USDA Forest Service 

Black Hills National Forest 

Mystic Ranger District 

Rapid City, South Dakota 

PACTOLA PROJECT AREA 

FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 
Commonly Used Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ARC At-Risk-Community 

BA Basal Area 

BF Board Foot 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CCF Cubic Hundred Feet 

CDA Connected Disturbed Area 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CF Cubic Feet 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAI Culmination of Mean Annual 

Increment 

CPUA Concentrated Public Use Area 

CWD Coarse Woody Debris 

CWPP Community Wildfire Protection 

Plan 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement 

EA Environmental Analysis 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection 

Agency 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy 

Management Act 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

FRTA National Forest Roads and 

Trails Act 

FS Forest Service 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act 

ID Team Interdisciplinary Team 

MA Management Area 

MBF Thousand Board Feet 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MMBF Million Board Feet 

MPB Mountain Pine Beetle 

MVUM Motorized Vehicle Use Map 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFMA National Forest Management Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NFSR National Forest System Road 

OHV Off Highway Vehicle 

ROD Record of Decision 

S&G Standard(s) and Guideline(s) 

SDGF&P South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SOLC Species of Local Concern 

SS Structural Stage 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TMP Travel Management Plan 

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

USFWS United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface 

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

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative 

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center 

at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page i 

Pactola Project Area 

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Pennington County and Lawrence County, South Dakota

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Cooperating Agencies: None 

Responsible Official: Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger 

8221 South Highway 15 

Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

For Information Contact: Katie Van Alstyne, Team Leader 

8221 South Highway 16 

Rapid City, South Dakota 57702 

(605) 343-1567 

Abstract: The Mystic Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest has prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The Mystic Ranger 

District proposes to implement multiple resource management actions within the Pactola Project 

Area as guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) as amended, by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and supported by the 

National Fire Plan, the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, and by other National level policy. 

The focus of the actions proposed is to manage the vegetation to reduce the threat to ecosystem 

components, including forest resources, from the existing insect and disease (mountain pine 

beetle) epidemic and to reduce hazardous fuels in order to minimize the potential for large-scale 

severe wildfires. Three alternatives are considered in detail. Alternative A is the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative B is the proposed action. It uses landscape level thinning and pine 

harvest to break up the large area of continuous, dense forest and lower the mountain pine beetle

(MPB) and wildfire hazard. Alternative C responds to comments received during scoping. It 

includes roadside and fuel break treatments, as well as cable and helicopter logging. This Final 

EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The preferred alternative is Alternative C, with a minor 

modification to address scenic quality. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page ii 

SUMMARY 

The Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District proposes 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; the 

statutory authority and direction provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and 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 area lies approximately 10 miles west of Rapid City, SD. The project area lies 

within both Pennington and Lawrence counties. The project area encompasses approximately 

26,017 acres. The project area consists of 24,863 acres of National Forest System lands with 

1,154 acres of interspersed private lands. The forest condition is representative of a ponderosa 

pine fire adaptive ecosystem that has been managed for multiple-use objectives for decades. 

The focus of the actions proposed 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 (mountain pine beetle) epidemic and reduce the potential for severe large-scale wildfire. 

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

beetle (MPB) 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 the values of the Wildland-Urban Interface 

(WUI) within the area and beyond; major changes in the scenery; and alteration of wildlife habitat. 

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

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

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

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

Forest Service, 2010d). 

The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. This epidemic is killing 

mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. Locally (and nationally), the 

public is demanding action to reduce the risk of MPB affecting their lands, as well as, reducing 

potential for large-scale wildfires on public lands. 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 has been developed to treat vegetation on a broad landscape scale to reduce the threat 

to ecosystem components from the existing insect and disease (MPB) epidemic and reduce the 

potential for large-scale severe wildfires. 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. 

Through varied public involvement and collaboration efforts, comments on the proposed action, 

potential concerns, and opportunities for managing the Pactola Project Area were solicited from 

Forest Service resource specialists, tribal representatives, members of the public, other public 

agencies, adjacent property owners, and organizations. Methods used to request comments 

included: Publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare and EIS in the Federal Register on 

August 9, 2010; publication of news releases and articles in the Rapid City Journal; mailing a 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page iii 

scoping letter that solicited comments to approximately 400 interested parties; conducted public 

meetings; and meeting with interested individuals and parties. 

Comments received during the scoping process were used to help in defining issues, develop 

alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. Through review and analysis of the 

scoping comments and input, the Pactola Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) identified three (3) 

prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. The three key issues include: 

mountain pine beetle, wildfire and fuels hazard, and vegetation and wildlife habitat diversity. 

These issues led the ID Team to develop alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives 

analyzed in detail in this EIS are briefly described as follows: 

Alternative A (No Action) – The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study 

of the no action alternative, and to use it 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, such things 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 represents no attempt to 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 is 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 reduces pine encroachment in historic meadows, 

thereby expanding natural fuel breaks and increasing biodiversity within the Pactola Project Area. 

Vegetative treatments would occur in all management areas except Management Area 2.2 – 

Research Natural Areas. 

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 after-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) to reduce fuels and enhance natural fuel breaks is planned in this alternative. 

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

period. Under this alternative, approximately 17,400 acres would be treated mechanically 

(commercial and non-commercial). The treatments in this alternative are the same as those 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page iv 

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; 3) and helicopter logging of an 

additional 500 acres outside of treatment areas to remove “green hits” of mountain pine beetle 

infestations in areas that are not accessible by other means within the Pactola Project Area. As is 

Alternative B, vegetative treatments would occur in all management areas except Management Area 

2.2 – Research Natural Areas. 

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. 

Table 0-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative on NFS lands using Measurement Indicators

1. Mountain Pine Beetle Existing 

Condition Alt A Alt B Alt C 

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

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

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

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

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

In 20 years 77% 59% 54% 

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

Roadside Treatments (acres) 0 0 436 

Shaded Fuel Breaks (acres) 0 0 71 

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

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

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

Hardwood Restoration (acres) 0 477 681 

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

Projected Habitat Structural Stages for the Project MA 5.1 and 5.4 in acres:

Structural 

Stage 

Existing 

Condition 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

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 

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

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

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

3C 340 738 170 369 22 176 7 128 

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

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

4C 739 973 0 0 0 96 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 22 31 0 16 

*Existing Condition column represents current conditions. Alt A, Alt B, and Alt C columns represent projected 

 conditions 3 to 5 years in the future due to MPB-caused mortality (USDA Forest Service, 2010e). 

The Pactola Project purpose and need (see Chapter 1) provides the focus and scope of the proposal 

as related to National and Forest level policy and direction, plus the statutory mandate provided by 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Given this purpose and need, the Deciding Official (District 

Ranger) reviews the proposed action, the issues identified during scoping, the alternatives, and the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page v 

environmental consequences of implementing the proposal and alternatives disclosed in this EIS. 

This forms the basis for the Deciding Official to make the following determinations: 

• Whether or not the proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, are responsive to 

Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need for action in the Pactola Project Area. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to make a reasoned decision. 

• Which action, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or combination of alternatives 

to implement). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page vi 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page vii 

Table of Contents 

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... ii

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .....................11

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................11

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................12

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...............................................................................................14

Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................14

Management Areas ...................................................................................................................15

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................15

Management Area Specific Goals and Objectives ....................................................................18

Other Direction .........................................................................................................................20

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .............................................................................21

PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................................22

DECISION FRAMEWORK .....................................................................................................22

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COLLABORATION ..........................................................22

ISSUES .....................................................................................................................................24

1. Mountain Pine Beetle ...........................................................................................................24

2. Wildfire and Fuels Hazard ...................................................................................................25

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity ..........................................................................26

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................29

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................29

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ......................................................................29

Alternative A – No Action ........................................................................................................30

Alternative B – Proposed Action ..............................................................................................31

Alternative C .............................................................................................................................32

ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...........................................34

DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................................................34

MONITORING .........................................................................................................................34

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ........35

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................37

1. Mountain Pine Beetle Issue ..................................................................................................37

2. Wildfire and Fuel Hazard Issue ...........................................................................................38

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Issue .................................................................39

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....43

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................43

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................44

WATERSHED, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS ..............................................................................44

Geological Resources............................................................................................................46

Hydrogeology (Ground Water) .............................................................................................48

Soils Resources .....................................................................................................................50

Water Resources ...................................................................................................................79

TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................107

MINERALS ............................................................................................................................113

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................114

VEGETATION .......................................................................................................................114
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page viii 

FIRE AND FUELS .................................................................................................................141

RANGE ...................................................................................................................................158

NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS ..................................................................................168

WILDLIFE ..............................................................................................................................172

Habitat Communities and Habitat Features ........................................................................178

Management Indicator Species ...........................................................................................194

Species of Local Concern ...................................................................................................211

Threatened, Endangered and Region 2 Sensitive Species ..................................................232

FISHERIES .............................................................................................................................240

BOTANY ................................................................................................................................244

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................255

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................255

SCENIC QUALITY ................................................................................................................258

RECREATION USE ...............................................................................................................270

LANDS AND SPECIAL USES ..............................................................................................271

HERITAGE .............................................................................................................................273

SOCIAL ..................................................................................................................................276

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .............280

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...........................................281

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ..............................................................................281

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPY/REFERENCES .............................................................................283

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................321

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................343

CHAPTER 7 INDEX ......................................................................................................................347

List of Tables 

Table 0-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative on NFS lands using Measurement Indicators ..... iv

Table 1-1 Management Area Designations and Acreage in the Project Area .............................. 15

Table 2-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative ............................................................................ 40

Table 2-2 Treatment Outputs by Alternative ................................................................................ 41

Table 3-1 Dominant Soil Map Units in the Pactola Project and their respective percentage of the 

Project Area .......................................................................................................................... 51

Table 3-2 Proposed Activity Acres on Sensitive Soils for each Alternative ................................ 76

Table 3-3 Miles of New Construction (New), Temporary Road Construction (Temp), and 

Reconstruction and Maintenance (Recon/Mntc) affecting various soil properties for each 

Alternative............................................................................................................................. 76

Table 3-4 6th Level Watersheds (HUC12) within the Pactola Watershed Analysis Area ........... 81

Table 3-5 Miles of Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Streams in the Pactola Project Area 84

Table 3-6 Mapped Wetlands in the Pactola Project Area ........................................................... 100

Table 3-7 TMP Designated Routes/Trails Open ......................................................................... 108

Table 3-8 Road Density .............................................................................................................. 108

Table 3-9 Annually Maintained Routes ...................................................................................... 109

Table 3-10 Action Alternatives – Activity in Miles and Estimated Cost ................................... 112

Table 3-11 Pactola Project Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Rating – Ponderosa Pine ................. 116
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page ix 

Table 3-12 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area. Ponderosa Pine Stands – Structural 

Stage Distribution ............................................................................................................... 117

Table 3-13 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area. Ponderosa Pine Stands – Structural 

Stage 4 with Very Large Tree Size ..................................................................................... 118

Table 3-14 Existing Condition Cover Types of National Forest Lands within the Pactola Project 

Area ..................................................................................................................................... 118

Table 3-15 Forest-Wide Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage Distribution: Existing vs. Post 

Treatment ............................................................................................................................ 131

Table 3-16 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area and Alternative. Ponderosa Pine 

Structural Stage 4 with Tree Size Class of Very Large ...................................................... 131

Table 3-17 Pactola Project Area Cover Type Composition ........................................................ 132

Table 3-18 Forest-Wide Structural Stage Distribution: Existing vs. Post Treatment ................. 138

Table 3-19 Forest-Wide Conditions by Management Area and Alternative. Ponderosa Pine Tree 

Size Class of Very Large .................................................................................................... 138

Table 3-20 Alternative C Project Area Species Composition .................................................... 139

Table 3-21 Forest cover types within the Pactola Project Area (NFS lands) ............................. 142

Table 3-22 Structural Stages and Fire Hazard Ratings ............................................................... 143

Table 3-23 Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area ............................................................ 143

Table 3-24 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage 

Data ..................................................................................................................................... 150

Table 3-25 Example of Silviculturalist’s Prescription for Horse Nugget Prescribed Fire ......... 153

Table 3-26 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage 

Data ..................................................................................................................................... 156

Table 3-27 Existing Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Pactola Project Area by 

Management Area ............................................................................................................... 179

Table 3-28 Percent of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages of All Management Areas Combined 179

Table 3-29 Summary of Forest Plan MIS, their status, and habitat these species represents ..... 194

Table 3-30 MIS Species and Rationale for Pactola Project Analysis ......................................... 195

Table 3-31 Species of Local Concern of the Black Hills, South Dakota .................................... 212

Table 3-32 Region 2 sensitive plant species having suitable habitat within the project area ..... 246

Table 3-33 Plant Species of Local Concern with suitable habitat in Pactola Project Area ........ 247

Table 3-34 Habitat Types Analyzed in Effects Analysis ............................................................ 248

Table 3-35 Miles of routes designated for motorized travel in the Pactola Project Area ........... 256

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Pactola Project Area Vicinity Map ............................................................................. 12

Figure 3-1 Five-Year Running Average of Precipitation in the Black Hills Region .................... 46

Figure 3-2 Existing Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Rating in Pactola Project Area ................... 116

Figure 3-3 No Action MPB Hazard Rating ................................................................................ 123

Figure 3-4 Alternative B MPB Hazard Rating ........................................................................... 129

Figure 3-5 Alternative C MPB Hazard Rating ........................................................................... 137

Figure 3-6 Fire Hazard Ratings for the Pactola Project Area ..................................................... 144

Figure 3-7 Fire Hazard Rating Map for the Pactola Project Area .............................................. 147

Figure 3-8 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage 

Data ..................................................................................................................................... 150
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page x 

Figure 3-9 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating Map for Pactola Project Area.............................. 151

Figure 3-10 Horse Nugget Prescribed Fire ................................................................................. 152

Figure 3-11 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating Map for Pactola Project Area ............................ 155

Figure 3-12 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage 

Data ..................................................................................................................................... 156

Figure 3-13 Fire Hazard Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................ 157

Figure 3-14 Fire Hazard Comparison of Alternatives Post Treatment and Treatment Plus 20 

Years ................................................................................................................................... 157

Appendices 

Appendix A - Public Involvement and Collaboration............................................... A-1 

Appendix B - Design Criteria, Mitigation, and Monitoring...................................... B-1 

Appendix C - Past, Present, Foreseeable Activities................................................... C-1 

Appendix D - Summary BA/BE Wildlife/Fisheries and Botany................................. D-1 

Appendix E - Maps............................................................................ ......... E-1 

Map 1 – Vicinity 

Map 2 – Watersheds 

Map 3 – Management Areas 

Map 4 – Alternative B Treatments 

Map 5 – Alternative C Treatments 

Map 6 – Alternatives B and C Prescribed Burn 

Map 7 – Alternative A Travel Management 

Map 8 – Alternative B Transportation 

Map 9 – Alternative C Transportation 

Appendix F – Silviculture Findings and CMAI..................................................... F-1 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 11 

CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND 

NEED FOR ACTION 

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE 

The Mystic Ranger District of the Black Hills National Forest has prepared this Environmental 

Impact Statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from two action alternatives and No Action alternative. 

The document is organized into seven chapters followed by Appendices A – F. 

Chapter 1. Proposed Action and Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes 

information related to background of the project proposal, issues, the purpose of and need for the

project, and a description of the agency’s proposal for addressing that purpose and need. This 

section also details how the Forest Service involved the public, how the public responded and what 

issues were generated regarding the proposal. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. 

The proposed action (Alternative B) was developed based on addressing the purpose and need. 

Alternative C was developed based on comments raised by the public, other agencies, and internally. 

This chapter also provides a discussion of design criteria and monitoring required. Finally, this 

section includes summary tables of the environmental consequences and a comparison of effects 

associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis 

documentation is organized by resource area, e.g., Fire and Fuels, Wildlife Habitat, Watershed, etc. 

Chapter 4. Bibliography/References: The bibliography provides a list of references supporting 

the documentation in the EIS. 

Chapter 5. Glossary: The glossary provides a list and explanation of key words, acronyms, and 

terminology used throughout the EIS. 

Chapter 6. List of Preparers: This chapter provides a list of preparers involved during the 

development of the environmental impact statement.

Chapter 7. Index: The index references page numbers for many key document topics and words. 

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the documentation and 

analysis presented in the EIS. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found 

in the Project File located at Mystic Ranger District office in Rapid City, South Dakota. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 12 

BACKGROUND 

The Black Hills of South Dakota is a heavily settled area. There are numerous communities 

scattered throughout the Black Hills, along with a complex pattern of private land interspersed 

with National Forest System land. Many of these private lands have housing developments or 

isolated houses or structures. Others are rapidly becoming residential developments. This poses 

unique challenges to the management of National Forest System lands, as the effects of such 

management greatly affect our neighbors, and vice versa. Figure 1-1 displays the location of the 

Pactola Project Area. 

Figure 1-1 Pactola Project Area Vicinity Map 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 13 

The composition of today’s vegetation is more the result of a combination of aggressive fire 

suppression and past management activities than from natural events. Photographs and records 

from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s indicate that today’s forest is more continuous, uniform and 

dense than what has historically occurred. There are more pine trees in this area than existed under 

natural conditions, and less meadows/grasslands and hardwoods due to pine tree encroachment. 

A mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic is rapidly expanding within and adjacent to the Pactola 

Project Area. This epidemic is killing large numbers of mature pine trees. This epidemic is 

changing vegetation structure and wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. As trees are killed they fall 

to the ground adding dead, dry fuels within an area already rated as having high wildfire hazard. The 

rate of infestation is increasing and the epidemic is likely to spread over a large area over the next 

three to five years. MPB prefer stands of dense, mature pine trees, which is abundant and 

continuous throughout the area. Approximately 92 percent of the project area pine stands are at 

medium to high risk for MPB infestation. The primary management tool for reducing MPB-caused 

mortality is to remove the infested trees and to reduce the density of the remaining trees through 

mechanical thinning. 

Historically, insects and fire were a major force in shaping and contributing to the structure and 

composition of the ponderosa pine forests of the western United States, including the Black Hills. 

Insect infestations, especially mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), have played a role in 

thinning dense stands. 

Since 1970, approximately 128 fires have been recorded within the Pactola Project Area totaling 

approximately 76 acres. The largest recorded fire during that time period was the Boardinghouse Fire 

(1980) which burned approximately five acres. In 1939, the McVey Fire, the worst recorded fire to 

that date in the Black Hills, burned approximately 22,000 acres. The southern end of the project area 

was affected by this fire, with approximately 3,000 acres within the project boundary. Several 

prescribed fires have taken place within the project area accounting for approximately 3,660 acres. 

Large wildfires (fires greater than 300 acres) burned about 147,900 acres during the period from 

1900 to 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 

approximately 296,000 acres. These intense fires covered large areas, moving as far as eleven miles 

in one day and as fast as five miles in three hours. 

Although wildland fires are natural occurrences, they can conflict with land management objectives 

by impacting soil productivity, increasing conditions for soil erosion, expanding noxious weeds, 

harming some plant and animal species, reducing visual quality and recreation values, and 

destroying valuable timber resources. In addition, large wildfires threaten the lives of residents and 

firefighters, destroy houses and other private property, and contribute to substantial impact to the 

local economy and private landowners. 

The Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Lawrence County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) designate most of the project area as wildland-urban interface. The 

‘at-risk’-community of Silver City is located in the central portion of the project area. Edelweiss (and 

other) subdivisions are located on the south end of the project area. In total, there are 1,154 acres of 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 14 

private lands scattered throughout the project area, and many more acres of private land, homes, and 

businesses in adjacent areas. The project area lies within both Pennington and Lawrence counties. 

Pactola Lake and US Highway 385 are located on the eastern portion of the project area. Pactola 

Lake is a major recreational complex within the Black Hills. It includes a Forest Visitor Center, 

campground complex, a developed trail system, boat launches, swim beach, and marina. The 

campground is managed by a private concessionaire; the marina is also privately operated. Several 

tourist businesses are operated on private land in the northeast portion of the project area. Pactola 

Lake and Rapid Creek are part of the Rapid City community water supply. The threat of wildfire is a 

major concern for those living, working, and recreating in this area, and for the large Rapid City 

community that depends on this watershed for a portion of their domestic water supply. 

