Record of Decision 

Pactola Project Area 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

USDA Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest 

Mystic Ranger District 

Pennington and Lawrence Counties, South Dakota 

Background 

The Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District plans to implement multiple resource 

management actions within the Pactola Project Area. This proposal is guided by the Black Hills 

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

and by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is supported by the National Fire Plan, the 10 year 

Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan agreed to by the Western Governor’s Association, 

and the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative. 

The project covers about 26,017 acres (24,863 acres NFS, 1,154 acres private). The area is generally 

located west of Rapid City, SD (see attached map). The project area is located within portions of 

four 6th level watersheds: Jim Creek-Boxelder Creek, Silver Creek-Rapid Creek, Victoria CreekRapid Creek, and Pactola Reservoir-Rapid Creek. Resource management actions apply to National 

Forest System (NFS) lands only and do not include private lands. 

The purpose of and need for the actions proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are 

as follows: 

• Reduce the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing 

insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. 

• Move toward achieving desired land and resource conditions, as provided by the Forest 

Plan, within the project area. 

• Restore resource conditions, to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem. 

• help protect local communities and resources from large-scale wildfire by reducing 

hazardous fuels. 

Three alternatives have been considered in detail as documented in the EIS. Two of these 

alternatives are actions designed to address the purpose and need, to varying degrees, as guided by 

management direction. The EIS also discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts resulting from the three alternatives.

The ongoing mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic is of primary concern in the project area. 

This epidemic is killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. 

There is widespread local support for actively managing National Forest System lands to reduce 

the likelihood that mountain pine beetle populations will spread from the National Forest onto 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 2 

private land and, more generally, to control the extent of the epidemic in the Black Hills. In 

addition, there is both local and national support for active management of National Forest 

System lands to reduce the potential for large-scale wildfires. The Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (HFRA) of 2003 represents the culmination of a number of National level policy documents 

and efforts developed to address this issue. Guided by the Forest Plan and the HFRA, the Pactola 

Project proposed action was developed to treat vegetation on a broad, landscape scale to reduce 

the threat to ecosystem components from the existing insect epidemic (mountain pine beetle) and 

reduce the potential for large-scale severe wildfire. Ultimately, the intent is to limit effects to the 

environment from MPB and reduce the potential for loss of property or life due to large-scale 

wildfire. 

For the Pactola Project, ample opportunities were provided for public participation. These 

opportunities are described in the following paragraphs. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2010. Comments received during the 

ensuing scoping period were used to define issues, develop alternatives and analyze effects. The 

Notice of Availability (NOA) for comment on the DEIS was published in the Federal Register

on May 6, 2011. Public comments were received on the DEIS through June 20, 2011. The 

Pactola Project Interdisciplinary (ID) Team analyzed the public comments and provided agency 

responses to the comments on the DEIS (see Appendix A of the Final EIS). 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for public 

review was published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011. The Pactola Project qualifies for 

expedited NEPA review under the authority of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 

2003 (P.L.108-148). This Record of Decision (ROD) is made in accordance with the HFRA predecisional objection process pursuant to Forest Service Regulations at 36 CFR 218, Subpart A. As 

such, there was a 30-day objection filing period that began August 6, 2011, with publication of the 

legal notice in the Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, South Dakota and ended September 6, 2011. 

Alternative C with minor modifications was identified as the agency’s preferred alternative in the 

FEIS and the cover letter transmitting the FEIS for public review. Two formal objections were 

filed on the Pactola Project. The Objection Reviewing Officer submitted written responses to each 

objection on October 5, 2011 (36 CFR 218.11). 

Project Summary 

An overview of the issues and alternatives is presented below to give the reader a better understanding 

of the context of the decision disclosed in this document. A more detailed description of the project 

can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of the FEIS. 

Issues

Comments received during the public scoping process were used to help define issues, develop 

alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 85 responses were received via 

letters, faxes, public meeting transcripts, personal-delivery, or email during the formal scoping 

process. Through review and analysis of scoping comments and input, the Pactola Project Core ID 

Team identified three (3) key issues related to the proposed activities (see FEIS, Chapter 1, Issues 

section and Chapter 2, Table 2-1). A brief description of the key issues follows. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 3 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle. The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. 

The epidemic is killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. 

The majority of the project area includes relatively dense stands of mature pine trees, consisting 

mostly of trees of the same size and age. This is the preferred food source of MPB. 

Approximately 92 percent of the project area pine stands are rated at medium to high risk for 

MPB infestation. A high level of mortality is expected throughout the area as a result of the 

ongoing epidemic. This would increase fuel loads and wildfire hazard and pose a significant 

threat to ecosystem components and forest resources. 

According to Schmid et al. (2007), the most important aspect of managing mature ponderosa 

pine stands in the Black Hills National Forest is minimizing MPB-caused mortality. The only 

effective long-term strategy to minimize beetle-caused mortality is to alter stand conditions 

through silvicultural means across the landscape and monitor areas of beetle buildup (USDA 

Forest Service 2010d). The proposed action includes immediate removal of infested pine trees to 

limit the spread of MPB and thinning of dense pine stands throughout the landscape to reduce

their susceptibility to attack both now and into the future. 

