Commissioners 

Pennington County Highway Department 

Rapid City Mayor’s Office – Mayor Allen Hanks 

Rapid City Chamber of Commerce 

Rapid City City Council 

Rapid City Public Library