Approximately 63% of the Pactola Project Area is rated as having a high to very high wildfire 

hazard. This rating is based mainly on crown fire hazard. The ongoing MPB epidemic is making 

this situation worse by replacing live, green standing fuels with large amounts of dead and dry fuels. 

These dead fuels are slow to decompose in this dry area and would be a fire hazard for the next 

several decades. Fires burning in these heavy fuels would be difficult and dangerous to suppress. 

The primary management tools to reduce fuel loads and wildfire hazards are to mechanically thin 

dense stands with high wildfire hazard, remove MPB infested trees, remove activity fuels from the 

forest floor, retain and expand hardwoods and meadows/grasslands, and conduct prescribed burning 

to eliminate ground and surface fuels. 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The following sections provide an overview of the management direction applicable to the 

Pactola Project. 

Forest Plan Direction 

The Black Hills National Forest programmatic management direction is the 1997 Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan), as amended by the Phase II Amendment 

(October 2005), and supported by the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Phase 

II Amendment to the 1997 LRMP. The Forest Plan is 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 as amended, provides revised and new goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines 

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

and fire hazards; conserving viable 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 and infrastructure essential to cost effectively 

managing vegetation on the Black Hills National Forest. 

The purpose of the Forest Plan (FP) is to provide management direction for multiple use and sustained 

yield of goods and services from National Forest System lands in an environmentally sound manner. 

Moreover, the Forest Plan provides overall management allocations, goals and objectives (FP Chapter 

I), as well as associated standards and guidelines (FP Chapter II) for management. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 15 

Management Areas 

The Forest Plan sets management allocations for specific uses of land (Management Areas) within 

the Forest to meet multiple use objectives (FP Chapter III). The Pactola Project Interdisciplinary 

(ID) Team reviewed Management Area (MA) direction and confirmed that no new information 

existed that would require reconsideration of Forest Plan resource allocations. The MAs designated 

in the Forest Plan for the Pactola Project Area are listed in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1 Management Area Designations and Acreage in the Project Area 

Management Area Acres NFS % 

2.2 - Research Natural Areas 548 2.2% 

3.7 - Late Successional Forest Landscape 1,268 5.1% 

5.1 - Resource Production Emphasis 5,766 23.2% 

5.4 - Big Game Winter Range Emphasis 12,210 49.1% 

8.2 - Developed Recreation Complexes 5,071 20.4% 

Total NFS 24,863 100.00% 

Private 1,154 

Total Gross 26,017 

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives 

The Forest Plan establishes eleven multiple use goals and associated objectives for management of 

the Forest. Goals 1-4, 10, and 11 are directed toward natural resource objectives for multiple use 

management of the Forest. Goal 3 and 5-9 provide socio-economic emphasis for management of 

the Forest. The goals and objectives, applicable to specific resource management issues needing 

resolution, provide the basic direction for defining the purpose and need and subsequently 

developing the project proposal. The eleven Forest Plan goals are discussed in Chapter I of the 

Forest Plan. The Responsible Official for the Pactola Project has chosen to propose resource 

management actions that respond to Forest Plan Goals 2, 3, 7, and 10. 

 Goal 2. Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems. 

 Goal 3. Provide for sustained commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. 

 Goal 7. Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation. 

 Goal 10. Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to reduce occurrences 

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

management and firefighting capability. 

Associated with these goals are specific resource objectives. Comparing objectives to current 

conditions is integral to defining the purpose and need and developing the proposed action. 

Objectives providing management emphasis for this project are summarized below. Note that 

other Forest Plan goals and numerous objectives not mentioned in detail also provide guidance and 

are achieved to varying degrees as a function of project implementation and effect. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 16 

Goal 2 - Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse ecosystems. 

Objective 201. “Manage for a minimum of 92,000 acres of aspen (double current aspen acres)... 

The highest priority for hardwood restoration is where conifers (e.g., spruce and pine) have outcompeted aspen adjacent to riparian systems that once supported beaver...” 

• There is an opportunity to increase/maintain hardwood communities by reducing pine 

competition within these stands. In addition, opportunities exist to enhance and expand 

hardwood inclusions by opening canopies and removing conifers. 

Objective 205. “Manage for 122,000 acres of prairie grassland and 3,600 acres of meadow 

during the life of the Plan. Restored acres will not be considered suitable for timber production.” 

• There is an opportunity to increase the acres of interior grassland communities by 

removing pine encroachment, and also to enhance isolated grasslands by opening 

canopies through mechanical thinning and prescribed burning. 

Objective 221. “Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive species and species of local 

concern (SOLC)...” 

• There is an opportunity to conserve R2 sensitive species and SOLC habitat by removing 

MPB infested trees and thinning stands to reduce insect damage and wildfire hazard. 

Objective 234. “Create or maintain a moderate-to-low crown-fire hazard adjacent to occurrences 

of R2 sensitive and species of local concern...where long-term persistence is at risk from a single 

high-intensity fire.” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce wildfire hazard on NFS lands in the project area 

currently estimated at 63% high to very high. 

Objective 238. “...objectives for management indicator species (MIS) ...” 

• There is an opportunity to increase Aspen communities and increase the number of acres 

of stands with a very large tree size rating. 

Goal 3 - Provide for sustained commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. 

Objective 302. “Maintain rangelands in satisfactory range condition.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize prescribed broadcast burning to increase grasses and forbs. 

Objective 304. “On lands not identified as suitable and available for timber harvest, timber 

volume may be offered as a by-product of other vegetation management objectives. This volume 

would be offered in addition to the ASQ.” 

• There is an opportunity to do noncommercial thinning (less than 9 inch diameter trees) to 

reduce MPB hazard.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 17 

Goal 7 - Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation. 

Objective 701. “Continue to cooperate with interested parties and organizations in the 

development of plans and projects.” 

• There is an opportunity to work with the Counties, State, and private landowners to 

generate a broad base of support and/or a well informed public regarding project 

plan/design and project actions proposed and taken.

Objective 702. “Encourage cost sharing as part of cooperative efforts.” 

• There is an opportunity to work with the Counties, State, and private landowners on cost 

sharing in an "All Lands" approach to MPB in the Project Area. 

Objective 703. “Seek partnerships with other service providers – federal, state, county, local and 

private sector – to define complementary roles that best meet customer needs.” 

• There is an opportunity to coordinate with the Counties, State, and private landowners to 

partner and possibly cost-share in vegetation treatment and fuel reduction actions 

adjacent to and/or across mutual boundaries. 

Objective 704. “Consult with tribal governments, traditional practitioners, and other 

knowledgeable individuals to identify important areas of American Indian religious significance.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize the ongoing BHNF process and project-specific 

consultation to provide mutually beneficial information exchange, cooperative and open 

relations, and maintains trust and credibility between the agency and tribal representatives. 

Goal 10 - Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetative conditions to reduce the occurrences of 

catastrophic fire, insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and disease management and 

firefighting capability. 

Objective 10-01. “Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildlandurban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures... Manage the remainder of 

the Forest for 50 percent moderate-to-low fire hazard...” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing fire hazard that currently exceeds objectives 

on NFS lands in the project area. 

Objective 10-04. “Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate with risks (fire occurrence), 

hazard (fuel flammability), and land and resource values common to the area, using the criteria 

in Forest-wide Guideline 4110.”

• There is an opportunity to treat fuels and reduce hazards in the area. 

Objective 10-05. “Manage wildfires using the appropriate response based management area 

emphasis, existing values, risk of ignition, and fuel hazards within a given area.” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing and activity fuels to a manageable level 

thereby facilitating a proactive and effective response to wildfire. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 18 

Objective 10-06. “Develop fuel management and protection strategies for intermixed land 

ownerships in partnership with private, state, and other federal agencies.” 

• There is an opportunity to coordinate with the State and Counties based on goals 

established in the Pennington County CWPP and Lawrence County CWPP to reduce fuels 

on both public and private lands in order to reduce the potential for large wildfires that 

could affect homes, infrastructure, visual quality, timber and forest ecosystem values, and 

wildlife (including sensitive species) habitat in the area.. 

Objective 10-07. “Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management 

objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa-pine stands that are in medium or 

high risk for infestation.” 

• There is an opportunity to respond to MPB infestations by removing infested trees and 

thinning pine trees to reduce the amount of medium and high risk stands.

Management Area Specific Goals and Objectives 

Management Area 2.2 - Research Natural Areas 

The Pactola Project Area contains 548 acres in MA 2.2. Actions proposed in Alternative B and 

C would not occur in this management area. 

Management Area 3.7 - Late Successional Forest Landscape 

Objective 3.7-201. “Manage each contiguous unit within this management area as late-successional 

landscape, so that late-successional structure is always present within some portion of each unit.” 

• An opportunity exists to enhance the late-successional character by thinning and treating 

stands infested with MPB. 

Guideline 3.7-2103. “Timber harvest may be used if necessary to move stands toward latesuccessional conditions.” 

• The opportunity exists in the Project Area to promote MA 3.7 characteristics by removing 

trees infested with MPB and promoting growth through silvicultural treatments. 

Management Area 5.1 - Resource Production Emphasis. 

Goal 5.1-201. “Manage tree stands to emphasize timber products, forage production, and water yield.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently providing timber products, forage production, and contributing to 

increased water yield.

Objective 5.1-202. “While meeting other objectives for this management area, provide variety in 

stand sizes, shape, crown closure, age structure and interspersion.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels hazards 

designed to be fully compatible with the objective of providing variety in the forested setting.

Objective 5.1-203. “Maintain or enhance hardwood shrub communities where biologically 

feasible, and within management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation geared to improve hardwoods and also 

contribute to the fuel break benefits that hardwoods naturally provide.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 19 

Objective 5.1-204. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa pine 

across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage table, 

LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-67) 

• See opportunity statement (italics) under Objective 5.1-202 above. 

Guideline 5.1-4101. “Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including prescribed fire, to 

meet management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize a full complement of fuel treatment tools (including 

prescribed fire) in accomplishing insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction objectives.

Management Area 5.4 - Big Game Winter Range Emphasis. 

Goal 5.4-201. “Manage tree stands for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation for insect, fuels and fire hazard reduction 

while concurrently benefiting wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity.

Objective 5.4-206. “Manage for the following percentages of structural stages in ponderosa pine 

across the management area in a variety of sizes and shapes.” (Reference structural stage table, 

LRMP, Phase II Amendment, Page III-92) 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation focused on reducing insect, fire and fuels 

hazard to be compatible with structural stage objectives.

Guideline 5.4-4101. “Utilize appropriate fuel treatment practices, including prescribed fire, to 

achieve resource management objectives.” 

• There is an opportunity to utilize a full complement of fuel treatment tools (including 

prescribed fire) in accomplishing wildlife habitat improvement objectives while 

concurrently contributing to fuel and fire hazard reduction objectives. 

Management Area 8.2 - Developed Recreation Complexes. 

Goal 8.2-201. “Manage vegetation in high-use recreation areas to provide for public safety, to 

improve forest condition...” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce existing and activity fuels to a reasonable and 

manageable level for effective response to visuals and public safety concerns.

Goal 8.2-204. “Manage fuels to retain a natural forest appearance and to reduce the threat of 

wildfire damage to forest resources.” 

• There is an opportunity to reduce the threat of wildfire damage to the infrastructure and 

natural setting of the Pactola Developed Recreation Complex. 

Goal 8.2-206. “Control insect-and-disease pest populations in and adjacent to the area through 

active monitoring while reducing pest-population potential through vegetative management...” 

• There is an opportunity to manage vegetation by reducing mountain pine beetle 

infestations and lower the risk/hazard in the project area.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 20 

Other Direction 

While fires have always helped shape the landscape, today’s fires are not simply those of the 

past; they are often hotter, more destructive, and more dangerous to suppress. The increase in 

catastrophic wildfire nation-wide has led to considerable new and/or revised National level 

initiatives, policy, and law regarding fire and fuels management. These initiatives, policy, and 

law also apply to insects and disease. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (H.R. 1904) provides improved statutory 

processes for hazardous fuel (including insect/disease) reduction projects and healthy forest 

restoration on National Forest System lands. Other supporting policy includes the Healthy Forest 

Initiative, intended to reduce administrative process delays related to implementation of fuels (and 

insect/disease) reduction projects; National Fire Plan, and The Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy. The main focus of this National guidance is an emphasis on reducing the probability and 

occurrence of large-scale wildfire in fire adapted ecosystems, especially near at-risk communities 

and the wildland-urban interface (WUI); and to reduce the levels of insect infestations and disease. 

HFRA contains a variety of provisions to expedite hazardous fuel reductions on specific types of 

National Forest land. 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 

and adjacent to the project area which poses a significant risk to resource values on National 

Forest and private lands (see Determination of Insect Epidemic letter held in the project file). 

The HFRA provides expedited procedures for complying with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requirements. Section 104 of HFRA provides guidance on the range of alternatives studied 

and disclosed in the NEPA document. All authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects must be

consistent with applicable Forest Plan direction or, if not, it includes an amendment to the Forest Plan. 

Another provision of the HFRA regards the encouragement of communities to prepare a

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which identifies areas of wildland-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. The plans designate most of the

Pactola Project Area as WUI for the purposes covered by HFRA. The ‘at-risk’-community of 

Silver City lies within the Project Area. Edelweiss (and other) subdivisions are located on the 

south end of the project area. In total, there are 1,154 acres of private lands scattered throughout 

the project area, and many more acres of private land, homes, and businesses in adjacent areas. 

Pactola Lake and US Highway 385 are located on the eastern portion of the project area. Pactola 

Lake is a major recreational complex within the Black Hills. It includes a Forest Visitor Center, 

campground complex, a developed trail system, boat launches, swim beach, and marina. The 

campground is managed by a private concessionaire; the marina is also privately operated. Several 

tourist businesses are operated on private land in the northeast portion of the project area. Pactola 

Lake and Rapid Creek are part of the Rapid City community water supply. The threat of wildfire 

is a major concern for those living, working, and recreating in this area, and for the large Rapid 

City community that depends on this watershed for a portion of their domestic water supply. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 21 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The Purpose and Need provides the basis for development of the Proposed Action and any 

alternatives generated. The Purpose and Need is based on direction provided by the Black Hills 

National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and National level policy and 

law. The Purpose and Need provides fundamental rationale for the project and it provides guidance 

to the Pactola Interdisciplinary Team during environmental analysis for the Pactola Project Area. 

Purpose and Need. 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 with the 

objective of maintaining a healthy forest that is less susceptible to forest 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 (MPB) 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 WUI within the area and beyond; major changes in the scenery; alteration of wildlife habitat; 

and impacts to soil and water resources. 

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 breaking up the continuity and 

implementing a variety of vegetation management treatments to thin and reinvigorate pine 

stands, reduce forest fuels, and to facilitate effective wildfire suppression/protection in the area – 

much of which is WUI. 

In association with the focus on improving forest health in the project area, 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 current 

Forest Plan management area emphasis for the Pactola Project is MA 2.2 Research Natural Areas 

(548 acres), MA 3.7 Late Successional Forest Landscape (1,268 acres), MA 5.1 Resource 

Production Emphasis (5,766 acres), MA 5.4 Big Game Winter Range Emphasis (12,210 acres), 

and MA 8.2 Developed Recreation Complexes (5,071 acres). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 22 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action was introduced to the public during the scoping period (see Public 

Involvement and Collaboration section discussed later in Chapter 1). This proposal was based 

on addressing the purpose and need described in the previous section. 

The proposed action is presented in detail in Chapter 2 of this EIS. It includes removal of MPB 

infested trees, thinning and harvesting pine across the landscape, as well as in rights-of-way. It also 

includes removal of encroaching conifers within and adjacent to hardwood stands and historic 

meadows/grasslands, and overstory removals. In total, approximately 13,000 acres of the Pactola 

Project Area would receive mechanical treatments of one kind or another. This would be followed by 

prescribed burning on up to approximately 5,000 acres. 

The removal of MPB infested trees and thinning of dense stands is designed to reduce the levels of 

MPB mortality and resultant high fuel loads and wildfire hazard. Removal of encroaching conifers 

in and surrounding hardwood stands and within historic meadows/grasslands is intended to increase 

habitat diversity and to act as natural fuel breaks. Overstory removals would increase early seral 

habitat as directed by the Forest Plan and prescribed burning is intended to remove ground and 

surface fuels and increase habitat diversity. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

The Pactola Project purpose and need provides the focus and scope for the proposal as related to the 

programmatic goals of the Forest Plan and the Phase II Amendment. Given the purpose and need, 

the Deciding Official (District Ranger) reviews the proposed action, the issues identified during 

scoping, the alternatives, the environmental consequences of implementing the proposal and 

alternatives, and public comments on the Draft EIS. This forms the basis for the Deciding Official 

to make the following determinations: 

• Whether or not the proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, are responsive to 

Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need for action in the Pactola Project Area. 

• Whether or not the information in this analysis is sufficient to make a reasoned decision. 

• Which action, if any, to approve (decide which alternative or combination of alternatives 

to implement). 

If any action alternative is selected, project implementation could begin in the Fall 2011. The initial 

focus would be to remove MPB infested trees and thin stands in the areas of highest infestation. 

Certain actions (such as fuel break maintenance) could last for a longer term. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COLLABORATION 

During 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 (see Appendix A). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 23 

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. 

A scoping letter was mailed to approximately 400 interested parties, including adjacent landowners 

on July 28, 2010. 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. 

During the public scoping period and throughout the project development and analysis period, a

collaborative effort was made to involve and interact with individuals and groups interested in the 

Pactola Project. 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. 

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 Wildlife Fire Suppression, and Rapid City Chamber of Commerce (Agriculture and 

Natural Resource Committee). 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. 

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. 

The project was entered into the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in June 2010. 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 on specific proposals (located on-line at www.fs.fed.us/sopa). 

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. 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Pactola Project DEIS was published in the Federal Register

on May 6, 2011. This initiated the official 45-day comment period on the DEIS. This comment 

period ended on June 20, 2011. 

During the DEIS comment period, 14 individuals, groups, or agencies submitted comment letters. A 

legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal on May 7, 2011, announcing the opportunity to 

comment on the 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. Public 

input received during this period was evaluated using a content analysis process. One hundred and 

fifteen responses were identified and responded to by the Pactola Project ID Team. These comments 

and associated agency responses are located in Appendix A of the FEIS. Some comments were 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 24 

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. 

ISSUES 

This section provides a summary of issues identified during the public and internal scoping period 

for the Pactola Project. Comments received during scoping were used to help in defining issues, 

develop alternatives and mitigation measures, and analyze effects. A total of 195 comments were 

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

scoping process. The majority of responses were supportive of the overall project, a few were not. 

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

identified three prevailing or key issues related to the proposed activities. Comments received and 

the agency ‘response to comments’ are summarized in the Pactola Project File located at the 

Mystic Ranger District, Rapid City office. 

 

The ID Team reviewed input submitted during the scoping period and separated the issues into 

significant [as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 

1500.4(g) and 1501.7)] and non-significant issues. Significant issues are defined as those directly 

or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified 

as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest 

Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and 

not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental 

review (Sec. 1506.3)....” Non-significant issues and rationale regarding their categorization as 

non-significant may be found in the project record. A brief description of the three key issues and 

measurement indicators follows below: 

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 even size and age 

trees. This is the preferred food source of MPB. Approximately 92% 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 poses 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-cause mortality is controlling stand conditions 

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

Forest Service 2010d). The proposed action includes immediate removal of infested pine trees to 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 25 

limit MPB spread locally, and thinning of denser pine stands throughout the landscape to reduce 

their susceptibility to attack both now and into the future. 

Comments and feedback during scoping indicates 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. The dilemma they face is that large expanse of infested and 

high hazard National Forest System lands adjacent to or surrounding their property. One 

comment 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. 