Comments and feedback during scoping indicate strong support for management action and a 

sense of urgency in getting these actions completed. This is especially true of those who live in 

or near the area. Some have experienced MPB infestations on their own private property and are 

taking actions to treat these stands. Many land owners are concerned about large numbers of 

infested trees and stands at high risk of infestation on National Forest System lands adjacent to or 

surrounding their property. One commenter recommended that the MPB epidemic should take its 

natural course and create natural disturbance regimes and questioned whether conventional 

thinning and removing infested trees to reduce stand density would actually reduce MPB 

susceptibility and tree mortality. 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard. The Forest Service, State of South Dakota, local governments, 

and area residents take the need to reduce fuels and the potential for large-scale wildfires 

seriously. Large wildfires (fires greater than 300 acres) burned about 147,900 acres between 

1900 and 1980 in the Black Hills. Since 1980, a dramatic increase in acreage burned has 

occurred. Recent wildfires, including but not limited to the Jasper Fire, Roger’s Shack, Elk 

Mountain II, Battle Creek, Grizzly Gulch, Red Point, Ricco, Cement, East Ridge, and Alabaugh 

Fires have burned over 296,000 acres. These fires covered large areas, moving as far as eleven 

miles in one day and as fast as five miles in three hours. Area fires have significantly impacted 

natural resources, public and private lands, threatened the safety of and injured firefighters, and 

resulted in civilian death. 

The Community Wildlife Protection Plans (CWPPs) developed by Pennington and Lawrence 

Counties designate most of the project area as wildland-urban interface (WUI). These WUI areas 

that overlap the Pactola Project Area include the ‘at-risk’ community of Silver City; 1,154 acres of 

private lands, including subdivisions and businesses; and a major recreational complex. The 

project area is rated as a fire regime condition class of 3 (FRCC3). This means it has been 

significantly altered from the historical range and there is a high risk of significantly altering or 

losing key components of the forest ecosystem. Currently, 63 percent of the project has a high fire 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 4 

hazard rating. This hazard is associated with the potential for large-scale wildfires. The ongoing 

MPB epidemic is increasing the wildfire hazard by adding large amounts of dead fuels to the mix. 

The proposed action includes removing MPB infested trees, thinning stands with moderate and 

high wildfire hazard, constructing fuel breaks, removing activity fuels from the forest floor, 

retaining and restoring hardwoods and meadows/grasslands, and prescribed burning. Many of the 

stands with moderate/high wildfire hazard also have a high insect risk rating. The proposed 

action recognizes that possibility of wildfire in this setting cannot be eliminated. But by 

deliberately managing vegetation and fuels, reduced potential for large and severe wildfires can 

be realized. 

Comments and feedback during scoping indicate that there is broad public support for fuel 

hazard reduction using mechanical means. One comment recommended focusing fuels

treatments close to private lands (within one-half mile of inhabited structures) and not treating in 

the backcountry (the larger landscape). There was also support for using prescribed fire as a tool 

for reducing fuels and slash. Concerns regarding prescribed fire include the threat of escaped 

fire, visuals, and smoke. 

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity. The Forest Plan provides desired future 

conditions for the five management areas (MAs) involved (MA 2.2, MA 3.7, MA 5.1, MA 5.4, 

and MA 8.2). Included in the desired future conditions for all MAs is to have a mosaic of 

vegetation, with openings and diverse sizes and ages of tree stands, and a diversity of plant and 

animal species. Both large-scale MPB epidemics and wildfire can affect our ability to achieve 

these desired conditions within the Pactola Project Area. 

The proposed action seeks to achieve vegetation and wildlife diversity for this area. Removal of 

MPB infested trees and thinning dense stands would reduce the amount of MPB–caused 

mortality and maintain mature pine trees within the stands. Mechanical thinning, removal of 

activity fuels, and prescribed burning would limit the potential for wildfire that could impact 

large areas of the forested ecosystem. Removal of encroaching conifers within and adjacent to 

hardwood stands and meadows/grasslands would contribute to maintaining these habitats. 

Finally, removing overstory trees in areas with advanced regeneration would result in stands with 

a younger structural stage and habitat that is important for many species. 

Most respondents commented on their support to limit the spread of MPB and reduce wildfire 

hazard. A few respondents commented directly on vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity. 

Generally, the emphasis of these comments was to leave the maximum amount of mature pine on 

the landscape and ensure that the needs of all animal species be addressed. Commenters also 

expressed a preference for no new road construction or reconstruction of existing roads in the 

project area. 

Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives were considered in detail in the FEIS. These are briefly discussed below. A more 

detailed comparison of all the alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 5 

Alternative A (No Action) – The no action alternative was presented as a basis for comparing 

the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives. This alternative assumes no 

implementation of any elements of the proposed action or other action alternatives. However, 

things such as ongoing fire suppression efforts, noxious weed treatments, and recurring road 

maintenance on Forest roads would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. 

The no action alternative would not actively respond to the purpose and need for action or the 

issues raised during scoping for this project. For example, there would be no effort to modify 

existing vegetation or related fuels conditions in the project area. The effort to reduce the 

widespread MPB epidemic and associated fuel loads would not be undertaken. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) – Alternative B was developed in response to the purpose and 

need and represents the proposed action. Alternative B was designed to treat the vegetation to 

reduce the potential for mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestations. It also provides for landscape 

level and some private property boundary fuel breaks, thereby lowering the potential for large-scale 

wildfires. Alternative B proposes to expand hardwoods and reduce pine encroachment in historic 

meadows, thereby expanding natural fuel breaks and increasing biodiversity within the Pactola 

Project Area. 

Vegetative management in this alternative is characterized by a number of specific treatments. 

There would be commercial timber harvest and non-commercial thinning (estimated 13,000 acres), 

which opens up forest stands with the objective of reducing the potential for MPB infestations and 

large-scale wildfire. Sanitation harvest to remove infested trees may be conducted in areas near or 

adjacent to identified stands in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. Most harvest 

would be conducted using whole tree logging methods in order to reduce post-harvest fuel loading. 

Natural fuel breaks, such as meadows and hardwoods would be treated to expand and enhance their 

ability to moderate wildfire and provide for wildlife habitat. Prescribed burning (approximately 

5,000 acres) is planned in this alternative to reduce fuels and enhance natural fuel breaks. 