The parameters presented below are the measurement indicators for the mountain pine beetle 

issue. The focuses on the MPB hazard levels for pine stands within the project area – the larger 

number of acres at high hazard, the greater the potential for infestation. A comparison between 

alternatives is displayed in table format at the end of Chapter 2. Also, a narrative description of 

the comparative differences in effects is presented briefly in the Comparison of Alternatives 

section in Chapter 2 and in more detail under the Vegetation section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicator for Mountain Pine Beetle: 

• MPB Hazard Rating – Low (acres)

• MPB Hazard Rating – Moderate (acres)

• MPB Hazard Rating – High (acres)

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 very seriously. Large wildfires (fires greater 

than 300 acres) burned about 147,900 acres during the period from 1900 to 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 intense

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 Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Lawrence County 

Community Wildlife Protection Plan (CWPP) designates most of the project area as wildlandurban interface. It includes the ‘at-risk’-community of Silver City, 1,154 acres of private lands, 

subdivisions, businesses, and a major recreational complex within the project area. 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% of the project has a high fire 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. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 26 

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 high risk for MPB. The proposed action 

recognizes that 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. 

The parameters listed below are measurement indicators for the multiple aspects of the wildfire and 

fuel hazard reduction issue in the Pactola Project Area. These indicators represent a number of 

variables associated with the threat of wildfire and fuels hazard reduction. Public concern about 

risk, health, and safety relative to large-scale wildfire are of paramount importance and implicitly 

considered and represented in these measurement indicators. A comparison between alternatives is 

displayed in table format at the end of Chapter 2. Also, a narrative description of the comparative 

differences in effects is presented briefly in the Comparison of Alternatives section in Chapter 2 and 

in more detail under the Fire and Fuels section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicators of Wildfire and Fuel Hazard: 

• Fire Hazard Rating (acres now/post treatment) 

• Mechanical Treatments (acres) 

• Fuel Break Corridors (acres) 

• Natural Fuel Break Enhancement – Hardwood and Meadows/Grasslands (acres)

• Prescribed Burning (acres) 

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity 

The Forest Plan provides desired future conditions for the five management areas 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 

MA’s 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 and wildfire are major threats 

to achieving 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, activity fuel 

removal, 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 

hardwoods and meadows/grasslands would contribute to maintaining these habitats. Removing 

overstory trees in areas with advanced regeneration provides for younger structural stages that 

are important for many species. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 27 

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. Comments also 

suggested no new road construction or reconstructed miles of road work in the Project Area. 

Measurement indicators are listed below for the varied aspects of the vegetation and wildlife 

habitat diversity issue. These indicators are represented by habitat components applicable to the 

Black Hills NF as specified in the Forest Plan or other direction. A comparison between 

alternatives is displayed in table format at the end of Chapter 2. Also, a written description of 

the comparative differences in effects is presented in the Comparison of Alternatives section in 

Chapter 2 and in the Vegetation and Wildlife section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Measurement Indicators for Vegetative and Wildlife Habitat Diversity: 

• Structural Stages for the Project Area (acres) 

• Retention and Restoration of Hardwoods and Meadows/Grasslands (acres) 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 28 

Page intentionally left blank 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 29 

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

This Chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed action (Alternative B), 

Alternative C, as well as a No Action alternative (Alternative A) for the Pactola Project 

Area. Maps of the proposed action and alternatives are located in Appendix E of this EIS. 

The Agency has not identified a preferred alternative at this time. 

This chapter presents the alternatives comparatively by both describing and displaying the 

quantitative and qualitative differences between each alternative. The intent is to provide the 

public and decision maker a basis for choice among management options when considering

the environmental consequences (effects) of implementing each alternative as disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

A brief overview is presented toward the end of this chapter regarding those alternatives that 

were considered by the Core ID Team but eliminated from detailed development and study. 

The last section of the chapter contains two comparative tabular summaries that describe 

each alternative and display the quantitative and/or qualitative effects of implementing each 

alternative relative to the three key issues presented in Chapter 1. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

This section provides a summary of activities that are planned to occur during 

implementation of any of the alternatives. It is important to note that the amount (e.g., 

acres, miles, etc.) of a certain activity in any alternative is approximate (based on 

inventory and survey estimates). Actual figures may increase or decrease somewhat during 

“on-the-ground” preparation of the project actions based on such things as non-uniform 

fuels regime or stand structure, small inclusions of inoperable terrain, refinement of length 

or standard of road needed or eliminated, etc. 

The Pactola Project qualifies as an “authorized fuel hazard reduction project” pursuant to 

HFRA Sec. 102(a)(4). This determination is set forth in a project memo entitled “Authorized 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Projects per HFRA” held in the Pactola Project file.

Pursuant to HFRA, authorized projects cannot take place in wilderness areas, wilderness 

study areas or areas where removal of vegetation is prohibited by an act of Congress or 

Presidential proclamation. None of these restrictions apply to the Pactola Project (Sec. 

102 (d)). Also, HFRA requires that projects, such as the Pactola Project, be consistent 

with the LRMP (Sec. 102 (b)). 

The Pactola Project Core ID Team recommended (with Deciding Official concurrence) that 

the No Action, Proposed Action, and one additional action alternative would be considered 

in detail. Section 104 of HFRA provides guidance on the range of alternatives studied in 

detail and disclosed in the NEPA document. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 30 

Alternative A would take no action to address the purpose and need. Alternatives B and C are

action alternatives that focus to varying degrees on meeting the purpose and need. Alternative 

B is the proposed action and includes commercial and non-commercial thinning, overstory pine 

removals, conifer removal within and surrounding hardwoods and meadows, and prescribed 

broadcast burning. 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 (helicopter/cable). 

The HFRA (Sec. 101(3)) also encourages the development of Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans (CWPP), which identify areas of WUI and recommends the types and 

methods of treatments on Federal and non-Federal land. Pennington County and Lawrence 

County have both completed a CWPP. The plan designates most of the Pactola Project Area

as WUI for the purposes “covered” by HFRA (Sec. 102(a)(1)). 

Alternative A – No Action 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the study of the No Action 

Alternative and to use it as a basis for comparing the effects of the Proposed Action and 

other alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative assumes that no implementation of any elements of the Proposed 

Action or other action alternatives would take place within the Pactola Project Area within 

the next 10 to 15 years. This alternative represents no attempt to actively respond to the 

purpose and need for action or the issues, concerns or comments identified during scoping 

for this project. There would be no effort to modify existing vegetation and related fuels 

conditions in the project area. However, ongoing fire suppression efforts, noxious weed 

treatment, and recurring road maintenance on system roads would continue as directed by 

the Forest Plan, as amended. 

It is important to note that the absence of management actions does not mean that conditions

in the area would remain static over time. In fact, there would likely be dramatic changes. 

This is related to the actions of nature and to the actions of people. Natural processes are 

likely to result in the large-scale mortality of mature pine trees due to the ongoing mountain 

pine beetle epidemic, and the continuing encroachment of conifers into hardwoods and 

meadows. Dead pine trees would add to the accumulation of ground and ladder fuels and 

increase the potential for large-scale wildfires with associated negative effects on the land, 

values, wildlife, and people. Human caused changes include a further increase in 

development on private land, expanded dispersed recreation use, and increased traffic on the 

newly designated road and trail system in the project area. 

This alternative: 

• Postpones management actions intended to move resource conditions toward 

achieving certain Goals and Objectives of the Forest Plan (e.g., related to 

insect/disease and fire/fuels hazard reduction); and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 31 

• Delays or does not respond to the Forest Plan and guidance provided by HFRA 

to deal with an epidemic of insects and fuel and fire hazard reduction needs. 

• Continues routine maintenance of roads and road improvements 

• Continues other National Forest management as directed by the Forest Plan 

and other project related decisions. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Alternative B is 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 (mountain pine beetle) epidemic and reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire. 

The alternative was developed as a proactive response to the purpose and need for action 

and it represents the Forest Service proposed action (see description of the Purpose and 

Need, plus the Proposed Action in Chapter 1 of this EIS). 

Alternative B proposes approximately 13,000 acres of commercial and non-commercial 

thinning to open up forest stands by removing MPB infested trees and reduce stand 

densities to lower mountain pine beetle and wildfire hazard. Most non-commercial 

thinning overlaps commercial thinning 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 forest thinning 

would be conducted using whole tree harvest methods or methods achieving a similar 

result in order to reduce fuel loading. 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. Commercial thinning activities would emphasize thinning 

from below and retaining the larger diameter trees while meeting the insect and fire 

hazard reduction objectives. Alternative B also includes treatments of fuel break adjacent 

to some private property boundaries, along primary roads, and utility corridors where 

commercial/non-commercial units overlap. Vegetative treatments would occur in all 

management areas except Management Area 2.2 – Research Natural Areas.

Scattered overstory removals are also planned in this alternative. They provide a break in 

the continuous overstory canopy that can further reduce potential for fire spread, create 

early seral stage habitat and a mosaic landscape, and help meet Forest Plan structural 

stage objectives. Alternative B proposes conifer removal (retention and restoration) from 

within and surrounding typed hardwood stands, and reduces pine encroachment into 

historic meadows. Removing pine from these areas improves their capability to function 

as a natural fuel breaks and provides habitat diversity over the long term. 

Alternative B proposes prescribed burning on approximately 5,000 acres to reduce fuels and 

enhance natural fuel breaks. This prescribed burning is intended to provide multiple benefits: 

limit fuel loads and lessen wildfire hazards; re-establish fire and its natural role in the 

environment; and provide for habitat diversity. 

See Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 at the end of this chapter for a comparison of alternatives. 

Appendix E contains maps that display vegetation treatments, fuel reduction and prescribed 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 32 

fire activity. Design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring specific to this alternative are 

described in Appendix B. 

Specific action planned and treatment activities in Alternative B include: 

Commercial and Non-Commercial Treatments* 

• Thinning – 6,411 acres 

• Removal Cuts – 828 acres 

• Hardwood Retention – 1,219 acres 

• Hardwood Restoration – 477 acres 

• Meadows/Grasslands (conifer removal) – 436 acres 

• Cable Logging – 0 acres 

• Fuel Break Thinning (along primary roads) – 0 acres 

• Helicopter Logging – 0 acres 

*Non-commercial treatments may overlap in commercial units 

Non-Commercial Treatments 

• Thinning – 3,770 acres 

• Shaded Fuel Breaks – 0 acres 

Total Estimated Area of Mechanical Treatments 13,142 acres 

Other Treatments 

• Prescribed Broadcast Burning – 5,000 acres 

Total Estimated Volume of Timber and Other Products Removed 

• Volume of Saw Timber Removed – 24,800 MBF (49,600 CCF) 

• Volume of Products (pole timber) Removed – 3,215 CCF 

Road Work 

• New Road Construction – 3 miles 

• Road Reconstruction – 27 miles 

• Maintenance – 69 miles 

Alternative C 

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). As in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 33 

Alternative B, vegetative treatments would occur in all management areas except 

Management Area 2.2 – Research Natural Areas. 

Under this alternative, approximately 17,412 acres would be treated mechanically 

(commercial and non-commercial thinning). The treatments in this alternative are the 

same as those described in Alternative B with three additional treatments: 

• Treating approximately 400 acres along designated roadways within the project area 

to improve access (ingress/egress). 

• Approximately 1,270 acres of cable and/or helicopter logging. 

• Helicopter logging of an additional 500 acres outside of treatment areas to remove

“green hits” of mountain pine beetle infestations in areas that are not accessible by 

other means within the Pactola Project Area. 

Prescribed broadcast burning is the same as described in Alternative B. 

See Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 at the end of this chapter for a comparison of alternatives. 

Appendix E contains maps that display the location of vegetation treatments, fuel reduction, 

and prescribed fire activity. Design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring specific to this 

alternative are described in Appendix B. Specific actions planned and treatment activities in 

Alternative C include: 

Commercial and Non-Commercial Treatments* 

• Thinning – 7,194 acres 

• Removal Cuts – 1,041 acres 

• Hardwood Retention – 1,219 acres 

• Hardwood Restoration – 681 acres 

• Meadows/Grasslands (conifer removal) – 461 acres 

• Cable Logging – 1,269 acres 

• Fuel Break Thinning (along primary roads) – 436 acres 

• Helicopter Logging – 500 acres 

*Non-commercial treatments may overlap in commercial units 

Non-Commercial Treatments 

• Thinning – 4,540 acres 

• Shaded Fuel Breaks – 71 acres 

Total Estimated Area of Mechanical Treatments 17,412 acres 

Other Treatments 

• Prescribed Broadcast Burning – 5,000 acres 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 34 

Total Estimated Volume of Timber and Other Products Removed 

• Volume of Saw Timber Removed – 35,700 MBF (71,600 CCF) 

• Volume of Products (pole timber) Removed – 3,650 CCF 

Road Work 

• New Road Construction – 19 miles 

• Road Reconstruction – 29 miles 

• Maintenance – 72 miles 

ACTIVITIES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The following is a description of specific actions planned that are common to both action 

alternatives (with some exceptions as noted) both in terms of type of action, amount, or size. 

Fuels Management Collaboration and Cooperation

Under all Action Alternatives strong emphasis would be given to further current efforts at 

working collaboratively with the State Wildland Fire and Forestry Divisions, Volunteer 

Fire Departments, Pennington County, Lawrence County, landowners, and others 

regarding insect and fuels hazard reduction and management concerns including: 

• Implementing the management recommendations and guidance set forth in the 

Pennington County and Lawrence County Community Wildfire Protection Plans; 

• Working collaboratively with State, local jurisdictions, and private landowners to 

treat hazardous fuels in a coordinated effort along adjoining NFS/private land 

boundaries; 

• Advocating the use of appropriate building materials, landscaping techniques, 

appropriate fuel break construction methods like those recommended by the 

“Firewise” program on adjoining lands; and 

• Coordinating access needs for ingress/egress and fire suppression with local 

VFDs, the appropriate State and County authorities and private landowners. 

DESIGN CRITERIA 

Design criteria include standard practices such as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

(S&Gs), Best Management Practices, and others. They are actions that are applicable and 

expected to be implemented as a matter of standard operating procedures consistent with 

the theme of a given alternative. Design criteria are applied in order to protect resources 

and forest users, as well as minimize impacts resulting from implementing action 

alternatives (see Appendix B). 

MONITORING 

The Mystic Ranger District is responsible for monitoring results and effects of the selected 

actions. The District would ensure that EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) direction including 

design criteria and any necessary mitigation measures are applied and carried out appropriately. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 35 

Project and contract administrators would perform much of the project monitoring during

project implementation. Other resource specialists would monitor specific progress 

including application of design criteria and mitigation measures related to their resource of 

concern. There would be a negligible difference in costs associated with monitoring across 

all Action Alternatives (See Appendix B). 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

Additional alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered based on issues and 

concerns expressed during the scoping period. Most scoping comments were supportive of 

the Proposed Action, but some had recommendations to consider alternative actions as part

of the NEPA analysis. The HFRA Sec. 104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii) specifies consideration of 

additional alternative(s) meets the purpose and need of the project. Some of the comments 

recommended actions that were outside the scope of the purpose and need, some were 

actions that could be incorporated into design and mitigation measures included in the 

proposed action, and some were incorporated into an additional alternative (Alternative C) 

for detailed study. The following provides an overview of alternatives that were considered, 

but eliminated from detailed study. 

An alternative was proposed that would not allow any new or reconstructed miles of 

road work or convert any ‘non-system’ roads or user-created routes into system roads.

Alternative A (No Action) addresses a portion of this proposed alternative – no new road 

construction. The Forest-wide Travel Management EIS/ROD designates motorized 

routes/areas within and surrounding the project area. 

The Transportation System for the Proposed Action (Alterative B) proposes to convert onehalf mile of existing non-system road and construct approximately three miles of new road. 

This represents only a small fraction (1-2%) of the total system and non-system roads that 

currently exist on the landscape. The HFRA, under which the project is proposed, is 

intended to streamline the NEPA process, limit the number of alternatives analyzed (see 

HFRA Sec. 104(c)(1) and (2)), and focus on meeting the purpose and need for the project 

(HFRA Sec. 104(c)(1)(C)(i)(ii)). Analyzing a separate alternative that constructs no new 

roads or converts no existing non-system roads is already well within the range of 

alternatives considered in detail in this EIS. 

Alternatives B and C propose to reconstruct approximately 27 to 28 miles of system road to 

improve drainage, protect roadbeds from damage, and ensure safe passage of needed 

equipment. An alternative that does not treat MPB infested stands by precluding 

reconstruction would not meet the purpose and need for the project. If these stands were 

treated without reconstructing the roads, then unacceptable environmental damage and safety 

issues would occur, and would not be in compliance with the Forest Plan, as amended. 

An alternative that does not allow any new construction, conversion of existing non-system 

roads, or reconstruction of existing system roads was considered but eliminated from detailed 

study for the reasons cited above. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 36 

An alternative that addresses fragmentation concerns on the BHNF. Fragmentation and 

related issues were considered in the 1996 Final EIS for the Revised Forest Plan (p. III-247 

through III-275). The Forest Plan addresses both fragmentation and wildlife habitat 

diversity in part through a desired mix of structural stages (see Objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-

206). Action alternatives considered in detail for the Pactola Project are consistent with 

Forest Plan structural stage objectives. 

This area was naturally fragmented prior to Euro-American settlement, and many species 

benefit or depend on vegetation patterns that some refer to as fragmentation. This natural 

fragmentation resulted in a mix of hardwoods, meadows, spruce, and various size and 

classes of ponderosa pine. Today’s forest is more continuous, uniform, and dense than 

what naturally occurred, and there are less hardwoods and meadows now than in the past. 

The concern expressed about fragmentation includes the desire to maintain areas of mature 

pine trees across the landscape. Existing mature pine stands in the project area are being 

significantly altered by the ongoing MPB epidemic. The action alternatives considered in 

this EIS are expected to maintain larger areas of mature pine trees over the next decade 

than the No Action alternative. Therefore, the action alternatives, by design, address 

fragmentation to varying degrees. For the reasons cited above, a separate alternative 

designed to address fragmentation was considered but dismissed from detail study. 

An alternative was proposed that would retain large diameter yellow bark trees, large 

diameter future snags, retain older dense pine stands, and minimally treating mature 

pine stands (Structural Stages 4B, 4C, and 5). Structural Stage 4B and 4C stands are rated 

high hazard for mountain pine beetle infestation and are a high to very high wildfire hazard 

(Phase II EIS, II-4, Table2-1; see also the Vegetation, and Fire and Fuels sections of Chapter 3; 

and Forest Health Evaluation Report R2-10-02 - USDA Forest Service 2010d). Many of these 

stands are currently infested with MPB and a large-scale epidemic is killing trees and 

increasing fuel loads within and surrounding the Pactola Project Area. An alternative that that 

does not remove any large trees or thin dense pine stands was considered but eliminated from 

detailed study because it would not address the purpose and need as presented in Chapter 1 of 

this EIS, nor would it meet Forest Plan direction. Specifically, it would not move toward 

achieving desired land and resource conditions, would not reduce the threat to forest resources 

from the existing MPB epidemic, would not restore resource conditions to a healthy, resilient 

fire-adapted ecosystem, and would not help protect local communities and resources from 

large-scale wildfire. 

An alternative was proposed that would limit commercial treatments to within onehalf mile of structures. This proposal is intended to provide defensible space from 

wildfires around private property. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act encourages the 

development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Pennington and Lawrence Counties 

have Community Wildfire Protection Plans and defines WUI buffers and treatments within 

one-half mile, one and one-half mile, and three mile buffer zones. An alternative that only 

treats within one-half mile of structures was considered but eliminated from detailed study 

for several reasons. First, wildfires in the Black Hills have been observed lofting embers 

and starting spot fires up to one-half mile in front of a fast moving fire front. Second, 

limiting mechanical treatments to one-half mile does not address the need to treat stands that 

are infested with MPB or other high hazard stands. Third, over the entire project area, 63% 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 37 

of NFS lands receive a high or very high fire hazard rating. Combined with steep and 

broken terrain, the potential for a fast moving stand replacing fire is relatively high. 

Furthermore, it does not address the threat to ecosystem components from a large-scale 

wildfire over the larger project area. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

This section presents a brief comparative discussion of the three alternatives given detailed 

study in this EIS. The alternatives are described and compared in terms of the effects each 

alternative has on the key issues described in Chapter 1. A comparative overview of 

vegetation treatment activities is also provided. Table 2-1 and 2-2, display comparative 

summaries of the effects of each alternative and their respective treatment activities. The 

environmental consequences of the alternatives to the resources affected in the Pactola 

Project Area are more completely described in Chapter 3 of this EIS and information 

contained in the Project File. 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle Issue 

The ongoing MPB epidemic is of foremost concern in the project area. This epidemic is

killing mature pine trees, resulting in stand replacement on a landscape scale. 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 controlling stand conditions 

through silvicultural means over large landscape and monitoring areas of beetle buildup 

(USDA Forest Service 2010d). 