Alternative C – Alternative C was developed in response to comments received during the scoping 

period. Under this alternative, approximately 16,900 acres would be treated mechanically 

(commercial and non-commercial). The treatments in this alternative are the same as those described 

in Alternative B with three additional treatments: 1) treating approximately 400 acres along 

designated roadways within the project area to improve access (ingress/egress); 2) approximately 

1,270 acres of cable and/or helicopter logging; and 3) and helicopter logging of an additional 500 

acres outside of treatment areas to remove trees newly infested with mountain pine beetles in areas 

within the Pactola Project Area that are not accessible by other means. 

Prescribed burning is the same as described in Alterative B. Mechanical fuel breaks, a minimum 

of 200 ft. wide, would be constructed along some private land boundaries where commercial

treatments overlap. 

Decision 

This Record of Decision documents my decision and rationale with respect to the Pactola Project 

alternatives as presented in the Pactola Project Area FEIS. The Pactola Project purpose and need 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 6 

provides the focus and scope for the proposed action and alternatives as they relate to Forest and 

national level policy and direction (FEIS, Chapter 1). Given this purpose and need, I have 

reviewed the proposed action (Alternative B), the issues identified during the public scoping 

period, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action 

and alternatives disclosed in the FEIS. Furthermore, I have carefully considered public comments 

received on the Draft EIS. These comments were invaluable to me in weighing management 

options. Public feedback, the analysis disclosed in the FEIS, information contained in the project 

record, and management direction and policy considerations contributed collectively to 

determining the selected action. Based on this review, I have decided to implement Alternative 

C with minor modifications as the Selected Action. 

The Selected Action (Alternative C Modified) was described in the cover letter that accompanied 

the FEIS. The Selected Action is nearly identical to Alternative C as described in the FEIS. It 

differs in only one minor way: the cable logging and associated road construction in the area 

southwest of Pactola Lake that was included as part of Alternative C is not included in my decision 

due to the impact the activity would have on visual quality from a developed recreation complex. 

The 116 acre unit identified for cable logging under Alternative C of the FEIS would be available 

for helicopter harvest under my decision, but the unit may not be cable logged. This decision 

would reduce the miles of road construction required by 2 miles. Features of the Selected Action 

are described below and are displayed in Maps 2 through 4 of this ROD. 

My decision incorporates the design criteria, mitigation measures, and monitoring

recommendations included in Appendix B of the Pactola Project FEIS. These design criteria and 

mitigation measures were identified by Interdisciplinary Team members during project 

development as resource protection measures required by law, policy, or regulation or as measures 

needed to ensure consistency with Forest Plan direction. Monitoring activities were identified to 

track implementation and efficacy of design criteria and mitigation measures. 

Vegetation Treatments

Vegetation treatments in the Selected Action include commercial timber harvest and noncommercial thinning aimed at thinning the forest at the landscape scale. Most non-commercial 

thinning overlaps commercial treatment acres. This broad forest thinning serves to reduce MPB 

habitat, reduce fuel loads, increase tree growth, and create landscape-scale fuel breaks to reduce 

the potential for large-scale high intensity wildfire. Most commercial thinning would be conducted 

using whole tree harvest methods or methods achieving a similar result in order to reduce fuel 

loading. The Selected Action also allows for helicopter and cable logging treatment options, as 

well. Fuel reduction methods will also be included in non-commercial treatments, as needed. 

Sanitation harvest to remove infested pine trees and reduce stand densities may be conducted in 

areas near or adjacent to identified stands – including Alternative C units not displayed on Map 2 

of this ROD – in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. 

Scattered overstory removals are also planned in the Selected Action. This treatment provides a 

break in the forest canopy that can further reduce potential for fire spread, creates early seral stage 

habitat and a mosaic across the landscape, and helps meet Forest Plan structural stage objectives. 

Conifer removal (retention and restoration) will be conducted from within and surrounding

hardwood stands, and pine trees that have encroached into historic meadows will be removed. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 7 

Removing pine from these areas improves their capability to function as natural fuel breaks and 

provides habitat diversity over the long-term. Environmental and economic criteria will be applied 

during layout to ensure that a mix of pine/hardwood habitat remain in places. 

Prescribed broadcast burning to reduce fuels and enhance natural fuel breaks is included in the 

Selected Action. This burning is intended to limit fuel loads, lessen wildfire hazards, slow the rate 

of pine regeneration, re-establish fire and its natural role in the environment, and contribute to 

habitat diversity. Treatments along roadways will help improve access (ingress/egress) for private 

landowners and emergency personnel in the event of a wildfire. 

Road Work

Road work that supports vegetation treatments is included in the Selected Action. This includes 17 

miles of road construction, reconstruction of 29 miles of existing road, and 72 miles of road 

maintenance (see Map 4 of this ROD). Most road construction authorized in my decision is 

associated with cable units. A more detailed discussion of road work and road management 

activities is presented in the FEIS. 

Selected Action Summary Tables

Table 1 below lists the activities included in the Selected Action for the Pactola Project. These 

activities are displayed in Maps 2 through 4 of this ROD. The figures provided are approximate. 

Table 1: Activities Associated with the Selected Action for Pactola Project Area 

TREATMENT Selected Action 

Commercial Harvest Treatments (Acres)* 

Fuel Breaks 436 

Commercial Thinning 7,194 

Removal Cuts 1,041 

Hardwood Retention 1,219 

Hardwood Restoration 681 

Meadows/Grasslands (Conifer Removal) 461 

Cable/Helicopter Logging 1,269** 

Additional Helicopter Logging 500 

Non Commercial Treatments (Acres) 

Non Commercial Thinning 4,540 

Prescribed Burning (Acres) 5,000 

Total Area Available for Treatment (Acres) 17,412 

Harvest Volume 

Sawtimber (MBF) 35,700 

Sawtimber (CCF) 71,600 

Products (CCF) 3,650 

Road Work (Miles) 

New Construction 17 

Reconstruction 29 

Maintenance 72 

 *Non-commercial thinning may be done in conjunction with commercial treatments. 

**A 116 acre unit located southwest of Pactola Lake would be dropped from cable logging 

treatment, but would still be available for helicopter logging and sanitation treatments. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 8 

Table 2 below provides a comparative display of the effects of the Selected Action and alternatives 

considered relative to the key issues.

Table 2: Pactola Project Area Alternative Effects Relative to Identified Key Issues 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle* Existing 

Condition** Alt A Alt B Alt C Selected Action

MPB Risk Rating – Low (acres) 1,881 12,095 9,117 8,668 8,668 

MPB Risk Rating – Moderate (acres) 6,256 6,354 10,112 10,730 10,730 

MPB Risk Rating – High (acres) 14,181 3,867 2,625 2,249 2,249 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard Alt A Alt B Alt C Selected Action

Fire Hazard Rating (High) Post Treatment 63% 28% 20% 20% 

In 20 years 77% 59% 54% 54% 

Total Mechanical Treatments (acres) 0 13,141 17,412 17,412 

Roadside Treatments (acres) 0 0 436 436 

Shaded Fuel Breaks (acres) 0 0 71 71 

Prescribed Broadcast Burning (acres) 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Alt A Alt B Alt C Selected Action

Hardwood Retention (acres) 0 1,219 1,219 1,219 

Hardwood Restoration (acres) 0 477 681 681 

Meadows/Grasslands Retention/Restoration (acres) 0 436 461 461 

Projected Habitat Structural Stages for the Project MA 5.1 and 5.4 (Acres)*

Structural 

Stage 

Existing 

Condition** 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Selected 

Action 

MA 5.1 MA 5.4 MA 5.1 MA 5.4 MA 

5.1 

MA 

5.4 

MA 

5.1 

MA 

5.4 

MA 

5.1 

MA 

5.4 

1 0 106 0 106 0 106 0 106 0 106 

2 0 221 951 2,095 688 1,745 280 1,506 280 1,506 

3A 317 1,233 1,869 4,251 986 3,716 889 4,047 889 4,047 

3B 645 1,201 323 601 59 248 63 171 63 171 

3C 340 738 170 369 22 176 7 128 7 128 

4A 1,101 2,641 1,282 2,621 3,234 4,264 3,668 4,321 3,668 4,321 

4B 2,185 4,231 732 1,301 213 647 180 665 180 665 

4C 739 973 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 22 31 0 16 0 16 

* Acreage totals between alternatives are not equal due to projected conversion of conifer sites to hardwood or 

grass sites through conifer removal treatments. Only conifer sites are given a mountain pine beetle hazard 

rating. 

** Existing Condition columns represents current conditions. Alt A, Alt B, Alt C, and Selected Action columns 

represent projected conditions 3 to 5 years in the future due to MPB-caused mortality (USDA Forest Service 

2010e). 

Rationale for Selected Action

I have decided to select Alternative C Modified as the Selected Action because it best meets the 

purpose and need for action and responds to the issues raised and public comments received. A

key issue that factored into my decision-making was the how well the Selected Alternative 

reduced insect risk and fire hazard ratings within the project area. A more detailed discussion of 

my rationale for selecting Alternative C Modified follows. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 9 

Purpose and Need

As stated in the FEIS, the primary management emphasis in the Pactola Project Area is to: 

• Reduce the threat to ecosystem components, including forest resources, from the existing 

insect and disease (mountain pine beetle) epidemic. 

• Move toward achieving desired land and resource conditions, as provided by the Forest 

Plan, within the project area. 

• Restore resource conditions, to a healthy, resilient fire-adapted ecosystem. 

• Help protect local communities and resources from large-scale wildfire by reducing 

hazardous fuels. 

There is a need to maintain or improve forest health and vigor on a landscape scale. Doing so will 

result in a healthy forest that is less susceptible to insects and diseases, and can better withstand 

events such as wildfire, wind, snow, drought, or other weather related impacts. 

There is a need to appreciably slow or halt the ongoing development and spread of mountain pine 

beetle in the project area. The implications of continued spread of this epidemic include: increased 

tree mortality across the landscape, further accumulation of hazardous fuels and increased potential 

for severe large-scale wildfires threatening forest resources and values of the wildland-urban 

interface (WUI) within the area and beyond, major changes in the scenery, alteration of wildlife 

habitat, and impacts to soil and water resources. Surveys indicate that the expansion of MPB is 

continuing unabated within the project area. The recent MPB flight appears to be significant, and 

increased mortality of mature pine trees is expected. Some areas are expected to see the near total 

elimination of mature pine trees due to MPB. 

Associated with the need to address the MPB epidemic is the need to reduce the potential for 

severe large-scale wildfire. This can be accomplished by implementing a variety of vegetation 

management treatments to thin and reinvigorate pine stands, reduce forest fuels, and facilitate 

effective wildfire suppression/protection in the project area, much of which is wildland-urban 

interface. 

In association with the focus on improving forest health in the project area (e.g., stemming the 

advance of MPB and reducing fuels/fire hazard) there is an opportunity to address other Forest 

Plan objectives. These include maintaining or improving wildlife/plant habitat, providing forest 

products to local industry, and providing for other resource amenities and uses. The project area is 

comprised of a variety of Management Areas, each of which has a unique focus. 

Table 3: Management Areas within the Pactola Project Area 

Management Area Acres 

2.2—Research Natural Area 548 

3.7—Late Successional Forest Landscape 1,268 

5.1—Resource Production Emphasis 5,766 

5.4—Big Game Winter Range Emphasis 12,210 

8.2—Developed Recreation Complexes 5,071 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 10 

The Selected Action is consistent with the management direction for these Management Areas. 