Stand conditions in large parts of this area remain conducive to sustaining high levels of beetlecaused mortality allowing the outbreak to expand further – 92% of the project area is rated at 

medium to high MPB hazard. Alternative A would allow the epidemic to expand. The 

western end of the project area has the most beetle activity, the central part is starting to pick 

up groups of infested trees, and the eastern edge has low levels of tree mortality (USDA Forest 

Service 2010d). In the hardest hit areas, near complete mortality of the larger trees would 

occur on up to 75% of structural stages (SS) 4B, 4C, and 5 (dense stands with larger trees). 

Significant but lesser amounts of mortality would be expected in structural stage 3B, 3C, and 

4A – 3B and 3C because of the tree density and in SS4A because of the larger tree size. 

Thinning stands to achieve lower basal areas and removal of infested pine trees under

Alternatives B and C would reduce the MPB hazard. The protection provided for the area 

would extend into the next decade and remain low/medium in areas treated for much of that 

time. Alternative B would reduce the existing MPB hazard within the project area from 

64% high hazard rating to 12%. Alternative C would reduce the MPB high hazard rating

from 64% to 10%. Alternative C would have a slightly lower MPB hazard rating and 

somewhat lower expected MPB-caused tree mortality as compared to Alternative B. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 38 

2. Wildfire and Fuel Hazard Issue 

Most of the Pactola Project Area is outside of its historical range of variability and can be 

classified as Fire Regime I, Condition Class 3 (FRCC). As discussed in other parts of this 

EIS, FRCC is a classification system for the amount of departure from the natural (historical) 

fire regime of vegetation and fuels conditions in a given area (see Chapter 6 Glossary for full 

definition of FRCC). Both the Pennington County and Lawrence County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans designates most of the project area as wildland-urban interface 

(WUI). The project area includes the ‘at-risk’ community of Silver City, 1,154 acres of 

private lands, subdivisions, businesses, and a major recreational complex. 

Within the project area, slopes are typically less than 40%, but increase sharply in areas around 

Rapid Creek and Pactola Reservoir, in which many hill slopes are 40% or steeper. The Pactola 

Project Area has 231 identified address points and an additional 114 within one half mile of its 

boundaries. Private property accounts 1,154 acres of the total project area. Though there are 

two directions for a potential evacuation from Silver City, egress could be a dangerous activity. 

Both directions require climbing out steep terrain with tight winding roads. There are also 

several other concentrations of homes within the area including Edelweiss Mountain and 

Pactola Estates. Edelweiss Mountain, in particular, is located in a somewhat precarious 

position. Located in the upper third of a substantial drainage, structure protection and 

firefighting would be a dangerous proposition under high fire danger weather conditions. 

It is not possible to eliminate fire from a short interval fire regime based on past history of 

fire events in the Black Hills. Wildfires would continue to occur within or adjacent to the 

project area. Most of these fires are of low intensity and are too small to have a significant 

effect upon the environment. It is the large, severe wildfires that have the most impact upon 

the ecosystem, the public, and private lands conditions and values. The alternatives for the

Pactola Project have been evaluated on their effectiveness in reducing the potential for large, 

severe wildfires. 

Forest vegetation and fuels conditions in the Pactola Project area would continue to deviate 

from its historical range under Alternative A (No Action). With the expanding MPB 

epidemic, large amounts of dead, dry fuels would be added to an already serious wildfire 

hazard. Currently, 63% of the project area is rated at a high to very high wildfire hazard and 

this hazard would continue to increase if no action is taken to modify or treat the fuels. The 

end result could be high intensity wildfire over much of the project area that would remove 

much of the existing forest cover. This would cause significant negative effects to the 

ecosystem, area infrastructure, public and private lands, and threaten the lives of residents 

and firefighters. 

Treatments planned in Alternatives B and C would help reduce the potential for a severe 

wildfire by moving the forest closer to a Condition Class 1 or 2 - e.g., conditions more 

closely approaching the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; 

fuel composition; wildfire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

This would be accomplished by thinning the ponderosa pine forest, removing or treating 

some of the surface fuels and by use of prescriptive fire. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 39 

Both Alternatives B and C would have an effect on reducing fire hazards. Both alternatives 

would treat the forest and manage the forest to a lower stand density. Treatments would be 

implemented on a landscape basis and designed so that they would complement existing or 

natural fuel break features such as hardwood stands, meadows, private land pastures, and 

moister habitats. 

Fire Hazard is expected to be reduced with Alternatives B and C, but conditions change quickly 

in a Fire Regime I forest, and fire hazard would eventually escalate post-treatment as the 

vegetation grows and the detritus once again accumulates. However, the fire hazard in twenty 

years is expected to be much lower with Alternative B or C than the No Action Alternative. 

3. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Diversity Issue

Vegetation and wildlife habitat are not static properties. Changes in vegetation and associated 

wildlife habitat would occur in the Pactola Project Area regardless of which alternative is 

selected, including the No Action Alternative. The ongoing MPB epidemic would continue to 

greatly affect the vegetation and wildlife habitats in the project area. In the hardest hit areas, 

near complete mortality of the larger trees would occur on up to 75% of the structural stages 

4B, 4C, and 5 (dense stands with larger trees). Significant but lesser amounts of mortality 

would be expected in structural stage 3B, 3C, 4A – 3B, and 3C because of the tree density and 

4A because of the larger tree size. Increased fuel loading caused by dead and dying pine trees 

would increase the potential for even more dramatic changes from wildfire, up to the complete 

removal of the existing forest over large portions of area. 

In the short term, Alternative A would favor wildlife species that prefer dense mature pine 

stands with large amounts of standing dead trees (snags). Many of these habitats would 

change with the ongoing MPB epidemic and greater potential for large-scale wildfire, so 

Alternative A might not provide for these habitats on a long term basis. 

Action Alternatives B and C would directly reduce, but not eliminate the amount of dense pine 

habitat, and would tend to favor wildlife species that thrive in more open and varied stands. 

Lower basal areas would improve growth and vigor and increase the size of the remaining 

trees. These alternatives also would have a lower but sufficient amount of snags as compared 

to Alternative A. Alternatives B and C would reduce mountain pine beetle hazard and tree 

mortality. Fuel loading would be managed and overall wildfire hazard reduced.

The removal of the pine overstory in Alternatives B and C would release the established 

understory from competition for light, water, and nutrients. The effect would be an increase 

in early successional, younger structural stage pine directed at meeting Forest structural stage 

objectives. Species associated with early seral pine habitats would benefit from treatments 

proposed in Alternatives B and C. Non-commercial treatments and prescribed broadcast 

burning included in Alternatives B and C would remove the smaller diameter pine 

understory. That component of stand structure would be reduced, in individual stands and 

across the landscape, but such treatments would have little effect on the overall structural and 

seral stages of the pine community. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 40 

Both Alternatives B and C would restore hardwoods (aspen and birch) by removing conifers 

from around the edges of the typed hardwood stands. This would give the hardwoods an 

opportunity to expand in size and limit the amount of pine encroachment in these areas. 

Alternatives B and C would also retain existing hardwoods by removing conifers that are 

growing within hardwood stands. Alternatives B and C would remove pine from 

meadows/grasslands where trees have encroached. Both alternatives would benefit wildlife 

species associated with important hardwood and meadow/grasslands communities. Both 

Alternatives B and C would provide the most benefit to hardwood dependent species. 

Alternative A would do nothing to slow the loss of these communities. 

Table 2-1 Effects to Key Issues by Alternative 

1. Mountain Pine Beetle Existing 

Condition Alt A Alt B Alt C 

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

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

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

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

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

In 20 years 77% 59% 54% 

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

Roadside Treatments (acres) 0 0 436 

Shaded Fuel Breaks (acres) 0 0 71 

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

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

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

Hardwood Restoration (acres) 0 477 681 

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

Projected Habitat Structural Stages for the Project MA 5.1 and 5.4 in acres:

Structural 

Stage 

Existing 

Condition 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

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 

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

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

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

3C 340 738 170 369 22 176 7 128 

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

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

4C 739 973 0 0 0 96 0 0 

5 0 0 0 0 22 31 0 16 

*Existing Condition column represents current conditions. Alt A, Alt B, and Alt C columns represent projected 

 conditions 3 to 5 years in the future due to MPB-caused mortality (USDA Forest Service 2010e). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 41 

Table 2-2 Treatment Outputs by Alternative 

Commercial/Non-Commercial 

Treatments* Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Thinning 0 6,411 7,194

Removal Cuts 0 828 1,041

Hardwood Retention 0 1,219 1,219

Hardwood Restoration 0 477 681

Meadows 0 436 461

Roadside Treatments 0 0 436

Cable Logging 0 0 1,269

Helicopter Logging 0 0 500

 

Total Commercial/NonCommercial Treatment Acres 0 9,371 12,872

 

Non-Commercial Treatments 

Thinning 0 3,770 4,540

Shaded Fuel Breaks 0 0 71

 

Total Mechanical Treatments 0 13,142 17,412

 

Other Treatments 

Prescribed Fire 0 5,000 5,000

 

Volume Removal 

Sawtimber MBF 0 24,800 35,700

Sawtimber CCF 0 49,900 71,600

Products CCF 0 3,215 3,650

*May include both commercial and non-commercial treatment
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 42 

Page intentionally left blank
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 43

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the affected environment for each resource analyzed. Subsequently, 

the environmental consequences of the alternatives on the resource components of the 

physical, biological, and social environment in the Pactola Project Area are disclosed. 

Environmental consequences are described in terms of the beneficial/adverse, short and longterm direct/indirect and cumulative effects. Effects are quantified where possible, although 

qualitative discussion is often necessary. Elements that are not affected or minimally 

affected by the alternatives such as climate, noise, and topography are not discussed. This 

chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2. 

Direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and its alternatives were analyzed over the 

planning period (10-15 years). Cumulative effects take into account past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities from actions other than the Pactola Project, in addition to 

direct and indirect effects of the Pactola Project. The area analyzed for cumulative effects is 

the project area for all resources unless otherwise noted. Cumulative effects are disclosed 

under each resource topic. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions 

as a proxy for the impacts of the past action. This is because existing conditions reflect 

the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human 

actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several 

reasons for taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be 

impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted 

by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the 

individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there 

is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one 

cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed 

to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks 

ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to 

cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are 

sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless 

of which particular action or event contributed to those effects. Finally, the Council of 

Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding 

analysis of past actions. The memorandum states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 44

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4 (f)) (July 24, 

2008), which state, in part: 

CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all 

past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has 

identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the 

agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its 

alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis

documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions 

considered (including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) on 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process 

and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what 

information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis

of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some 

contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ 

regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and 

analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions

may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is 

relevant and necessary to inform decision making (40 CFR 1508.7). 

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions. 

The resource components described in this chapter are arranged in three sections: 

• Physical Environment 

• Biological Environment 

• Social Environment 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for 

each resource of the Physical Environment (Watershed, Geology, and Soils; 

Transportation; and Minerals). 

WATERSHED, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Affected Environment 

Geographic Setting and Topography 

The Pactola Project Area is situated in the central portion of the Black Hills National Forest, 

on the Mystic Ranger District. The project area lies approximately ten miles west of Rapid 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 45

City, five miles north of Hill City, and contains the Pactola Reservoir on its eastern 

boundary. The town of Silver City is centrally located within the project area, where Rapid 

Creek joins Pactola Reservoir. The area is characterized by the undulating, densely-forested 

terrain typical of the Black Hills region. The landscape is dominated by broad ridge tops and 

narrow valleys. The steep-walled canyon associated with Rapid Creek is oriented generally 

west to east and splits the project area almost in half (north and south). 

Elevation generally increases as one travels west, ranging from 4,580 ft. at normal water level 

in Pactola Reservoir, to just over 6,160 ft. in the vicinity of Old Bald Peak on the 

southwestern boundary. Slopes are typically less than 40% for most of the project area (82%), 

but increase sharply in areas around Rapid Creek and Pactola Reservoir, in which many hill 

slopes are 40% or even steeper. Local relief ranges from less than 400 ft. from drainage to 

ridge-top in the northern and southern portions of the project area, up to 800 ft. in the vicinity 

of Rapid Creek and Pactola Reservoir. 

Weather and Climatic Patterns 

The weather and climate of the Pactola Project Area mimics that of the overall Black Hills 

region. It is considered a continental climate, with hot summers, cold winters, and extreme 

variability in both precipitation and temperature. Precipitation and temperature are greatly 

influenced by topography and elevation, with more precipitation and cooler temperatures in 

the higher elevation areas associated with the Limestone Plateau and Crystalline Core. 

Temperatures range from near 100oF during the summer months to well below 0oF in winter. 

Summer days are usually quite warm, but nights are typically cool. This summertime 

temperature pattern and the predominant regional updraft often cause convective storms to 

form, starting in late spring and continuing throughout the summer. 

The Pactola Project Area has two weather stations monitored through the High Plains 

Regional Climate Center (HPRCC) within or nearby the area. These stations include Pactola 

Ranger Station and Hill City (HPRCC 2011). The average annual snowfall for Pactola 

Ranger Station is 48 in. and 59 in. for Hill City (HPRCC 2011). Average annual 

precipitation ranges from 21 to 23 in. for the project area, increasing from south to north 

(Driscoll et al. 2000, Driscoll et al. 2002). Approximately 50% of the annual precipitation 

occurs during May, June, and July, and almost 75% during the five month period between 

April and August, in the form of rain associated with high-intensity, short-duration 

thunderstorms. The smallest amounts of precipitation typically occur during the winter 

months, November through February, as snow. Most of the total annual snow fall occurs in 

the late spring months of April and March, in which heavy and wet snowfall often causes tree 

damage. Over 92% of the total annual precipitation is lost to evapo-transpiration associated 

with the vast forests of the area (Driscoll et al. 2002). 

Extremely wet climatic conditions were experienced throughout the Black Hills region during 

the 1990s, which is the wettest period since 1931 (Carter et al. 2002, Bunkers 2007). Extended 

drought conditions occurred earlier in the century, during the 1930s and 1950s, whereas 

relatively short term drought conditions occurred of late in the 1980s and since 2000 (Carter et 

al. 2002, Bunkers 2007). Figure 3-1 depicts both wet and drought periods as well as the cyclic 

nature of these events for the Black Hills region. Although it is difficult to predict what 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 46

climate changes may result from global warming, researchers expect much of the western 

United States to experience earlier melting of mountain snowpacks in the spring with extended, 

warmer, and drier summer months (Westerling et al. 2006, Running 2006, USDA Forest 

Service 2004), much like what was experienced during 2000 through 2007 in the region. 

Figure 3-1 Five-Year Running Average of Precipitation in the Black Hills Region 

 

Geological Resources 

Geologic Analysis Area and Time Period 

The analysis area for geologic resources coincides with the Pactola Project Area boundary 

because any impacts would not accumulate outside of the activity area due to the inherent 

nature of the geology found in the area. Geologic characteristics were considered for the 

entire Pactola Project Area, regardless of ownership, to assess existing resource conditions 

and analyze potential effects associated with each of the three alternatives. 

Effects to geologic resources were analyzed for the time period beginning in the fall of 2011 

and extending through 2036. Fall 2011 was chosen as a starting point for analysis because it is 

the soonest that activities related to the Pactola Project would be implemented. The year 2036 

was chosen as an ending point in time because project activities would not begin to be 

implemented until 2011, with proposed prescribed burning and harvest activities taking place 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 47

over the course of the next 20 years through the year 2031. Scientific research has found that 

most burned areas tend to recover within three to five years following a fire (Neary et al. 

2005), so a buffer of five additional years was added to allow for recovery of the landscape 

following any prescribed burning activities that would be implemented as late as the year 2031. 

Geologic Setting 

The Pactola Project Area contains geologic units consisting of Precambrian-aged igneous and 

metamorphic rocks. Major rock forms include greywacke, slate, schist, scattered pegmatites, 

and quartzite. A more detailed geology map for the Pactola Project Area is located in the 

project file. Map data correlates with the “Geologic Map of South Dakota” published by 

Martin et al. (2004). There are no known caves in the project area due to the lack of limestone. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Geologic Resources 

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus would have no direct or indirect

effects on geologic resources. Natural geologic weathering and adjustment would continue at 

current rates until a significant natural geologic disturbance occurs (e.g., landslide, earthquake, etc). 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Geologic Resources 

No direct or indirect effects to geologic resources are expected to result from the implementation 

of Alternative B. Geologic resources are not being extracted (e.g., mining activities) and no 

major road construction or land re-shaping is proposed with Alternative B. Natural geologic 

weathering and adjustment would continue at current rates until a significant natural geologic 

disturbance occurs. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Geologic Resources 

Direct and indirect effects to geologic resources may result from the implementation of 

Alternative C. Although like Alternative B, no geologic resources would be extracted, cable 

road construction and associated alteration of hill slopes is proposed with Alternative C. Forest 

Service Manual 2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards, and Services (USDA Forest Service 

2008b) requires facilities (such as roads, trails, bridges, etc.) and other management activities 

be located, designed, and maintained to avoid or minimize effects on geologic hazards. It also 

directs the USFS to manage existing geologic hazards on NFS lands to ensure the protection of 

public safety, health, property, and the environment. Refer to the Slope Stability and Unstable 

Soils discussion for an analysis of effects related to cable road construction and slope stability. 

Natural geologic weathering and adjustment would continue at current rates for all other unaltered areas until a significant natural geologic disturbance occurs. 

Cumulative Effects for Geologic Resources 

There would be no cumulative impacts associated with Alternative A or B because there are no 

overlapping direct or indirect effects. However, there may be cumulative impacts to geologic 

resources associated with Alternative C due to cable road construction and the associated alteration 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 48

of the landscape and geology. Refer to the Slope Stability and Unstable Soils discussion for an 

analysis of cumulative effects related to cable road construction and slope stability. 

Hydrogeology (Ground Water) 

Hydrogeologic Analysis Area and Time Period 

The analysis area for hydrogeologic (ground water) resources also coincides with the Pactola 

Project Area boundary because any impacts would not accumulate outside of the activity area 

due to the inherent nature of the geology found in the area. Hydrogeologic characteristics were 

considered for the entire Pactola Project Area, regardless of ownership, to assess existing 

groundwater aquifer conditions and analyze potential effects associated with each of the three 

alternatives. Effects to hydrogeologic resources were analyzed for the same time period as 

geologic resources, for the same reasons previously discussed. 

Ground water is the Nation's principal reserve of fresh water and represents much of the 

potential future water supply. Forest Service lands contains substantial groundwater resources, 

for which stewardship and protection are mandated by several Congressional Acts including, 

but not limited to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, also known as CERCLA or “Superfund” (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

“Many other natural resources on National Forest System (NFS) land rely, directly or indirectly, 

on ground water and would be damaged or destroyed if groundwater were depleted or 

contaminated. Ground water on the NFS is a major contributor to flow in many streams and 

rivers and has a strong influence on the health and diversity of plant and animal species in 

forests, grasslands, riparian areas, wetlands, and cave systems. Ground water and surface water 

are interconnected and interdependent in almost all ecosystems. Ground water plays significant 

roles in sustaining the flow, chemistry, and temperature of streams, lakes, springs, and cave 

systems. Ground water has a major influence on rock weathering, stream bank erosion, and the 

head-ward progression of stream channels. In steep terrain, it governs slope stability; in flat 

terrain, it limits soil compaction and land subsidence” (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

Concerns about groundwater resources on or adjacent to public land involve questions about 

depletion of groundwater storage and the associated effects on other water resources and 

associated animal or human uses. Pumping of groundwater can reduce river and stream flows, 

lower lake levels, and reduce discharges to wetlands, springs, and groundwater dependent 

ecosystems. Pumping of groundwater can also lower local water tables and impact vegetation in 

meadows, grasslands, and forest stands. Increased drawdown can impact ecological resources by 

depleting groundwater that supports riparian vegetation, wetlands, or sensitive flora and fauna. 

Livestock and wildlife water holes may have reduced overall volumes of water, shorter duration 

when available, or may dry up entirely. Over pumping of groundwater can cause well water 

levels or pressures to drop or shallow wells to go dry entirely, requiring deepening of the well or 

replacement. Excessive well withdrawals can also affect water quality in the aquifer. Poorquality or contaminated water may migrate from adjoining water-bearing units or from surface 

soil and water bodies. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 49

Hydrogeologic Setting 

The underlying geology of the Black Hills largely influences the hydrogeology (groundwater) 

and surface water characteristics of the area, both in quantity and quality. For example, the 

Limestone Plateau is known for its general lack of surface water, but abundant number of 

springs, many of which are the headwaters for major streams in the Black Hills. Spring waters 

have been in contact with calcium carbonate, and thus tend to precipitate out these minerals on 

the stream bottoms. In contrast, the Crystalline Core is much less permeable than the limestone, 

and thus has abundant surface flow with minimal stream losses to aquifer recharge. Rainfall 

runoff is higher in the Crystalline Core as well. A detailed hydrogeologic map of the Pactola 

Project Area is included in the project file. This map is produced from data published for the 

Black Hills Hydrology Study (Williamson et al. 2000). 

The Pactola Project Area is situated in the center of the Black Hills uplift, on the Precambrian 

Crystalline Core. Thus, groundwater in the project area is present in unconfined, non-artesian 

aquifers, also known as water-table aquifers. Topography can be a major influence on the 

direction of groundwater flow in water-table aquifers (Carter et al. 2003). Major groundwater 

aquifers like the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are not present in this area. The Precambrian 

core is generally considered a confining layer below all other aquifers, but can yield water 

when wells are drilled into localized, fractured zones. Despite the lack of a major groundwater 

source, groundwater-dependant ecosystems such as springs and fens are common in the project 

area due to geologic faulting and alluvial groundwater sources. Groundwater Dependent 

Ecosystems are discussed in more detail in the Water Resources, Wetlands, Riparian Areas, 

and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems section of this report. 

Unconsolidated units such as alluvium and colluvium can also be aquifers where saturated. 

Alluvial deposits along streams are commonly used as local aquifers. Silver City residents 

obtain their water from wells constructed in the stream alluvium associated with Rapid Creek 

(SD DENR 2011a). The Pactola Recreation Complex also obtains its water from two 

groundwater wells (Slepnikoff 2009). Additionally, many private landowners and recreation 

residences have drilled shallow groundwater wells into other alluvial valleys, as well as deeper 

wells into the fractured Precambrian rocks. Groundwater quality is discussed in more detail in 

the Water Resources, Water Quality section of this report. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Resources

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus would have no direct effects on 

groundwater aquifer yields. The continued expansion of MPB and a potential wildfire 

resulting from it also are not expected to indirectly affect groundwater aquifers because of 

the nature of the geology in the project area. The metamorphic and igneous rocks associated 

with the “Crystalline Core” are not as permeable as the limestone and sandstone units that 

surround the Black Hills and therefore produce surface runoff versus deeper percolation into 

groundwater aquifers. Pumping from existing wells would continue and new wells may be 

completed according to South Dakota state permitting regulations. Refer to the Water Quality 

and Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependant Ecosystems sections for more 

discussion pertaining to groundwater quality and groundwater dependent wetlands, springs, 

and fens and Alternative A. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 50

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Resources 

No direct or indirect effects to groundwater aquifer yields are expected to result from the 

implementation of either Action Alternative for the same reasons described under Alternative 

A. Furthermore, groundwater would not be extracted and aquifers would generally not be 

affected by activities occurring on the land surface. Pumping from existing wells would 

continue and new wells may be completed according to South Dakota state permitting 

regulations. Forest Service Manual 2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards, and Services (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b) requires inclusion of measures to manage and protect ground-water 

quality and quantity, as well as ground-water dependent ecosystems. Refer to the Water 

Quality and Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependant Ecosystems sections for 

more discussion pertaining to groundwater quality and groundwater dependent wetlands, 

springs, and fens and the Action Alternatives (B and C). 

Cumulative Effects for Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Resources 

There would be no cumulative impacts to groundwater aquifer yields associated with any of 

the project alternatives because there are no overlapping direct or indirect effects. Pumping 

from existing wells would continue and new wells may be completed according to South 

Dakota state permitting regulations. Refer to the Water Quality and Wetlands, Riparian Areas, 

and Groundwater-Dependant Ecosystems sections for more discussion on cumulative impacts 

pertaining to groundwater quality and groundwater dependent wetlands, springs, and fens. 

Soils Resources 

Soil Analysis Area and Time Period 

The analysis area for soils includes only the proposed activity units because impacts to soils 

occur on the site and do not accumulate outside of the activity area (USDA Forest Service, 

1992). The USFS Region 2 Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18) defines an activity 

area as “An area of land impacted by a management activity ranging from a few acres to an 

entire watershed depending on the type of monitoring being conducted; it is commonly a 

timber sale cutting unit, a prescribed fire burn unit or an allotment pasture” (USDA Forest 

Service 1992). This area represents the area which was analyzed for direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to soil resources because impacts to soils occur on the site and do not 

accumulate outside of the activity area. Therefore, effects to soil resources in units outside of 

the proposed Pactola Project Area are outside the scope of this project and as such, these areas 

will not be further analyzed or discussed in this document. Tree harvest, grazing, and other 

various activities on non-Federal lands are also outside of the soil analysis area. Effects to 

soils were analyzed for the same time period as geologic and hydrogeologic resources for the 

same reasons stated previously. Effects to soil resources are summarized in the context of 

short term effects (five years or less) as well as long term effects (longer than five years). 

Effects from known past actions were included in the analysis of existing resource 

conditions. Generally, this includes activities that have occurred since the 1874 Custer 

Expedition to the Black Hills region. Proposed activities associated with each alternative 

were considered in the Analysis of Direct and Indirect Effects section. Past and present land 

use and activities within the Pactola Project boundary include timber harvest, wild and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 51

prescribed fire, livestock grazing, private land ownership, roads and off road vehicles, mines 

and quarries, various types of recreation, and forest product gathering. All of these activities 

or events individually have some level of impact on the landscape which results in 

cumulative effects to soil conditions and processes. 

Soil Descriptions 

Soils in the project area are relatively young and weakly developed, having formed from 

material weathered from underlying bedrock, alluvial and colluvial deposits, or various 

combinations of these materials. Parent materials are primarily metamorphic and igneous 

rocks such as slates, phyllites, schists, and graywackes (an impure sandstone) from the bedrock 

formations exposed in the immediate vicinity. Soil map units are dominated by channery loam 

soil textures and unweathered bedrock. Channery soils contain thin, flat rock fragments of 

sandstone, shale, slate, limestone, or schist up to six inches in length. Stringers of cobbley 

loam and loam-textured soils are found along drainage bottoms associated with major streams 

and tributaries. Soils are thin to absent on rock outcroppings; generally shallow on steep hill 

slopes; and relatively deep on the gentler hill slopes and in alluvial valleys. 

Eleven different soil map units are present within the Pactola Project Area (Table 3-1). Soil map 

units are a grouping of different soil types that may be individually too small to map separately 

or differentiate from other surrounding soils. Soils in the Pactola Project Area are dominated by 

the Pactola and Virkula soils, and rock outcrop. Two soil maps units (RlG or 149G and PaE or 

104E) comprise 93% of the project area. The remaining ten soil map units individually occupy 

5% or less of the overall project area. Table 3-1 displays a summary of these dominant soil map 

units and the individual percentage of the overall project area that each unit comprises. 

Table 3-1 Dominant Soil Map Units in the Pactola Project and their respective percentage of the 

Project Area 

Map Unit 

Symbol(s) Map Unit Name Acres in Project 

Percent 

of 

Project 

RlG, 149G Rock outcrop-Pactola complex, 40 to 80 percent slopes 12,977 50% 

PaE, 104E Pactola-Virkula-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 40 percent slopes 11,171 43% 

W Water 747 3% 

CvB Cordeston loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes 390 2% 

MhA, 88B Marshbrook loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 221 1% 

VpC Virkula-Pactola complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 160 0.6% 

CwB, 40B Cordeston-Marshbrook loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 120 0.5% 

HeE Heely channery loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes 94 0.4% 

HoD Hilger-Virkula complex, 2 to 30 percent slopes 74 0.3% 

WtB Winetti cobbly loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes 34 0.1% 

BsB Bullflat-Cordeston silt loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes 25 0.1% 

HfC, 58D Heely-Cordeston complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 3 0.01% 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 52

Most soils in the project area developed under a ponderosa-pine forest. However, soils within 

meadows are unique and different from soils that support timber stands. Soil Map Units that 

developed in grassland conditions cover approximately 890 acres (3%) and include BullflatCordeston silt loams (BsB), Cordeston loam (CvB), Cordeston-Marshbrook loams (CwB or 

40B), Heeley channery loams (HeE), Heeley-Cordeston loams (HfC or 58D), Marshbrook 

loam (MhA or 88B), and Winettie Cobbly loam (WtB) soil units. These soil map units are 

found in stringer meadows, stream floodplains, and drainage bottoms. These soil units 

generally represent historic or currently existing meadows within the project area and can be 

used to evaluate conifer encroachment into meadows. The remainder of the project area (97%) 

contains soils that developed under forested environments. A map delineating soils formed 

under historic grassland conditions versus forested environments is located in the project file. 

Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Slope stability is a product of natural physical characteristics such as geologic, topographic, 

and hydrologic conditions, as well as modifications to these conditions caused by natural 

geologic processes, vegetation, land use practices, and human activities (Turner and Schuster 

1996). Unstable slopes can have several causes but only one trigger (Turner and Schuster

1996). Triggers are external events such as intense rainfall, rapid snowmelt, water level 

changes, earthquake shaking, volcanic eruption, storm waves, rapid stream erosion, and 

human modifications that cause an almost immediate response in the form of a landslide 

(Turner and Schuster 1996). 

The generic term “landslide” is used to describe “the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or 

earth down a slope” (Turner and Schuster 1996). Landslides are classified based on the type of 

material (rock, debris or earth) and the type of movement which include falls, topples, slides, 

spreads, or flows (Turner and Schuster 1996). These mass movements of material include the 

more familiar terms of rock falls and slides, soil creep, slumps, debris avalanches and flows, 

debris torrents, earth flows, and others (Chatwin et al. 1994). Mass movement can occur on 

unstable slopes if roads overload or undercut them, vegetation is removed from them, or 

additional runoff is emptied onto them. The overall hazard depends on the type of disturbance, 

slope steepness, the nature of earth material (e.g., parent rock, bedding planes, soil, etc.), and 

water content. The hazard can be natural, human-caused, or a combination of both. 

Unstable soils can cause landslides as well. According to FSH 2509.25, unstable soils are 

those soils that have properties that make them susceptible to dislodgement and downslope 

transport of soil and rock material under direct gravitational stress; the process includes slow 

displacement such as creep and rapid movements such as landslides (USDA Forest Service 

2006c). Soil failures also include land subsidence, shrinking and swelling soils, and collapsing 

soils. Removal of subsurface fluids or materials, or changes to hydrology on certain soil types, 

can induce soil failures (USDA Forest Service 1996c). 

Once a failure has occurred, the landscape will continue to adjust (e.g., fail) without warning in 

response to more runoff, gravitational shearing, minor earth tremors and even minor hill slope 

disturbances. This would continue until a stable slope angle is reached or intensive 

geotechnical engineering methods are employed. Rehabilitation and restoration of slope 

failures can be extremely challenging, problematic, and costly. Small slope failures generally 

have the greatest chance of successful stabilization but would remain a “weak spot” on the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 53

landscape in the long term. Larger slope failures present more difficulty of successful 

stabilization and can remain a permanent “scar” on the landscape. 

The major concern with these areas is associated with road or trail construction, and groundbased harvest equipment operations on steep slopes. For the Black Hills, an increased risk of 

road failure exists where roads are located on soils with mass movement potential and slopes 

are steeper than 40%, especially if road drainage problems are present or roads cuts through 

bedrock layers that parallel the hill slope. Similarly, an increased risk of mass movement 

exists when ground-based equipment operates on these same slopes. 

Most of the Pactola Project Area has slopes that are less than 40%. However, approximately 

4,800 acres or 18% of the project area has slopes steeper than 40%. Hill slopes in the northern 

and southern thirds of project area are moderately rolling, ranging from 0 to 40%, with 

scattered isolated areas where slopes exceed 40%. These areas are generally well suited for 

ground-based, mechanical operations. 

The middle third of the project area corresponds to the crystalline canyon lands associated with 

Rapid Creek, and thus is dominated by slopes exceeding 40%. These steeper areas are not well 

suited for ground-based, mechanical operations. This area is considered to be moderately 

stable, although road cuts in the micaceous-schists tend to slump when roads cut bedrock 

layers that parallel hill slopes. Rock talus slopes within the crystalline canyons can also move 

en-masse if significantly disturbed (e.g., earthquake or removal of slope toe by road cuts or 

rock mining). Both of the dominant soil map units in the project area are rated as having an 

elevated risk of mass-movement (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1990). These soil map 

units occupy approximately 24,000 acres (93%) within the Pactola Project Area boundary. No 

major slope failures were identified during field reviews, with the exception of talus rock 

slopes in the Rapid Creek drainage on canyon walls. 

A total of approximately seven miles of existing roads and trails are located on hill slopes with 

slope or soil stability concerns within the Pactola Project Area, regardless of ownership. Of 

this total, approximately six miles are existing Forest Service road and trail segments. The 

majority (5.2 miles) of these USFS roads are closed year long. However, approximately 0.5 

miles associated with multiple road segments are open year long. Another 0.3 miles are open 

seasonally but closed during winter months. The remaining one mile of roads and trails on hill 

slopes with slope or soil stability concerns are non-USFS roads – roughly one-third mile each 

between state, county, and private road segments. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Alternative A would not involve implementation of any proposed actions on or near steep 

slopes or soils with mass movement potential. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to 

slope stability or unstable soils associated with the implementation of Alternative A. 

Hill slopes would continue to adjust in response to natural weathering processes such as freezing 

and thawing. These hill slope adjustments are expected to be isolated individually and small 

(less than 1,000 sq. feet) unless a significant natural disturbance occurs (e.g., excessive rainfall 

causing flash flooding or a wildfire). The risk of severely burned soils is greatest with this 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 54

alternative should a wildfire occur, particularly in the steep and not very accessible Rapid Creek 

canyon (refer to Silviculture and Fire/Fuels report for more information on fire hazard in the 

project area). Thus, the risk of post-fire slope instability is also greatest with this alternative. 

A wildfire under Alternative A has the greatest potential of exposing and altering soils, and 

thus the greatest risk of indirectly contributing to conditions that may result in an increase in 

slope failure. Ponderosa pine killed by the continued expansion of MPB infestations would 

fall, accumulating on the forest floor, thereby potentially increasing the amount of dead and 

downed wood levels above current levels. With increased amounts of downed wood, there is 

likely a greater risk of longer fire residence times and potential for higher temperatures should 

a wildfire occur. This in turn can result in moderate to high soil burn severity, which is

exhibited by more exposed mineral soil and changes in physical, chemical, biological, and/or 

hydrologic soil properties. Hill slope adjustments would continue to occur until vegetation is 

sufficiently dense enough to stabilize slopes and slopes have reached equilibrium. This 

generally occurs within three to five years following a wildfire for areas that experience low to 

moderate soil burn severity, but can take 15 years or more for areas that experience high soil 

burn severity (Neary et al. 2005). 

Existing open road segments on slopes with stability concerns pose a greater risk of failure due 

to increased soil and slope disturbances from vehicle use, road maintenance, and storm related 

runoff and erosion. Although closed road segments receive only administrative use traffic, they 

can pose a high risk of slope failures due to the increased length of time between scheduled road 

maintenance. Seasonally open road segments located on slopes with stability concerns pose the 

same risks associated with both open and closed roads as discussed previously due to the 

seasonal accessibility as well as closure. Stability problems and Connected Disturbed Areas 

(CDAs) related to road segments would be corrected through maintenance or reconstruction over 

time, as appropriated funds are available. Without road maintenance and improvement work, 

existing road-related instabilities would continue to worsen, thereby increasing the risk of failure. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Alternative B proposes thinning ponderosa pine forest stands through various commercial and 

non-commercial methods. These methods would utilize ground-based equipment, and thus 

have the potential to disturb slopes and soils directly. Approximately 1,200 acres out of the 

total vegetation management activities proposed under this alternative have areas where slopes 

are greater than 40% and soils have the potential for mass movement. However, these are 

isolated areas within larger treatment units and are often associated with steep, rocky outcrops 

and canyon walls. A map of these locations can be found in the project file. 

Outside of the areas mentioned above, the remainder of the project contains slopes that are 

gentle to moderate, and thus the proposed activities are not expected to produce ground 

disturbance that would cause future slope instabilities. Commercial and non-commercial 

removal of trees is not anticipated to de-stabilize hill slopes or initiate future slope instabilities 

because forest stands are not being clear cut. Therefore, the root systems of remaining live 

trees would continue to stabilize soils on steep hill slopes in the long term. Additionally, the 

root systems of harvested trees generally remain on site after thinning, providing some level of 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 55

soil and slope stabilization for the next 10 to 20 years until natural decay processes have 

broken down the stump and root structures. 

The project has been designed so that all proposed ground-based mechanical treatments under 

Alternative B would generally avoid slopes exceeding 40%. Therefore, any soils prone to 

movement on these slopes would therefore also be avoided. Ground-based equipment 

operations are excluded from these areas, except to cross short, isolated segments, as part of 

project Design Criteria that includes Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) in order to minimize the risk of initiating a slope failure during 

or following harvest activities in these areas. The applicable Watershed Conservation Practices 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c) and Best Management Practices (SDSU et al. 2003) for this 

project are listed in Appendix B. Isolated sections of high-risk slopes within commercial 

activity areas are typically avoided during project implementation. Larger contiguous areas of 

steep slopes would be removed from ground-based mechanical treatment units during field 

layout in accordance with required Design Criteria and WCP/BMP measures. 

Non-commercial thinning and stand improvement activities would also adhere to project

Design Criteria, and thus avoid ground-based equipment operations on unstable slopes. Hand 

crews would be used to accomplish thinning work in non-commercial units where large 

contiguous blocks of steep slopes exist. 

No new road construction is proposed to take place on areas with potentially unstable slopes. 

Although a very small amount of new road construction (approximately 250 feet) crosses 

potentially unstable slopes or soils, this is likely due to GIS mapping tolerances. Road 

maintenance and reconstruction activities would take place on 3.7 miles of road that are 

currently located on potentially unstable slopes. This road work would correct existing road 

issues and minimize the risk of road or slope failure due to excess road runoff. However, the 

increased soil and slope disturbances from vehicle use and road work also poses a slight risk 

of indirectly causing increased road runoff, erosion, and minor slope failures. Approximately 

1.5 miles of existing roads on potentially unstable slopes would not be part of the 

transportation plan for commercial harvest activities but may be used for other project-related 

or Forest activities. These roads segments have a moderate risk of slope failure due traffic 

use without the accompanying means to perform road work. Without maintenance, existing 

and new road or slope problems can go uncorrected for longer periods of time. Another 0.8 

miles are associated with unauthorized roads – of which a total of 0.5 miles is proposed for 

use as temporary roads during commercial harvest activities. 

Existing open road segments on slopes with stability concerns pose a greater risk of failure due 

to increased soil and slope disturbances from vehicle use, road maintenance, and storm related 

runoff and erosion. Although closed road segments receive only administrative use traffic, 

they can pose a high risk of slope failures due to the increased length of time between 

scheduled road maintenance. Seasonally open road segments located on slopes with stability 

concerns pose the same risks associated with both open and closed roads as discussed 

previously due to the seasonal accessibility as well as closure. Stability problems would be 

corrected through maintenance or reconstruction over time, as appropriated funds are available. 