Actions proposed in the Selected Action will not occur in MA 2.2. 

The Selected Action (Alternative C Modified) responds well to the purpose and need. It takes a 

landscape approach to insect and disease and fire hazard reduction; thins pine trees and removes 

biomass; maintains and expands hardwoods and meadows; and includes prescribed burning to 

reduce fuels. Most importantly, the Selected Action focuses on those areas currently infested with 

MPB and reduces hazardous fuels in areas near private land. 

Management Direction

I find that the silvicultural treatments and prescribed fire actions included in the Selected Action 

(Alternative C Modified) provide a direct, proactive approach in helping to achieve the desired 

conditions described in Forest Plan Goal 10 and the associated objectives (BHNF LRMP, pg. I35). Goal 10 directs land managers to establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to 

reduce occurrences of catastrophic fire, insect and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease 

management and firefighting capability. Moving toward achievement of Goal 10 was a key 

component in development of the purpose and need for action in the Pactola Project. Furthermore, 

the Forest Plan contains many goals and objectives that cannot be met in areas affected by largescale insect infestations and wildfire. It is clear that Forest Plan goals and objectives related to soil, 

air, watershed, cave resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and recreational opportunities can 

be negatively affected by such events. By managing vegetation to reduce the likelihood of insect 

infestation and wildfire, the Selected Action will create conditions that support a wide range of 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

The National Fire Plan with its associated strategies and agreements directs Federal agencies to 

reduce fuels and fire hazards within the wildland-urban interface, adjacent to at-risk-communities, 

and in other areas on public lands. The Black Hills in general and the Pactola Project Area in 

particular are located within a fire-adapted ponderosa pine ecosystem. Fire suppression and some 

management practices over the past century have changed vegetation patterns and created high fire 

hazard conditions within the project area. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 provides planning tools and statutory emphasis to 

reduce insect infestations and hazardous fuels. The Pactola Project is an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project under Section 102 (a) (4) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. The 

area qualifies under section 102 (a) (4) because there is an existing mountain pine beetle epidemic 

occurring within the project area which poses a significant risk to resource values on National 

Forest System and private lands. HFRA provides procedural tools to hasten processes focused on 

addressing the existence of insect or disease on public and adjacent private lands and reducing the 

probability and occurrence of severe wildfire in fire adapted ecosystems, especially near at-riskcommunities (ARC) and in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Moreover, it is appropriate that 

proposed actions be designed in consideration of the fuels hazard reduction management

recommendations and guidelines provided by the Pennington and Lawrence County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). Alternative C Modified responds well to insect and disease and 

fire hazard reduction goals set forth in this law, as well as other National direction. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 11 

Issues

There were three key issues identified as a result of internal and external scoping for the Pactola 

Project, as presented earlier in this ROD and on pages 24 through 27 of the FEIS. These issues 

relate to mountain pine beetle, wildfire and fuels hazard, and vegetation and wildlife habitat 

diversity. The Selected Action (Alternative C Modified) responds well to each of these issues. 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle. The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. 

This epidemic is killing a large number of pine trees, including mature pine trees, resulting in 

mortality on a landscape scale. Stand conditions in large parts of this area remain conducive to 

sustaining high levels of beetle-caused mortality and allowing the outbreak to expand further (e.g., 

92 percent of the acres of ponderosa pine within the project area is rated as medium to high hazard 

for MPB). Based on survey information and observations from 2011, MPB appear to be continuing

unabated based. According to Schmid et al. (2007), the most important aspect of managing mature 

ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills National Forest is minimizing MPB-caused mortality. The 

only effective long-term strategy to minimize beetle-cause mortality is controlling stand conditions 

through silvicultural means over large landscapes and monitoring areas of beetle buildup (USDA 

Forest Service 2010d). 

The Selected Action authorizes removal of infested pine trees to limit the spread of MPB. It also 

authorizes thinning of dense pine stands across the landscape to reduce the susceptibility of these 

stands to MPB attack both now and into the future. The Selected Action would reduce the 

acreage of pine stands that are at medium or high risk of infestation from 92 percent to 58 

percent. Protection provided by project activities would extend over time, and insect risk ratings 

would remain low/medium overall for the next couple of decades. 

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard. Sixty-three percent of the project area is currently rated as 

having a high/very high wildfire hazard. This hazard level would be maintained if no action is 

taken to modify or treat the fuels. The end result could be high intensity wildfire within the 

project area that could eliminate a large portion of the existing forest cover. A large, intense 

wildfire could cause significant negative effects to the ecosystem, area infrastructure, public and 

private lands, and could threaten the lives of residents and firefighters. The Selected Action 

includes removing MPB infested trees, thinning stands with high and very high wildfire hazard, 

constructing fuel breaks, removing activity fuels from the forest floor, retaining and restoring 

hardwoods and meadows, and prescribed burning. These treatments will help reduce the 

potential for a severe wildfire by moving the forest closer to a Condition Class 1 or 2 (i.e., 

conditions more closely approaching the historical range of variability). The Selected Action 

would reduce the acreage of pine stands that are identified as having a high/very high fire hazard 

rating from 63 percent to just 20 percent. 

The Selected Action includes the use of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire can be an effective tool to 

reduce fuels and contribute to vegetative diversity. I support the use of prescribed fire to help attain 

fuels hazard reduction objectives when conducted at a safe, judicious level using the checks and 

balances of the site specific prescribed burn planning process. Project analysis demonstrates that 

silvicultural thinning combined with pruning and reducing fuel loads with prescribed fire has the 

best effect on reducing fire hazard by treating the entire fuels profile across the landscape. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 12 

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity. The Selected Action seeks to achieve vegetation and 

wildlife habitat diversity for this area. Removal of MPB infested trees and thinning dense stands will 

reduce the amount of MPB-caused mortality and maintain mature pine trees within the stands. 