Without road maintenance and improvement work, existing road-related instabilities would 

continue to worsen, thereby increasing the risk of slope failure. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 56

The Pactola Project has been designed such that all new road construction under Alternative B 

would generally avoid slopes exceeding 40%. Any soils prone to movement on these slopes 

would therefore also be avoided. All ground-based equipment operations, including road 

building, are excluded from these areas, except to cross short, isolated segments, as part of project 

Design Criteria and WCP/BMP measures in order to minimize the risk of initiating a slope failure 

during or following harvest activities in these areas (see Appendix B). Road maintenance and 

reconstruction activities would correct existing problems and reinforce road segments existing on 

potentially unstable slopes, thereby minimizing the risk of road-related slope failure. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Vegetation Management Activities: Alternative C proposes thinning ponderosa pine forest 

stands through various commercial and non-commercial methods, and thus has the potential to 

disturb soils directly. Both ground-based equipment and aerial methods, such as cable logging 

and/or helicopter logging, would be used. Approximately 2,025 acres out of the total 

vegetation management activities proposed under this alternative have areas where slopes are 

greater than 40% and potentially unstable soils. A map of these locations can be found in the 

project file. Most of the larger, contiguous areas are located in the Rapid Creek drainage and 

Pactola Reservoir area and are included in units proposed for aerial logging methods. Small, 

isolated areas are also scattered throughout the project area. 

Effects of ground-based logging activities under Alternative C are similar to those discussed 

previously under Alternative B. 

The large, contiguous areas of steep slopes found in the central portion of the project area are 

well suited for the aerial logging methods proposed by this alternative. Proposed cable logging 

units would take place on steep slopes in the Rapid Creek drainage and in the vicinity of Pactola 

Reservoir. Commercial removal of trees through aerial logging methods is not anticipated to destabilize hill slopes or initiate future slope instabilities because mechanized ground-operations 

will not occur on these slopes and forest stands in these treatment units would not be clear cut. 

Therefore, the root systems of remaining live trees would continue to stabilize soils on steep hill 

slopes in the long term. Additionally, the root systems of harvested trees generally remain on 

site after thinning, providing some level of soil and slope stabilization for the next 10 to 20 years 

until natural decay processes have broken down the stump and root structures. However, due to 

the inherently steep, rocky nature and limited soil depth in these areas, tree root systems do not 

have the same depth as other more gently sloped areas with deeper soils. 

Pine regeneration can be hindered on steep, rocky slopes due to thinner soils, so water uptake 

by existing saplings and establishing seedlings may not exceed the available moisture stores 

following harvest in the short term. If this is the case, excess moisture would be present 

causing saturated soils and “loading” of steep hill slopes with excess weight. Although local 

soil moisture levels usually increase following even partial removal of forest cover, no studies 

have been documented for the Black Hills as to what threshold might exist related to excess 

moisture levels and initiation of slope failure. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 57

Non-commercial thinning, fuel breaks, and roadside treatments are also not expected to have 

any measureable effects on slope stability, directly or indirectly. These activities are not 

anticipated to de-stabilize hill slopes or initiate future slope instabilities because most noncommercial treatments would be accomplished with hand crews and forest stands would not be 

clear cut. Therefore the root systems of remaining live trees would continue to stabilize soils 

on steep hill slopes in the long term. Non-commercial thinning and stand improvement 

activities would also adhere to project Design Criteria, and thus avoid ground-based equipment 

operations on unstable slopes. Hand crews would be used to accomplish thinning work in noncommercial units where large contiguous blocks of steep slopes exist. 

Approximately 22 acres of fuel break treatments around private parcels and 51 acres of 

roadside treatments are also proposed along primary roads in the Pactola Project Area. All of 

these treatment areas contain small, isolated slopes with mass movement potential and slopes 

exceeding 40%. Ground-based equipment operations are excluded from these areas as part 

of project Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs (see Appendix B), so conventional logging (e.g., 

hand crews) would be required in these areas. Furthermore, fuel breaks would be thinned 

only, leaving live trees and their root systems to provide for soil and slope stabilization. 

Overall, Alternative C proposes more road-related soil disturbance on areas prone to slope 

instability than Alternative B. Alternative C proposes an additional four miles of new road 

that would be located on hill slopes with slope stability concerns. Therefore, the risk of both 

short and long-term stability problems is also greater with Alternative C. A map of these 

road locations can be found in the project file. 

The Pactola Project has been designed such that road construction under Alternative C would 

avoid slopes exceeding 40%. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities would take place 

on 3.7 miles of road that are currently located on potentially unstable slopes. Road 

maintenance and reconstruction activities would correct existing problems and reinforce road 

segments existing on potentially unstable slopes, thereby minimizing the risk of road-related 

slope failure. However, the increased soil and slope disturbances from vehicle use and road 

work also poses a slight risk of indirectly causing minor slope failures. 

Approximately 1.5 miles of existing roads on potentially unstable slopes would not be part of 

the transportation plan for commercial harvest activities but may be used for other project or 

Forest activities. These roads segments have a moderate risk of slope failure due traffic use 

without the accompanying means to perform road work. Without maintenance, existing or 

new road or slope problems can go uncorrected for longer periods of time. Another 0.8 miles 

are associated with unauthorized roads – of which a total of 0.5 miles is proposed for use as 

temporary roads during commercial harvest activities. These temporary road segments are 

short, isolated segments, and thus do not pose a great risk of slope failure. 

The risk of potential slope failure is highest with this alternative due to cable road construction 

and presence on the landscape. In order to complete cable logging operations, approximately 15 

miles of newly constructed cable roads would also be required. Cable road construction would 

disturb both soils and slopes, and thus poses the greatest risk of initiating a slope failure directly 

or indirectly following initial construction. Cable roads would require full bench design and 

construction methods, as well as blasting in steep, rocky terrain. Blasting would disturb soils and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 58

slopes and may initiate localized slope failures during actual road construction. Refer to the 

Transportation Section for more information on cable road construction. 

Approximately four miles of this total would cross areas with slope stability concerns. 

However, only one mile out of these four miles would involve cable road construction in 

mid-slope locations. Mid-slope road locations tend to cause more slope adjustments than 

roads on ridge tops or valley bottoms. All other cable road locations avoid mid-slope 

positions and paths that traverse back and forth across steep hill slopes. Therefore, these 

routes would not cut into already steep slopes, expose soils, and intercept and collect water. 

The longer the cable roads remain on the landscape, the higher the probability of failure, 

especially in response to higher than average precipitation events. However, if such an event 

occurred, actions would be implemented to stabilize road and resource problems and reduce 

impacts to soil. Overall, if such an event occurred, stabilization and rehabilitation measures 

would trend toward returning the detrimental soil disturbance levels below this threshold. 

Road-related Design Criteria and engineering controls have been included to minimize 

negative impacts to soil and water resources and to mitigate the risk of slope failure from all 

road activities as much as possible (see Appendix B). All cable roads would be closed to 

traffic following harvest activities as part of project Design Criteria. Depending upon sitespecific conditions and post-activity stabilization needs, these roads would generally be outsloped to disperse road runoff and mimic natural hill slope runoff process. Structures and fill 

material installed at stream and drainage crossings would also be removed to prevent 

plugging and failure. 

Common to Both Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Alternatives B and C both propose the implementation of approximately 5,037 acres of prescribed 

broadcast burning that would take place in the southeastern portion of the Pactola Project Area. 

Approximately 560 acres of prescribed burning would occur on areas with slope stability concerns. 

A map of these soil locations for each action alternative can be found in the project file. 

Prescribed burning activities associated with either of the action alternatives are not expected 

to have any measureable effects on slope stability, directly or indirectly. Although prescribed 

burning is to take place across the landscape, including areas where slopes exceed 40% (e.g., 

canyon areas), this type of activity does not normally disturb soils to a degree that triggers 

slope failures or increase the risk of mass failure for several reasons. First, the project has been 

designed to use existing roads and trails as fire containment lines where possible. Using 

existing roads and trails limits the need for constructing both dozer and hand-dug fire lines. 

Secondly, project Design Criteria generally prevents fire containment lines from being 

constructed across these soils with the potential for movement on slopes exceeding 40%. 

These in turn minimize the amount of ground disturbance and the risk of initiating any 

localized slope failures. Additionally, while surface vegetation and downed wood may be

consumed in prescribed fire, the below-ground root systems are generally left intact. Although 

some mortality may occur, most root systems are expected to remain intact and provide for 

both short and long-term stabilization. This has been directly observed in low-intensity areas 

of past wildfires including the Jasper, Grizzly, Battle Creek, Rogers Shack, and Elk Mountain 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 59

II Fires; in prescribed fires conducted locally on the Black Hills National Forest; and has been 

quantified during research in the Jasper Fire area (Gould 2003). 

Both action alternatives are generally expected to indirectly reduce the risk of slope failures 

associated with wildfire and post-fire rain events through the treatment of hazardous fuels. In 

contrast to Alternative A, both action alternatives would directly decrease existing levels of 

dead, downed wood through fuels treatment and prescribed burning. This in turn influences 

how a wildfire might behave in the project area (see Fire and Fuels section). If a wildfire were 

to occur in the area following implementation of either action alternative, fire residence times 

are expected to be shorter and fire temperatures would be cooler because less dead, downed 

wood is present to burn. Therefore, while effects from a future wildfire are unknown, effects 

on soils would likely be less severe and better mimic the historic burning characteristics 

associated with more frequent, but less intense wildfires. Although hill slopes can be expected 

to continue to adjust in response to natural weathering processes such as freezing and thawing, 

a wildfire under either action alternative would generally be expected to result in less exposed 

mineral soil and fewer changes to soil characteristics as compared to the Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects for Slope Stability and Unstable Soils 

Any failures that may occur are expected to be isolated, localized, and minor in both severity 

and extent. Therefore, there is little risk that material from slope failures would be transported 

to the stream network or other water resources, unless the failure occurred immediately 

adjacent to these water resources. Design Criteria and appropriate WCP/BMP measures apply 

to all forest management activities and uses. These measures are designed to control runoff 

and erosion for a 10 year storm event (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Therefore, the risk of 

slope failure is mitigated for typical storm events observed in the Black Hills. 

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to cause slope stability issues 

because cows generally avoid steep slopes to begin with. Dispersed recreation activities also 

do not cause slope stability issues due to the lack of concentrated use or avoidance of steep 

areas. Concentrated recreation sites are purposely located in flatter terrain and therefore avoid 

steep slopes as well. Mining activities can take place on steep slopes but Design Criteria apply 

to these activities as well to mitigate risk of slope failures associated with mining-related 

activities. Public use of roads and trails is managed under the Forest Travel Management Plan 

and road maintenance work on these roads and trails occurs as necessary and appropriated 

funds are available. 

Soil Erosion and Displacement 

Soil erosion is defined as the movement of individual soil particles by a force, and is initiated 

by the planar removal of material from the soil surface (sheet erosion) or by concentrated 

removal of material in a downslope direction (rill erosion). Surface erosion is a function of 

four factors: 1) susceptibility of the soil to detachment; 2) magnitude of external forces 

(raindrop impact or overland flow); 3) the amount of protection available by material that 

reduces the magnitude of the external force (soil cover); and 4) the management of the soil 

that makes it less susceptible to erosion (Foster 1982, Megahan 1986). 

Although erosion is a natural process occurring on the landscape, management activities can 

increase the amount of material transported offsite, as well as accelerate the rate at which it is 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 60

removed. Severe erosion can impair long-term soil productivity if soils are heavily disturbed on 

shallow or highly erodible soils. Erosion potential is the relative susceptibility to sheet and rill 

erosion when surface cover is completely removed from the site. Ground vegetation, downed 

debris, root masses, and duff help stabilize soil. When soil is disturbed by management

practices, it can be exposed to runoff. When this happens, sheet and rill erosion occur. Erosion 

hazard is therefore an indication of the risk of soil loss associated with disturbance. 

Concentration of runoff, accelerated erosion, sediment delivery to surface waters, and 

damage to roads and trails can result from soil rutting. Soil displacement and puddling (soil 

deformation and compaction) may occur simultaneously with rutting. The ratings in this 

interpretation indicate the hazard of surface rut formation through the operation of forestland 

equipment (USDA NRCS 2009). Soils within the Pactola Project Area are split nearly 

equally between the two ends of this rating spectrum. Soils associated with the Crystalline 

Canyonlands within the Rapid Creek drainage are rated as “slight” rutting hazard due to the 

large amount of rock fragments in these soils that prevent rutting. However, the northern and 

southern areas on either side of Rapid Creek are rated as “severe,” and thus are easily rutted. 

These latter areas coincide with areas that are suited for ground-based operations based on 

the gentler slopes. A map of the soil rutting hazard for the landscape assessment area is 

included in the project file. 

Displacement can occur when the productive, upper layer of soil is removed or mixed with 

underlying, less productive layers during harvest or site preparation. The most common causes 

of displacement are side-casting of soils during road or fire-line construction, skidding logs, 

and landing construction and rehabilitation. Soil erosion is discussed in terms of the erosion 

hazard for activities occurring off roads and trails, as well as the soil suitability for native 

surface roads and trails. 

Soils within the Pactola Project Area have slow to very slow infiltration rates due to fine 

textures such as clay, and restrictive soil or rock layers that prevent the downward movement 

of water within the soil profile. This equates to a high runoff potential during wet periods and 

correlates to a higher potential for soil erosion. A map displaying hydrologic soil group 

classifications within the project area is included in the project file. 

The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas 

after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface (USDA NRCS 2009). Nearly all of the 

soils in the Pactola Project Area are rated as “moderate” (44%) or “severe” (50%), with the 

exception of a few soils associated with stringer drainage bottoms, which are rated as “slight”. A 

map of soil erosion potential for off-road and off-trail operations is located in the project file. 

Soil Suitability for Roads (Natural Surface) and Erosion Hazard (Roads and Trails): The soil 

suitability for natural surface road rating indicates the suitability for using the natural surface 

of the soil for roads (USDA NRCS 2009). The erosion hazard rating for roads and trails is an 

indicator of the hazard of soil loss from un-surfaced roads and trails (USDA NRCS 2009). 

Soils across the entire Pactola Project Area are rated as “poorly suited” for natural surface 

roads, with the exception of a few, scattered stringers rated as “moderately suited.” 

Furthermore, the project area is dominated (94% of the project area) by soils rated as having a 

“severe erosion hazard”, indicating that significant erosion can be expected from natural 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 61

surface roads without adequate erosion control measures. A map of soil suitability for natural 

surface roads is included in the project file. Both of these ratings indicate that the area is 

largely not well suited for natural surface roads. Water-road interaction surveys completed 

during the summer and fall of 2010 also indicated that existing roads required more drainage 

structures to control runoff and erosion. Examples of these improvements include more 

closely-spaced drainage features and more frequent maintenance. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Erosion and Displacement 

Alternative A would not involve any additional management activities. Thus, this alternative 

would not have any proposed actions on or near soils with high erosion risk. Therefore, there 

would be no direct effects to soil erosion rates with the implementation of the Alternative A. 

Soil disturbances and erosion would be expected to continue at current rates until a natural 

disturbance occurs. A wildfire that may be experienced under Alternative A is expected to 

have the greatest potential of exposing and altering soil conditions, and thus the greatest risk of 

indirectly contributing to increases in soil erosion for the same reasons discussed previously 

under the Slope Stability and Unstable Soils section. Since hill slopes in the project area are 

gently undulating, with the exception of rocky canyon walls, any soil erosion that may be 

generated is likely to travel only short distances. However, if an intense rainfall event occurs, 

soil erosion may increase greatly and mimic conditions observed during post-fire precipitation 

events in the Jasper Fire area, in which eroded sediment was carried in flood waters all the way 

to Angostura Reservoir. In the case of the Pactola Project, sediments, ash and debris could be 

carried through the stream network into Pactola Reservoir. 

Wildfire effects to soils have been well documented and are thoroughly presented in “Wildland 

Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soil and Water” (Neary et al. 2005). Fires increase the 

potential for both wind and water erosion of soil. Fire consumes most of the shielding plant 

and litter cover, which provides protection from wind and raindrop splash, as well as soil 

stability (Neary et al. 2005). Ultimately, erosion rates would depend on the timing, duration, 

and intensity of rainfall following the fire, as well as the recovery of plant communities. 

Past monitoring and field investigations within the project area found that most existing erosion 

problems are related to roads and their effects on streams (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

Without road maintenance and improvement work, as well as stream restoration efforts, these 

sites would continue to degrade, eroding soil and transporting the resulting sediment through the 

stream network. Correcting problem areas would occur more slowly compared to both action 

alternatives, depending on when and how much appropriated funding is made available. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Erosion and Displacement 

Vegetation Management Activities: Alternative B proposes thinning ponderosa pine forest 

stands through various commercial and non-commercial methods. These methods would 

utilize ground-based equipment, and thus have the potential to expose bare soil to rainfall and 

snowmelt and create conditions with a greater likelihood of soil erosion and subsequent 

sediment transport to water bodies (Refer to the Water Quality section of the effects analysis 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 62

for more discussion on this topic). Approximately 5,100 acres out of the total vegetation 

management activities proposed by Alternative B have soils with elevated erosion risk. This 

equates to 20% of the project area. A map of these locations can be found in the project file. 

Ground-based logging activities are not expected to result in detrimental levels of soil 

erosion, directly or indirectly based on the inclusion of project Design Criteria and 

WCPs/BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion. Examples of such practices include use of 

existing and designated trails; operating season and moisture limitations; operating on a slash 

mat where possible; installation and maintenance of drainage structures; seeding of disturbed 

areas; and rehabilitating skid roads and trails. The proven effectiveness of WCPs and BMPs 

used on the BHNF, as well as ground cover following harvest treatments has been monitored 

and meets or exceeds recommended levels found in the Forest Plan (Thomas 2008, USDA 

Forest Service 2010c). Full implementation of the practices is expected to meet compliance 

with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, and 

1111 to minimize detrimental soil disturbance, take steps to protect soils from runoff and 

erosion, and rehabilitate disturbed sites (USDA Forest Service 2006c). 

Non-commercial thinning activities are not expected to result in detrimental levels of soil 

erosion, directly or indirectly. Erosion is expected to be minimal in these areas due to the 

required implementation of project Design Criteria, WCPs/BMPs, and the fact that these 

activities would primarily be accomplished with hand crews. 

New road construction poses the greatest risk of elevated erosion, particularly in the abovementioned areas, because these new roads would primarily be native surface roads. 

Approximately three miles of new construction would take place on soils with elevated erosion 

risk under this alternative. However, all new roads are required to implement standard 

WCP/BMP measures to control runoff and erosion as part of project Design Criteria (see 

Appendix B). WCPs are designed to control runoff and erosion from a 10 year storm event 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c). New roads on areas with the potential for severe erosion may 

also be closed to traffic following harvest activities to protect soil and water resources as part 

of project Design Criteria. 

 

Road work would correct existing road runoff and erosion issues and reduce sediment transport 

to streams and water bodies resulting from known road problems. However, on-going use of 

native surface roads in areas where soils are especially prone to erosion would continue to result 

in rutting, collection and concentration of road runoff, and associated soil erosion from these 

road templates. Project Design Criteria to address this issue includes seasonal or year-long road 

closure to protect soil and water resources; seeding the road template to establish stabilizing 

vegetation; installation of additional road surface drainage structures; or placement of aggregate. 

Approximately 1.5 miles of existing roads on highly erodible soils would not be part of the

transportation plan for commercial harvest activities but may be used for other project or 

Forest activities. These roads segments have a high risk of road damage and soil erosion due 

to traffic use without the accompanying means to perform road work. Without maintenance, 

existing or new road problems can go uncorrected for longer periods of time. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 63

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Erosion and Displacement 

Vegetation Management Activities: Alternative C proposes approximately 7,400 acres of 

vegetation management activities that overlap soils with erosion concerns. This equates 

to nearly one-third (28%) of the total project area. These activities would include various 

commercial and non-commercial methods utilizing both ground-based equipment and 

aerial methods, such as cable logging and/or helicopter logging. These methods both 

have the potential to expose bare soil to runoff caused by rainfall and snowmelt and 

create conditions with a greater likelihood of soil erosion and subsequent sediment 

transport to water bodies (refer to the Water Quality section of the effects analysis for 

more discussion on this topic). A map of these locations can be found in the project file. 

Effects of ground-based logging activities under Alternative C are similar to those under 

Alternative B. Refer to effects discussion presented previously. 

Aerial logging systems would minimize soil erosion due to the fact that logs are suspended off 

the ground by cables and ground equipment is not needed to fell or yard trees to landings.