Mechanical thinning, activity fuel removal, and prescribed burning will limit the potential for 

wildfire that could impact large areas of the forested ecosystem. Removal of encroaching conifers 

within and adjacent to hardwoods and meadows will contribute to maintaining these habitats, and 

removing overstory trees in areas with advanced regeneration will create forested stands with 

younger structural stages that are important for many species. 

The Selected Action will retain and restore hardwoods (mostly aspen) by removing conifers from 

within and around the edges of many hardwood stands. This will give aspen an opportunity to expand 

in size and will limit the amount of pine encroachment in these areas. The Selected Action will also 

remove pine from meadows where pine trees have encroached. These actions will benefit wildlife 

species associated with important hardwood and meadow communities. Conifers will be removed 

from identified hardwood stands and meadows/grasslands. Environmental and economic criteria will 

be applied during layout to ensure that a mix of pine/hardwood habitat remains in places. 

Effects to management indicator species, species designated as sensitive, and species of local concern 

have been considered. I have reviewed information disclosed in the FEIS and elsewhere in the project 

record concerning fish, wildlife, and plant species in making my decision. Changes to pine structural 

stages associated with the Selected Action are minor, relative to Forest-wide objectives for vegetation 

and wildlife habitat diversity. 

Public Response to Scoping/DEIS

Numerous local residents and area users have expressed a desire to see an aggressive approach to 

reducing the likelihood of mountain pine beetle infestation and reducing fuels and the associated 

wildfire hazards. This is also true of local governments, volunteer fire departments, and State 

agencies. I share the concerns expressed by these individuals and organizations, which include 

protecting human life and property, conserving the natural environment, and maintaining the 

economic well being of the area. These concerns were made clear during the public scoping 

process, as evidenced at the public scoping meeting in Silver City and in the comments received on 

the DEIS. These comments were a very important consideration in my decision to implement 

Alternative C Modified. 

Some comments included concerns that removing trees, especially large trees, would negatively 

affect wildlife habitat. Other comments expressed the opposite view, indicating that limiting the 

amount of treatments would jeopardize wildlife habitat by allowing the spread of MPB-caused 

mortality and associated wildfire hazards. The Selected Action attempts to balance long-term habitat 

diversity needs by treating some stands to reduce the potential for MPB mortality and fuel hazards. 

Some concerns were expressed about roads construction and reconstruction of existing roads. 

Reconstruction activities primarily include improve drainage features along existing roads. These 

activities result in improved watershed conditions. I understand the concerns regarding new road 

construction. The majority of new road construction authorized by my decision is associated with 

treatments proposed in stands that could only be accomplished via cable harvest or helicopter 

harvest. Both helicopter harvest and new road construction involve substantial costs. Larger 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 13 

economic issues and budgetary considerations may affect our ability to implement these 

treatments. However, I have decided to authorize new road construction to facilitate cable harvest 

activities primarily to provide maximum flexibility in responding to mountain pine beetle 

infestations. 

Some concerns were expressed about the visual appearance of the areas treated. Most treatments 

would be on relatively gentle terrain and an adequate number of trees would be left, where 

possible, to provide screening cover to soften any short-term visual impacts resulting from harvest 

activities. The highest potential for affecting scenic quality is where new roads are constructed on 

steep slopes associated with cable logging. Harvest activities on these steeper slopes would be 

noticeable in the short-term, but would blend in with the surrounding landscape over the longterm. It was this concern about scenic quality that led me to modify Alternative C in the Selected 

Action. Specifically, cable logging would be prohibited in a 116 acre unit southwest of Pactola 

Lake, and the road originally proposed to facilitate that treatment has been dropped from my 

decision. I have taken these measures to preserve the scenic quality of this area that is highly 

visible area from the Pactola Visitor Center (see Map 2). The roads initially considered for this 

area would have been visible over the long term. While cable logging is not authorized, the unit is 

still available for helicopter logging and sanitation treatments. 

Reasons for Not Selecting Other Alternatives 

This section describes my rationale for not selecting other alternatives presented in the Pactola 

Project FEIS. 

Alternative A

I did not select Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) because it did not meet the purpose and 

need for action which is primarily intended to reduce insect risk and fire hazard within the Pactola 

Project Area. The situation in the project area demands immediate action. Mountain pine beetles 

are currently at epidemic levels throughout portions of the project area and have been rapidly 

expanding. This epidemic is killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a 

landscape scale. This will significantly affect wildlife and plant habitat. It is adding to fuel loads 

and increasing wildfire hazards in an area that already has a high wildfire hazard rating. 

I am unwilling to delay management action (No Action) because of the potential effects to life, 

property, and natural resources resulting from the MPB epidemic and increased wildfire hazard. 

Alternative A does not meet Forest Plan direction and does not respond to the National Fire Plan 

and associated policy and agreements. 

Alternative B

Alternative B responds reasonably well to the purpose and need for action, the issues, Forest Plan 

direction, and comments on the Draft EIS. However, I did not select Alternative B because it did 

not provide for fuel break thinning along primary roads, helicopter logging, or the flexibility to do 

any cable logging. I believe it is important to have the flexibility to conduct these actions in 

response to the ongoing MPB infestations and potential for large scale wildfire. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 14 

Public Involvement

During project development and the analysis period, an extensive collaboration effort was made 

to involve, interact with and cooperate with individuals and groups interested in the Pactola 

Project. Part of this effort included public scoping as discussed below. 

The project was listed on the Forest Service’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in June 

2010. The SOPA contains a list of Forest Service proposed actions that will soon begin or are 

undergoing environmental analysis and documentation. It provides information so the public can 

become aware of and indicate interest in specific proposals (located on-line at 

www.fs.fed.us/sopa). 

Scoping is the process of obtaining public comments about proposed federal actions to determine 

the breadth of issues to be addressed. Comments on the proposed action, potential concerns, and 

opportunities for managing the Pactola Project Area were solicited from members of the public, 

American Indian Tribes, other public agencies, adjacent property owners, organizations, and Forest 

Service specialists. On July 28, 2010 a scoping letter was mailed to approximately 400 interested 

parties, including adjacent landowners. This letter included a description of the project area, an 

overview of the NEPA process, a general explanation of the actions proposed, and an invitation to 

comment. 

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

August 9, 2010. This provided official notification that the public comment period for the Pactola 

Project Area would last for 30-days concluding September 8, 2010. During the scoping period, the 

Forest Service received considerable public response supporting the proposal and rationale for action. 

In addition to providing project information in a scoping letter, a public meeting was held at the 

Silver City Community Hall in Silver City, SD on August 24, 2010. At the meeting, key members 

of the Interdisciplinary Team presented the project proposal to the public. The team answered 

questions and solicited concerns and issues from those present. 

Several interest groups were involved in the planning process, including the South Dakota 

Department of Agriculture’s Division of Resource Conservation and Forestry and Division of 

Wildland Fire Suppression and the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce’s Agriculture and Natural 

Resource Committee. Resource specialists also met with individuals and 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 National Forest 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. 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Pactola Project Area Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS) 

was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2011. This initiated the official public 45-day 

comment period on the DEIS. This comment period ended June 20, 2011. During the DEIS comment 

period, 14 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comment letters. Public input received during 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 15 

this time period was evaluated using a content analysis process. Approximately 115 comments were 

identified and responded to by the Pactola Interdisciplinary Team. These comments and associated 

responses are located in Appendix A of the Pactola Project FEIS. None of the comments received 

regarding the DEIS indicated a need to conduct further analysis. The FEIS contained additional 

discussion and factual or clarifying information. 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Pactola Project Area Final Environmental Statement (FEIS) 

was published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011. Also, a legal notice was published in the 

Rapid City Journal on August 6, 2011. This legal notice initiated the official 30-day objection filing 

period on the FEIS (pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, Subpart A). The objection filing period ended 

September 6, 2011. Two formal objections were filed on the Pactola Project FEIS. The Objection 

Reviewing Officer submitted written responses to each objection on October 5, 2011 (36 CFR 

218.11). Additional information on the objection review is discussed later in this ROD under the 

‘Administrative Review’ section. 

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative(s) 

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

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

that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It does, 

however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best 

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

In the case of the Pactola Project, I have determined that there could be two environmentally 

preferred alternatives depending on which perspective one takes. From a short-term, nondisturbance perspective (less than 5 years), the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) meets 

many of the criteria for being environmentally preferred. In the short-term, Alternative A has the 

lowest risk of contributing to additional soil erosion, maintains the highest number of snags for 

wildlife, provides the most habitat for sensitive species, and has the least risk of damaging 

cultural resources or potentially affecting water quality. However, Alternative A presents 

significant, long-term negative effects from the ongoing MPB infestation and the potential for 

large-scale wildfire. These impacts have a high potential to occur if no management action is 

taken. From a long-term perspective, Alternative B is considered the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Although, as disclosed in the FEIS, activities do generate some short-term 

disturbance related to vegetation management impacts to soil, air, water, scenic, heritage, and 

other resources, it nevertheless reduces significant long-term environmental risks. Alternative C 

and the Selected Action (Alternative C Modified) would reduce the MPB and wildfire hazard 

over a larger area, but would also require more road construction to facilitate cable harvest. 

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures 

Design criteria are measures identified during project development as being instrumental in 

ensuring that the Forest Service meets the direction contained in laws, policies, and regulations 

regarding management of National Forest System lands. These measures are intended to reduce 

impacts to a variety of resources. The analysis of impacts to resources conducted by 

Interdisciplinary Team members and presented in the DEIS and FEIS assume that design criteria 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 16 

will be implemented. Mitigation measures are additional measures proposed to further reduce 

impacts to resources. As mentioned earlier in this ROD, my decision incorporates the design 

criteria and mitigation measures included in Appendix B of the Pactola FEIS. I find that these 

measures are appropriate. The design criteria and mitigation measures identified in Appendix B of 

the Pactola FEIS will be applied to on-the-ground project design, layout, and implementation 

including project contracts and/or permits. 

Monitoring 

The monitoring activities described in Appendix B of the Pactola Project FEIS will be implemented 

as appropriate. Activities and their effects, including effectiveness of design criteria and any needed 

mitigation measures, will be monitored during and following project completion. This decision 

makes no changes to the referenced monitoring activities. 

Legal Requirements, Regulation, and Policy 

Another aspect of the process for selecting an alternative is ensuring that the Selected Action 

complies with all legal requirements, regulations, and policies. The Selected Action meets the 

following legal requirements. 

Federal Laws

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended: All surveyed and inventoried 

cultural sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

will be buffered and avoided during resource management activities. New sites discovered during 

operations will be protected. Any identified Traditional Cultural Properties and sacred areas will 

be protected. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been consulted concerning the 

proposed activities in the Pactola Project Area. The SHPO concurred with my determination of 

“No Historic Properties Affected” in letters dated June 4, 2010 and April 25, 2011. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969: NEPA establishes the format and 

content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation. The process of preparing the 

Pactola Project Area EIS and ROD was completed in accordance with NEPA. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 1973: The project decision is in compliance with ESA. There 

are no threatened, endangered, or proposed species within the Pactola Project Area. Therefore, no 

consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was required. The bald eagle was recently delisted under ESA. Potential effects to bald eagles and other sensitive species, along with 

documentation regarding species covered under ESA, were included in a biological 

assessment/biological evaluation and summarized in Appendix D of the FEIS. 