Non-commercial thinning, fuel breaks, and roadside treatments are not expected to result in 

detrimental levels of soil erosion, directly or indirectly. Erosion is expected to be minimal in 

these areas due to the required implementation of project Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs, 

and the fact that these activities would primarily be accomplished with hand crews. 

Overall, Alternative C proposes more road-related activities than Alternative B, particularly 

new road construction and cable logging road construction. Therefore, Alternative C poses the 

greatest risk of both short and long term road erosion problems, as well as increased soil 

erosion rates and volumes from roads. Alternative C also proposes 19 miles of new road that 

would be located on soils highly susceptible to erosion. A map of these road locations can be 

found in the project file. New road construction poses the greatest risk of elevated erosion, 

particularly in the above-mentioned areas, because these new roads would be native surface 

roads. New roads are required to implement standard BMPs to control runoff and erosion as 

part of project Design Criteria (see Appendix B). New roads on areas with the potential for 

severe erosion may be closed to traffic following harvest activities to protect soil and water 

resources as part of project Design Criteria. Road maintenance and reconstruction activities 

would correct existing road issues and minimize soil erosion. 

Erosion rates and volumes would be highest with this alternative due to the inclusion of proposed 

cable access roads that would be required to complete cable operations. In order to complete 

cable logging operations, approximately 15 miles of newly constructed cable roads would also be 

required. Approximately four miles of this total would be on soils with severe erosion concerns. 

As discussed previously, only one mile out of these four miles would involve cable road 

construction in mid-slope locations. Therefore, most routes would not cut into already steep 

slopes, expose soils, and intercept and collect water that would increase soil erosion rates and 

volumes. Cable road segments on mid-slope locations may cause some localized increases in 

soil erosion. Increased soil erosion can lead to slope stability issues and vice versa. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 64

However, road-related Design Criteria and engineering controls have been included to prevent 

negative impacts to soil and water resources and to mitigate the risk of increased soil erosion from 

all road activities as much as possible (see Appendix B). All cable roads would be closed to traffic 

following harvest activities as part of project Design Criteria. Depending upon site-specific 

conditions and post-activity stabilization needs, these roads would generally be out-sloped to 

disperse road runoff and mimic natural hill slope runoff process; and structures and fill material 

installed at stream and drainage crossings would be removed to prevent plugging and failure. 

The risk of observing measureable soil erosion is greatest for cable roads that would remain on 

the landscape long-term for reasons discussed previously under slope stability. Depending on 

the severity and size of the slope failure, soil erosion could be localized and short term or 

chronic and long-lasting. Most slope failures in the Black Hills are localized in extent and do 

not deliver material to streams and water bodies, unless the slope failure occurs immediately 

adjacent to these areas (e.g., stream channel undercuts a slope causing it to fail). If such an 

event occurred, immediate actions would be implemented to stabilize road and resource

problems and reduce impacts to soils. Furthermore, WCPs are designed to control runoff 

damage from at least a 10-year storm of any duration (USDA Forest Service 2006c). 

Therefore, for typical precipitation events observed in the Black Hills area, soil erosion is not 

expected to approach levels that would be deemed as detrimental. 

Common to Both Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Erosion and Displacement 

The removal of trees through harvest activities under both action alternatives may make it 

easier for public users to access hill slopes and trails associated with activities in the project 

area. However, the Forest Travel Management Plan allows OHV use in designated areas 

only. Refer to the Travel Section for more discussion pertaining to Travel Management on 

the Black Hills. Therefore, increased erosion as a result of off-road use of trails and hill 

slopes should be minimized. The potential for damage caused by off-road vehicles can be

further reduced by retaining slash and tree tops on site to function as a natural obstacle to 

deter unauthorized off-road travel. Additionally, roads and trails would be rehabilitated 

where needed to discourage unauthorized use. Road rehabilitation techniques may include 

surface ripping to alleviate compaction, partial or full restoration of original slope contour, 

slash placement, and entrance barricades. 

Both action alternatives propose the implementation of approximately 5,000 acres of prescribed 

broadcast burning in the southeastern portion of the Pactola Project Area. Approximately 560 

acres of soils with erosion concerns are contained within these prescribed broadcast burn units. 

A map of these soil locations for each action alternative can be found in the project file. 

Prescribed burning activities associated with either of the action alternatives are not expected to 

result in detrimental levels of soil erosion, directly or indirectly. This type of activity does not 

normally disturb soils to a degree that results in detrimental levels of soil erosion based on past 

observations of prescribed burn areas. Prescribed burning is intended to decrease the risk of 

exactly that, should a wildfire occur. Furthermore, prescribed burning is not proposed in the steep 

portions associated with the Rapid Creek drainage, where soils are more susceptible to erosion. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 65

Prescribed burning associated with the Pactola Project was designed to use existing roads and trails 

as fire containment lines when possible, thus limiting the need for both dozer and hand-dug fire 

lines. This in turn minimizes the amount of ground disturbance and exposed bare soil. 

Additionally, while surface vegetation and downed wood may be consumed in prescribed fire, 

the below-ground root systems are generally left intact. Although some mortality may occur, 

most root systems remain intact and provide for adequate ground cover to limit erosion. Some 

areas may have higher intensity burning, and thus may result in moderate to high soil burn 

severity. Examples include dead tree stumps and roots that tend to burn completely and where 

downed wood has accumulated naturally or been purposely piled. Since these areas are 

isolated, small in size (less than 1,000 sq. feet), and located within a mosaic of lower intensity 

burn, soil erosion is expected to remain below detrimental levels. 

It is reasonable to expect that low to moderate severity fire resulting from prescribed fire would 

not increase soil erosion to those levels identified as detrimental by the Region 2 Soil 

Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18). Gould (2003) found that runoff and erosion were 

generated in the Jasper Fire area during summer thunderstorms when less than 60% effective 

ground cover was on-site. Prescribed fires are generally conducted during conditions which 

result in shorter flame lengths, shorter fire residence times, and when soil heating is expected 

to be lower as compared to when wildfires occur. Thus, the effects to soils are generally 

limited in severity and spatial extent. Gould (2003) also found the percentage of exposed 

mineral soil following low severity fire in the Jasper Fire area ranged between 0 and 30%. 

Both action alternatives are generally expected to indirectly reduce the risk of detrimental soil 

erosion associated with wildfire and post-fire rain events through the treatment of hazardous 

fuels. In contrast to Alternative A, a wildfire under either action alternative would generally be 

expected to result in less exposed mineral soil, and thus less soil erosion would occur for the 

reasons discussed previously. 

Cumulative Effects for Soil Erosion and Displacement 

Any soil erosion that may occur related to implementation of the Pactola Project is expected to 

be localized, minor in both severity and extent, and thus well below levels that would be 

considered detrimental. This expectation also applies to other forest management activities and 

uses. Design Criteria and appropriate WCP/BMP measures apply to all forest management 

activities and uses. These measures are designed to control runoff and erosion for a 10 year 

storm event (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Therefore, the risk of cumulative detrimental soil 

erosion is mitigated for typical storm events observed in the Black Hills for all forest 

management activities. 

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to extensive soil erosion. 

Dispersed recreation activities generally do not cause excessive soil erosion issues due to the 

lack of concentrated use. Concentrated recreation sites are purposely located in flatter terrain 

which minimizes the potential for soil erosion and employs management strategies to guide 

concentrated uses where measures are in place (e.g., WCPs/BMPs) to minimize soil erosion. 

Mining activities can take place on but Design Criteria apply to these activities as well to 

mitigate risk of soil erosion associated with mining-related activities. Public use of roads and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 66

trails is managed under the Forest Travel Management Plan and road maintenance work on 

these roads and trails would occur as necessary and appropriated funds are available to correct 

any soil erosion issues. 

Soil Compaction 

Compaction can occur on all soils, particularly if soil moisture conditions are too wet; if 

excessive equipment passes are made; or exceptionally heavy equipment is used (e.g., pressure 

applied per unit area). Soil compaction results from a packing together of soil particles due to 

increased pressure on the soil surface, as by equipment or large animals. Compaction is 

predominantly influenced by moisture content; depth to saturation; percent of sand, silt, and 

clay; soil structure; organic matter content; and content of coarse fragments. Susceptibility to 

compaction is generally increased during wetter periods. Compaction associated with 

equipment and vehicles is often accompanied by the formation of ruts as discussed previously. 

Compaction impairs water infiltration, root growth, and soil biota, all of which contribute to 

increased runoff and erosion. Compaction also affects plant production and composition and 

affects organisms living within the soil, which contributes to overall site productivity. 

Three soil map units within the Pactola Project Area are rated as being especially susceptible 

to compaction, but can usually be operated on by controlling the season, location, or intensity 

of equipment operations. These include the HoD, PaE/104E, and VpC soil map units. 

Altogether, these three soil map units equate to approximately 11,400 acres or 44% of the

Pactola Project Area. Both the Pactola and Virkula soils found in these three soil map units 

are susceptible to developing compacted soil layers where soils have lower rock content. 

The PaE/104E soil map unit is one of two that dominates the Pactola Project Area and 

corresponds to the northern and southern areas that have slopes conducive to ground-based 

operations. A map of the soil compaction risk is included in the project file. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Compaction 

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus no direct effect on soils that are 

highly susceptible to compaction. This alternative would not have any new activities occur 

within the project area so soil compaction would generally not be affected and remain 

unchanged from existing conditions. 

However, this alternative does not address the increasing level of hazardous fuels already 

downed or continuing to accumulate on the ground surface due to MPB activity. Thus, the 

wildfire hazard and potential severity of effects would continue to increase. Soils can be made 

more susceptible to compaction if fire conditions are severe enough to alter soil structure, thus 

breaking down soil aggregates (Neary et al. 2005). Although fire does not directly cause 

compaction, by consuming organic material on top of and within the mineral soil, soils in 

burned areas are made more susceptible to compaction from other management activities, as 

well as natural processes (Neary et al. 2005). Organic material is no longer present in the top 

layers or interstitial spaces between soil particles to help absorb applied pressure 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 67

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Compaction 

Alternative B contains approximately 7,600 acres of ground-based logging activities that would 

take place on soils highly susceptible to compaction. This equates to 29% of the total project 

area. Alternative C contains approximately 9,000 acres of proposed ground-based logging 

activities that would take place on soils highly susceptible to compaction. This equates to 

roughly one-third (34%) of the total project area. Maps of these soil locations for each action 

alternative can be found in the project file. 

Thinning, mechanical fuels treatment, and prescribed burning activities associated with either 

of the action alternatives are not expected to directly or indirectly result in detrimental levels of 

soil compaction. Much of the project area contains rock outcroppings and extensive surface 

rock within the soil which protect soils in these areas from compaction. By controlling the 

season, location, and intensity of equipment operations, harvest activities can take place on 

soils with a higher susceptibility to compaction, without causing significant detrimental 

disturbance. Management activities associated with both action alternatives are designed to 

minimize soil compaction through the use of Design Criteria, including designated and existing 

skid trails in sensitive areas, soil moisture limitations, and seasonal restrictions. 

Skid trails, and temporary roads utilized during harvest activities are to be rehabilitated postactivity as necessary, as part of Design Criteria measures to stabilize soils following management 

activities. Full implementation of Design Criteria measures is expected to comply with Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1110, and 1111 to minimize or 

rehabilitate soil compaction (USDA Forest Service 2006). According to research conducted by 

Luce and Black (1997), it is reasonable to expect that skid trail rehabilitation treatments would 

decrease soil compaction and improve water infiltration on roads and trails. 

Both action alternatives propose both treatment within and immediately surrounding aspen 

stands. By their very nature these soils tend to be moist year round, making it difficult to 

operate equipment without damaging soils. Ground-based treatment, particularly within the 

aspen stands, has the potential to damage the moist soils found there through compaction and 

rutting. Treatment methods that avoid ground-based equipment operations within aspen stands 

such as hand felling, yarding from outside the aspen clone, or leaving felled pine in place, 

would protect these moist soils and conserve soil characteristics. Equipment operations over 

snow and/or frozen soil conditions in these areas surrounding the aspen should provide 

adequate soil protection, as well as meet operational needs. 

Any prescribed broadcast burning would not directly or indirectly cause soil compaction 

because burning is conducted under controlled conditions which minimize the fire intensity, 

and thus the consumption of organic layers and level of soil heating. 

Cumulative Effects for Soil Compaction 

Any soil compaction that may occur related to implementation of the Pactola Project is 

expected to be localized and well below levels that would be considered detrimental. This 

expectation also applies to other forest management activities and uses. Design Criteria and 

appropriate WCP/BMP measures apply to all forest management activities and uses. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 68

Therefore, the risk of cumulative detrimental soil compaction is mitigated for all forest 

management activities. 

Grazing management throughout the project area is not expected to cause detrimental levels of 

soil compaction due to where livestock naturally tend to roam and the presence of rock fragments 

in most of the soils within the project area. Compaction from grazing is generally more prevalent 

in wet soils associated with wetlands and riparian areas (refer to the Wetlands, Riparian Areas, 

and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems section for more discussion). Dispersed recreation 

activities also do not tend to cause detrimental soil compaction due to the lack of concentrated use 

for this type of recreation. Concentrated recreation sites are purposely located in flatter terrain 

and therefore avoid steep slopes as well. Mining activities can cause compaction if ground-based 

equipment is used, but Design Criteria apply to these activities as well to mitigate this risk. 

Soil Heating and Damage by Fire 

Damage to soils caused by burning is often discussed in terms of “severely burned” soils. The 

National Soil Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18) defines “severely burned” soil as: “...a 

condition where most woody debris and the entire forest floor is consumed down to bare mineral 

soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat. Also, fine roots and organic matter are 

charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil.” In general, for a soil to be considered severely 

burned the heat needs to be so intense and the residence time of the fire long enough such that the 

soil structure and color may be visibly changed. A circumstance where this is most likely to 

occur is under a burning slash pile, where the fire sits on the top of the soil for a sufficient time to 

literally cook the soil. In the case of a wind driven wildfire, the heat and residence time of the 

fire, though enough to severely burn the vegetation and perhaps the litter and duff layers, are not 

likely to cook the soil to the extent where soil structure and color are visibly changed over broad 

areas. There may be small isolated locations in the burned area where the fire persisted long 

enough to severely burn the soil, such as around stump holes or downed logs. 

Severely burned soils are considered to have experienced physical, chemical, and biological 

changes resulting from high-intensity burns of long duration. Areas classified as high soil burn 

severity according to Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) techniques (USDA Forest 

Service 1995, Parsons et al. 2010) are considered a detrimental disturbance (USDA Forest 

Service 1992) Areas of high soil burn severity retain very little, if any, duff and litter due to the 

complete consumption of the forest floor during a wildfire event. Soils often exhibit some 

level of water repellency caused by the intense heating of wildfires. Therefore, these sites are 

more susceptible to soil erosion and compaction because they no longer have the protection of

the litter and duff layer to absorb water and reduce runoff, or to support equipment pressure

(Neary et al. 2005). 

Frequent fires are a natural disturbance process and ponderosa pine and grasslands have 

developed over time in response to these processes. However, most of the project area has not 

experienced fire for nearly 70 years. The south-western portion of the Pactola Project Area 

overlaps part of the area burned by the 1939 McVey Fire. A map of past wildfires is included 

in the project file. Soils in this area have a relatively low degree of natural water repellency 

prior to fire disturbance, based on the loamy soil textures. Current fire research points to the 

fact that soils tend to begin the recovery process within three to five years following wildfires 

as vegetation is established (Neary et al. 2005). This is the only large fire recorded in the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 69

project area and since it has had over 70 years to recover, no severely soils currently exist 

within the project area and any fire-induced water repellency has long-since dissipated with the 

annual freeze-thaw cycles. 

The NRCS has developed management interpretations which indicate the potential for damage 

to soil nutrients, as well as physical and biotic characteristics caused by fire. All soils within 

the Pactola Project Area are rated low for potential for damage by fire with the exception of the 

organic (peat) soils in the Jim Creek valley along Rochford Road (NFSR 237), which are rated 

moderate. A map of the potential for fire damage to soils is included in the project file. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Heating and Damage by Fire 

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus has no direct effect on severely 

burned soils resulting from past wildfires, nor would this alternative directly create conditions 

where adverse soil heating and associated effects would occur. 

However, this alternative has the greatest potential for resulting in severely burned soils as a 

result of a wildfire because the biomass and fuels would not be treated and are expected to 

continue to accumulate. Ponderosa pine trees killed by the continued expansion of MPB 

infestations would fall, accumulating on the forest floor, thereby increasing the existing levels 

of dead and downed wood. High levels of downed wood is associated with longer fire 

residence times and high temperatures should a wildfire occur. Large accumulations of dead 

material on the forest floor supports more intense (hotter) and longer duration fires, which can 

substantially heat the soil profile and alter physical, chemical, biological, and hydrologic 

functions (Neary et al. 2005). This in turn can result in moderate to high soil burn severity

conditions, which is indicated by more exposed mineral soil and changes to physical, chemical, 

biological, and/or hydrological soil properties. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Heating and Damage by Fire 

Proposed prescribed burning associated with Alternative B and C is not expected to result in 

severely burned soils within proposed activity areas. Both action alternatives have more 

potential to directly impact soils through soil heating than Alterative A because of the proposed 

prescribed fire. However, prescribed broadcast-burn prescriptions are designed to provide only 

the fire intensity needed to achieve vegetation and fuel management objectives. Design 

Criteria based on research conducted by Busse (2006) for optimum soil and duff/litter moisture 

is included for both action alternatives to minimize fire damage to soils, and thus minimize 

severely burned soils. Soil heating and associated effects to physical, chemical, biological, and 

hydrologic soil functions are expected to be minimal because fire intensities are expected to be 

primarily low to moderate. Both the degree and extent of soil heating resulting from 

prescribed burning are expected to be much less than that associated with wildfire burn 

intensities. While uncertainties exist on timeframes for the Black Hills, research conducted 

throughout the western United States on fires varying in size, intensity, vegetation, and climate, 

has shown that soil conditions tend to recover three to five years post-fire (Neary et al. 2005). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 70

Cumulative Effects for Soil Heating and Damage by Fire 

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix C of the Pactola EIS were 

considered for cumulative effects to soils from fire. No negative cumulative effects to soils are 

anticipated to occur with the implementation of any of the project alternatives because no 

activity units associated with either action alternative are currently located on severely burned 

soil, resulting from past wildfires or prescribed broadcast-burning. Additionally, none of the 

activities proposed by the Pactola Project or those listed in Appendix C would result in 

severely burned soils. 

Organic Soils 

Organic soils are also present within the Pactola Project Area. These soils are located within 

the Jim Creek valley, along the Rochford Road (NFSR 237) on the northern boundary of the 

project and at fen locations (refer to the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems for a discussion 

on fens). These soils have been specifically mapped by the NRCS during the Lawrence 

County Soil Survey update. Organic soils, known as histosols, are defined as an accumulation 

of un-decomposed and partially decomposed plant material. Organic soils differ from mineral 

soils with organic layers due to the type of parent material that forms the soil. Mineral soils 

develop overtime as parent rock is weathered, off-site material is deposited, and water moves 

through the soil profile. Overtime, organic matter accumulates in the upper portions of the 

mineral soil profile, but it is altered by decomposition such that the original source of the 

organic material cannot be identified. In organic soils, the decomposition of plant materials is 

slowed due to anaerobic conditions associated with wetlands. Saturated conditions result from 

extended periods of standing water and/or poorly drained soils, limiting the amount of oxygen 

present to aid the decomposition process. Organic soils are further classified as types of peat, 

mucky peat, or muck depending on the plant life present and the degree of decay of the

material (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, Evans and Warburton 2007). The origin and type of 

organic material can often be easily identified – for example peat formed from sedges or peat 

formed from mosses, also known as “peat moss.” 

Organic soils are extremely fragile and difficult to rehabilitate or restore following disturbances. 