The Clean Water Act, 1982: The Selected Action will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as 

amended in 1982. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects. 

The Selected Action is not likely to degrade water quality below standards set by the State of South 

Dakota. This will be accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of South Dakota 

Best Management Practices and other mitigations measures and design criteria of project activities. 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 17 

The Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977: The Selected Action will be implemented to meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality standards through avoidance of practices that degrade air quality 

below health and visibility standards. 

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

Renewable Resources Act (RPA) of 1974: All alternatives were developed to be in full 

compliance and consistent with NFMA as summarized below. 

Consistency with the Land and Resource Management Plan

The 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) supported 

by its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), is the Forest programmatic document required 

by the rules implementing the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974 (RPA), as 

amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). The Forest Plan was amended 

by the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision made in October 2005, and became 

effective March 2, 2006. This amendment provides revised and new goals, objectives, standards and 

guidelines focused on protecting communities, property, and forest values by reducing severe insect 

and fire hazards; conserving plant and animal species and habitats for the long-term supported by the 

best available science; designating research natural areas; and providing for the continuing viability 

of the existing forest products industry in the Black Hills area. 

This decision to implement treatments in the Pactola Project Area is consistent with the intent of the 

Forest Plan's long-term goals and objectives (FEIS, pgs. 13-14 and Appendix E). The project was 

designed in conformance with Forest Plan standards and incorporates appropriate Forest Plan 

guidelines. 

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

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

the Forest Plan. Accordingly, I have reviewed the components of my decision against Forest Plan 

direction, and find they are consistent in that: 

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

• I have reviewed the BHNF FY2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report and Region 2 MIS 

guidance for projects. The effects of planned activities on management indicator species 

are consistent with the Forest Plan. 

• Planned activities are consistent with management area direction. 

• Planned activities comply with Forest Plan standards. 

Consistency with the National Forest Management Act 

Consistency with Forest Plan: The scope of analysis for a Forest Plan’s management indicator 

species is determined by the Forest Plan’s management direction, specifically, its standards and 

guidelines (Chapter II) and monitoring direction (Chapter IV). The Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains no obligation to conduct projectspecific monitoring or surveying for MIS (Phase II ROD, pg. 8, 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I11, Objective 238). The Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not 

require population monitoring for MIS, but rather employ habitat capability relationships (Phase II 

ROD, pg. 20; Forest Plan as Amended, pg. I-11, Objective 238). Effects of the proposed project to 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 18 

species designated as MIS by the Forest Plan, as amended by the Phase II Amendment, have been 

considered. Due to the scale of the proposed project in relation to habitats available across the 

Forest, there will be no effect on Forest-wide habitat trends for any MIS species. Project effects on 

MIS are discussed in the FEIS beginning on page 194. The project is consistent with, or moves 

toward accomplishing Objectives 201 (aspen); 238 a, b, and c (various MIS); and 239 (spruce). 

Similarly, project effects on Species of Local Concern (SOLC) are discussed in the FEIS 

beginning on page 211. The project is consistent with, or moves toward accomplishing Objectives 

213 (riparian habitat) and 221 (SOLC). 

Best Available Science: My decision also is based upon consideration of the best available 

science. I have reviewed the project record which shows a thorough review of relevant scientific 

information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of 

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty and risk. Specifically, the record 

shows that extensive literature citations have been reviewed and considered by resource specialists 

in preparation of the EIS as evidenced by the literature cited sections in the specialist reports. In 

addition, the record shows that all literature cited by the public during the comment period has 

been reviewed and considered by resource specialists on the Pactola Project ID Team. 

Resource Management Requirements: The NFMA directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 

certain resource management guidelines included in the agency directives system. I find that the 

activities in this project decision comply with the NFMA law and corresponding guidance in the 

directives system, as follows: 

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

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

• Adequate restocking is assured. 

• No clearcutting is proposed. 

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

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

harvest (see Silviculture Report located in project file). 

• No created openings will be larger than 40 acres. 

• Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) requirements are met. 

Administrative Review

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

Act of 2003. Section 105 of the Act specifies that a ‘Special Administrative Review Process’ be 

established for authorized projects and that a pre-decisional review be utilized. This predecisional review process is contained in 36 CFR 218. 

The Pactola Project Area FEIS and preferred alternative were made available to the public in 

August 2011. A legal notice for the FEIS was published in the Rapid City Journal on August 6, 

2011. In this notice, the public was notified that decision(s) based on the FEIS for the Pactola 

Project Area would be made following the pre-decisional objection process, pursuant to Forest 

Service regulations at 36 CFR 218. On September 6, 2011, two objections were received. Neither 
Pactola Project Area Record of Decision Page 19 

objection warranted any changes in the FEIS. All requirements for response to the objection by 

the reviewing official have been met. 

Implementation 

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

Acreages and locations are approximate and may vary during implementation depending on site 

specific conditions. Once this decision is signed, implementation of the Pactola Project Area 

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

Contact Person 

For additional information concerning this decision contact Jessica Eggers, Assistant NEPA 

Planner at (605) 343-1567; Jacqueline Groce, Acting District Ranger at (605) 343-1567, or Ed 

Fischer, Environmental Coordinator at (605)673-9200, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 North 5th

Street, Custer, SD 57730. 

/s/Jacqueline Groce /s/Jacqueline Groce 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 11/17/2011 

__________________________________________ __________________

JACQUELINE GROCE Date 

Acting District Ranger 

Mystic Ranger District 

Black Hills National Forest 

USDA Forest Service 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individuals income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, 

or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.