These soils are highly susceptible to compaction and deep rutting because they have no or very 

little mineral soil and rock fragments to provide structural support. They are also more 

susceptible to erosion by water flows if a disturbance reduces stabilizing surface vegetation or 

channelizes water through these areas. In these events, large chunks of organic peat are washed 

from the site. Hungerford et al. (1992) found that organic soils can be extremely combustible 

despite the presence of water, igniting with moisture levels as high as 90%. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Organic Soils 

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus has no direct or indirect effects 

on organic soils. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 71

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Organic Soils 

No direct or indirect effects to organic soils are expected to result from the implementation of 

either action alternative. The organic soils present in the Jim Creek valley along the Rochford 

Road (NFSR 237) are associated with fen and wetland sites. Much of this valley is privately 

owned lands. For organic soils on Federal lands, project Design Criteria and WCPs require 

buffers around these areas, and thus restrict ground-based operations within these buffers. All 

organic soils will also be protected from damage by prescribed fire through the inclusion of 

project Design Criteria (see Appendix B). These measures do not allow prescribed burning 

within the buffers associated with fens or other areas with organic soils in order to protect these 

highly-combustible soils from burning. 

Cumulative Effects for Organic Soils 

Even though there are no effects to organic soils associated with any of the alternatives under 

the Pactola Project due to the lack of proposed activities and/or exclusion of ground-disturbing 

activities in these areas, there would continue to be cumulative impacts to these delicate areas 

from livestock concentration in these areas. These grazing-related impacts are outside the 

scope and authority of the Pactola Project, but can be addressed through adjustments in grazing 

management. Impacts to organic soils would continue until livestock are excluded from these 

areas. Additional cumulative impacts to these soils may also occur from activities occurring on 

adjacent non-federal lands that would cause negative effects to migrate upstream and 

downstream through organic soils on federally managed lands. These impacts could be 

addressed through watershed partnerships with adjacent landowners. 

Soil Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling 

None of the soils within the Pactola Project Area are limited by topsoil organic matter (less 

than 2% per BHNF Forest Plan, Standard 1102). Therefore, this Standard does not apply and 

no special design measures are required for management activities occurring in the Pactola 

Project Area. 

Forest ecosystems have evolved with a continual flux of both fine and coarse woody debris 

(CWD). Fine woody debris or “fines” consist of leaves, needles, branches, and limbs less 

than three inches in diameter. Fines can be especially important in soils with limited organic 

matter present in the topsoil because they decompose faster than CWD to create soil organic 

matter. Fines also provide surface stability and protection of raindrop splash and erosion. 

Coarse woody debris, the larger component of forest nutrient cycling, is defined as woody 

material greater than three inches in diameter, excluding stumps, and is derived from tree limbs, 

boles, and roots in various stages of decay (Graham et al. 1994). CWD performs many physical, 

chemical, and biological functions in forest ecosystems. Physically, it protects the forest floor 

and mineral soil from erosion and mechanical disturbances. CWD disrupts airflow and provides 

shade, which insulates and protects new forest growth. In moist forest types, it can be a seedbed 

and nursery area for new conifer seedlings. CWD also has significant water holding capacity, 

making it an important source of moisture for vegetation during dry periods. This decaying 

woody debris provides nutrients, especially sulfur, phosphorous, and nitrogen, necessary for new 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 72

plant growth. CWD also hosts ectomycorrhizae, micro-organisms which play an important role 

in the uptake of nutrients and water by woody plants (Graham et al. 1994). 

Too much CWD can also be a problem. An overabundance of CWD can result in an 

overloading of organics above the soil surface, causing migration of biological decomposition 

processes from within the upper soil horizons to the litter and CWD layer. If decomposition 

rates are substantially higher above the soil surface than within the upper soil horizons, critical 

nutrients can be volatilized to the atmosphere, reducing soil productivity. An overabundance 

of CWD also poses a greater risk of severely burned areas resulting from fire. 

Graham (1994) recommends 7-13 tons/acre of CWD for ponderosa pine-fescue stands. 

Recommendations for CWD in spruce stands have yet to be examined. However, Forest Plan 

Objective 212 prescribes 5-10 tons/acre of CWD for conifer stands, providing there is not a 

conflict with fire or pest management objectives (USDA Forest Service 2006). A range of 

diameters, lengths, and decay states is preferred. Distribution of CWD throughout a treated 

area is also more desirable than isolated concentrations. 

CWD levels were estimated using the “Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the 

Black Hills” for Ponderosa Pine and Spruce Types (USDA Forest Service 1982). Current 

CWD levels of sites surveyed during field investigations, appear to meet or exceed the 

minimum recommended levels. Areas impacted by mountain pine beetle greatly exceed 

recommended CWD levels currently and would continue to accumulate as dead trees fall to 

the ground. The excess CWD poses a higher risk of severely burned soils and associated 

effects should a ground fire sweep through this area. Areas that have continuous grass cover 

in addition to dead and downed trees pose an even greater risk of soil damage resulting from 

sustained burning associated with a ground fire. Refer to the Fire and Fuels section for more 

discussion on fire hazard as it relates to current fuel load conditions. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling 

Alternative A does not have any proposed activities, and thus has no direct effect on soil 

organic matter or nutrient cycling. However, the potential for more severe fire effects to 

soils is generally highest with this alternative, which can directly affect the amount of 

organic material and nutrient cycling in an area. 

Fire can alter nutrient availability and cycling processes dramatically, depending on the 

severity of the fire. Whether nutrient concentrations increase, decrease, or remain the same 

is highly dependent on fire behavior, severity, nutrient response to fire, post-fire recovery and 

erosion processes, and even post-fire management activities. Fire volatilizes nutrients 

present in both vegetation and soil organic matter. Although some volatized nutrients are 

lost during the fire, through gases and particulates carried by smoke, other nutrients are 

mobilized and made more readily available. For example, fire acts as a rapid mobilizing 

agent that instantaneously releases phosphorus bound in organic matter, as compared to the

much slower, natural decomposition processes (DeBano et al. 1998). Nutrients can be redeposited or remain on site in ash on the soil surface. These highly available nutrients can 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 73

then be leached out of the ash and into the soil. In contrast, these same highly available

forms can be transformed from organic to inorganic compounds during combustion or when 

immobilized by other chemical compounds. Additionally, nutrients present in ash can be lost 

from the system through wind and water erosion. In contrast, some nutrients would remain 

available in partially combusted and unburned vegetation and soil organic matter. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling 

Long term soil productivity associated with organic matter and nutrient cycling is not expected 

to be negatively affected directly or indirectly by management activities proposed under either 

action alternative, but rather to trend towards a net improvement following project 

implementation. Proposed thinning and fuel treatment activities associated with both action 

alternatives have been designed to reduce hazardous fuel levels, while maintaining desired 

CWD levels necessary for both short and long-term nutrient recycling. Current CWD levels 

greatly exceed desired levels suggested by Graham (1994) and the Black Hills National Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Both action alternatives also propose prescribed broadcast-burning. Overall, prescribed 

burning associated with both action alternatives is not expected to detrimentally affect soil 

productivity within the activity areas. The proposed prescribed burning is designed to result in 

low-to-moderate fire intensity. This fire intensity is expected to result in light-to-moderate soil 

heating, and therefore is not expected to reach the temperatures necessary to cause large 

nutrient losses through volatilization. Nutrients locked up in the surface duff layer would be 

expected to be released into the soil and likely become available for uptake by regenerating 

vegetation. An increase in short-term nutrient availability may occur and contribute to 

maintaining long-term soil productivity. Some portion of the mobilized nutrients may be lost 

through leaching, but most nutrients would remain in the soil profile or utilized by vegetation. 

No change in soil structure or infiltration is expected. Temperatures are not expected to reach 

those necessary to alter physical characteristics of the soil. 

Cumulative Effects for Soil Organic Matter and Nutrient Cycling 

No negative cumulative impacts to soil organic matter or nutrient recycling are anticipated for 

any of the project alternatives. Rather a net benefit is expected due to the combined efforts to 

treat the expanding MPB epidemic and reduce levels of CWD across the project area. These 

activities would move current CWD levels towards more natural and desired levels. 

Soil Productivity and Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of vegetation. The 

most productive part of the soil occurs near the surface, at the contact between the forest 

litter and the mineral soil. Here the litter has been decomposed into an organic rich layer 

containing most of the soil nitrogen, potassium, and mycorrhizae that must be present for a 

site to be productive. However, this is also the part of the soil that is easiest to disturb by 

management activities. Soil quality refers to the capacity of a soil to function within 

ecosystem and land use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain 

environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health (Doran and Parkin 1994). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 74

According to FSH 2509.25, “Soil quality depends on soil structure, organic matter, nutrient

pools, and biotic processes; soil quality is impaired when these qualities are markedly 

degraded for a period of years; severe disturbances can impair soil quality by heating, 

displacing, compacting, or eroding the soil” (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Various factors 

influence soil quality. Although management activities do not affect factors, such as 

climate and soil parent material, they can affect physical, chemical, biologic, and 

hydrologic soil properties. Soil erosion, soil compaction, nutrient removal, soil heating, 

and regeneration hazards can limit the long-term productivity of forested sites. 

Detrimental Soil Disturbance is defined by FSH 2509.18 as the condition where established 

thresholds for soil properties are exceeded and result in a significant change in overall 

productivity of the land due to impairment to long-term soil functions. The Region 2 

supplement to FSH 2509.18 provides thresholds for soil properties as well as criteria for 

determining detrimental soil disturbance for each property. Detrimental soil disturbance 

can result from management activities including road construction, timber harvest, 

mechanical fuels treatment, prescribed burning, grazing, and fire suppression, as well as 

natural causes, such as mass movement or wildfire. Detrimental soil disturbance includes 

compaction, rutting (in wet soils), displacement, severely burned soil, and erosion, 

including mass movement (USDA Forest Service 1992, USDA Forest Service 2006c). Soil 

quality is maintained when erosion, compaction, displacement, rutting, burning, and loss of

organic matter are maintained within defined soil quality standards. Thresholds and 

definitions for detrimental disturbance related to each of these categories can be found in 

the Region 2 supplement to FSH 2509.18 – Soils Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1992). 

The NRCS (2009) provides management interpretations based on soil properties pertaining 

to the overall susceptibility to soil degradation, as well as the recovery potential following 

disturbances. The resistance to degradation of a rangeland or woodland site is a measure of 

its ability to function without change throughout a disturbance (USDA NRCS 2009). 

Resistance to degradation can also be described as an area's buffering capacity. This 

depends upon soil type, vegetation, climate, land use, disturbance regime, temporal and 

spatial scales (USDA NRCS 2009). Soils within the Pactola Project Area are 

predominantly rated as “slightly susceptible to degradation”, with the exception of three 

isolated areas on slopes surrounding Pactola Reservoir which are rated moderately 

susceptible; areas of rock outcrop for which this rating does not apply; and the organic soils 

associated with the Jim Creek valley along the Rochford Road (NFSR 237) which are rated 

as highly susceptible to degradation if disturbed. For the remainder of the Pactola Project, 

the area is either rock outcrop or soils that are fairly resistant to degradation. A map 

depicting the potential for soil degradation is included in the project file. 

Even though some soils are rated with a moderate potential for site degradation based on 

inherent soil properties, all soils within the Pactola Project Area are rated as having a 

“high Potential for favorable soil recovery” should unforeseen degradation occur. Soil 

restoration potential is a rating based on the inherent ability of a soil to recover from 

degradation, which is often referred to as soil resilience (USDA NRCS 2009). Soil 

resilience is dependent upon adequate stores of organic matter, good soil structure, low 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 75

salt and sodium levels, adequate nutrient levels, microbial biomass and diversity, 

adequate precipitation for recovery, and other soil properties (USDA NRCS 2009). 

No previously disturbed sites within the Pactola Project Area were found to be degraded and 

existing soil conditions indicate overall soil health, productivity, and function. Results from 

WCP/BMP monitoring of previously logged areas associated with the Bullock Timber Sale 

within the project area (see Appendix C) also indicate that although there are some residual 

impacts from past logging activities, site degradation is not present in these areas (Thomas 

2008). Existing soil disturbances include soil mixing and heating in burned pile locations; 

compression tracks associated with skid trails; and some compaction in highly-traveled areas 

such as skid trails and landing areas. Displacement and mixing of soil layers is limited to 

landing areas that have been scarified following burning, livestock concentration areas, and 

connected disturbed areas. These were generally associated with more recent management 

activities, while sites with management that occurred some time ago exhibited few if any 

residual impacts. Over 90% effective ground cover was observed throughout the area, with the 

exception of recovering log landings; areas where livestock tend to concentrate; and areas 

where thin soils overlay rock outcrops. Overall soil disturbance is well below the 15% 

detrimental disturbance threshold. 

A summary of the acres of potentially ground disturbing activities taking place on sensitive 

soils is presented for each alternative in Table 3-2 below. The term “sensitive soil” as used in 

this analysis includes soils with mass movement potential and slopes exceeding 40%; high 

erosion potential; elevated compaction potential; severely burned soils; soils with low levels of 

topsoil organic matter; meadow soils; and organic (peat) soils. These areas represent soils that 

are more prone to detrimental disturbance as defined in the Region 2 supplement to FSH 

2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook. However this does not mean that detrimental soil 

disturbance would result from project activities on these soils. It is provided as a means of 

comparing Alternatives and evaluating the risk to soil resources associated with each. Design 

Criteria has been included to minimize overall soil disturbance, as well as any detrimental soil 

disturbance, as part of the project proposal, regardless of which alternative is chosen. Design 

Criteria includes applicable measures from both Forest Service WCPs (USDA Forest Service 

2006) and SD State Forestry BMPs (SDSU et al. 2003). For both action alternatives, noncommercial thinning could be accomplished with mechanized equipment or manual labor. If 

manual labor is used, the acres of harvest activities on sensitive soils shown in the table, 

particularly soils susceptible to compaction, would decrease. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 76

Table 3-2 Proposed Activity Acres on Sensitive Soils for each Alternative 

Soil Characteristic Alternative A 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Silviculture 

(Acres) 

Burning 

(Acres) 

Silviculture

(Acres) 

Burning 

(Acres) 

Mass movement risk and 

slope exceeding 40% 0 1,200 560 2,100 560 

Elevated Erosion risk 0 5,100 2,250 7,400 2,250 

Elevated Compaction risk 0 7,600 N/A 9,000 N/A 

Severely burned soils 0 0 0 0 0 

Low topsoil organic matter 

with Shelterwood Harvest 

System 

0 0 0 0 0 

Meadow Soils 0 445 90 545 90 

Organic Soils (Peat) 0 0 0 0 0 

A summary of the road related activities that would take place on soils with mass 

movement potential and slopes exceeding 40%; high erosion potential; meadow soils; 

and organic (peat) soils is also presented for each alternative in Table 3-3. Design 

Criteria pertaining to roads are also included for both action alternatives to minimize 

impacts to the soil resource (see Appendix B). 

Table 3-3 Miles of New Construction (New), Temporary Road Construction (Temp), and 

Reconstruction and Maintenance (Recon/Mntc) affecting various soil properties for each Alternative 

Soil Characteristic Alternative A 

(miles) 

Alternative B 

(miles) 

Alternative C 

(miles) 

Mass movement risk and 

slope exceeding 40% 0 

New = < 0.1 mile 

Temp = 0.3 mile 

Recon/Mntc = 4 miles 

New = 4 miles 

Temp = 0.3 mile 

Recon/Mntc = 4 miles 

Elevated Erosion risk 0 

New = 3 miles 

Temp = 13 miles 

Recon/Mntc = 97 miles 

New = 19 miles 

Temp = 13 miles 

Recon/Mntc = 100 miles 

Meadow soils 0 

New = < 0.1 mile 

Temp = 0.5 mile 

Recon/Mntc = 7 miles 

New = < 0.1 mile 

Temp = 0.5 mile 

Recon/Mntc = 7 miles 

Organic Soils (Peat) 0 0 0 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Productivity and Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

Alternative A does not propose any management activities. Therefore, there would be no 

direct detrimental soil disturbance of any type associated with the implementation alternative. 

No new roads would be built under this alternative. Thus, no additional acreage would be 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 77

removed from the productive soil/timber base. However, unneeded and user-created trails 

would also remain on the landscape, thus preventing these areas from being part of the 

productive soil base. The risk of experiencing severe wildfire effects is expected to be 

greatest with this alternative for the reasons discussed previously. Therefore, Alternative A 

may indirectly lead to detrimental soil disturbance in the short term. 

However, long term soil productivity is expected to be maintained for two reasons. First, fire 

effects research conducted by Neary et al. (2005) has shown that forest soil conditions 

typically recover within three to five years following wildfire. While uncertainties exist on 

the actual timeframes for Black Hills soils, it is reasonable to expect that timeframes would 

be similar based on the cross-section of forest ecosystems studied. Secondly, the ponderosa 

pine ecosystem of the Black Hills region historically evolved under more frequent fires of 

varying intensities. The soils have continued to maintain support of vegetative communities 

to the present time, and can be expected to continue to do so despite exposure to wildfires. 

Cumulative Effects for Soil Productivity and Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

Soil disturbance associated with livestock grazing, OHV activity, recreation, mining, and other 

forest activities authorized under other planning documents or authorities in the project area (see 

Appendix C) also have the potential to disturb soils. However, Design Criteria and WCP/BMP 

measures also apply to these other activities, and thus minimize their impacts to soils as well. 

Monitoring of soil disturbance has also been included as part of the project proposal and would 

take place regardless of which action alternative is chosen (see Appendix B). If the Alternative 

A is chosen, soil monitoring would take place at the Forest level and soils within the Pactola 

project area may or may not be randomly chosen as part of this sampling. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Soil Productivity and Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

Management activities associated with both action alternatives are not expected to result in 

detrimental soil disturbance that would exceed the 15% threshold defined in the Region 2 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (2509.25) and the Region 2 Soil Management 

Handbook (FSH 2509.18). 

 

Much of the project area has had ground based logging activity in the past, so existing 

landing locations, roads, and trails would be utilized as much as possible, thereby minimizing 

the need for disturbed new areas. Potential timber sale purchasers would have the option to 

use tractor or forwarder operations, except where designated otherwise. Whole tree yarding 

with tractors has the potential for more ground disturbance of the two methods. If a cut-tolength system is used, soil disturbance is generally minimized due to equipment operating on 

slash, and since organic matter is left on site, nutrient cycling is ensured and large, burned 

landings are avoided. Non-commercial thinning and post-and-pole treatments would be 

accomplished with either mechanized equipment, manual labor, or a combination of both. 

Generally, if manual labor is used, less mechanized logging equipment is needed, and thus 

less overall ground disturbance can be expected. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 78

Both action alternatives propose thinning, fuels treatments, and prescribed burning 

activities that have the potential to directly and indirectly disturb soils and disrupt soil 

productivity. However, through careful design of project activities and adherence to 

project Design Criteria (which include WCPs and BMPs), the actual likelihood of

directly or indirectly disturbing soils to the extent that detrimental disturbance is caused 

and soil productivity is affected is low. 

To minimize or eliminate potential negative effects from harvest activities and prescribed 

burning on sensitive soils, Design Criteria include one or more of the following measures: 

use of designated skid trails; winter harvest; partial or full suspension (e.g., forwarder) 

yarding; equipment exclusion; suspension cable yarding; processing at the stump; and/or 

higher coarse woody debris requirements. These Design Criteria are expected to minimize 

soil disturbance and maintain site productivity in and around those sensitive areas, and to 

meet the 15% standard for detrimental soil disturbance. Therefore, no short or long term 

effects to overall soil productivity are expected with either action alternative. Furthermore, 

this project would comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 1101, 1102, 1103, 

1104, 1105, 1106, 1108, 1109, 1110, and 1111 pertaining to protection of soil resources 

and overall soil productivity (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Cable roads in Alternative C pose a high risk of exceeding detrimental soil disturbance 

thresholds should the right environmental conditions occur (e.g., saturated soil conditions, 

excess precipitation, etc.) as described previously. The longer the cable roads remained on 

the landscape, the higher the probability of failure and the higher the probability of impacts 

to soil resources. Depending on the severity and size of the slope failure, impacts would be 

localized and short term or chronic and long-lasting. However, if such an event occurred, 

immediate actions would be implemented to stabilize failures and trend toward returning 

detrimental disturbance levels back below the 15% threshold. 

Cumulative Effects for Soil Productivity and Detrimental Soil Disturbance 

Cumulative detrimental soil disturbance related to the Federal actions under both action 

alternatives is expected to remain well below the 15% detrimental disturbance threshold 

due to the inclusion of project Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs, which apply regardless of 

which alternative is chosen (see Appendix B). Design Criteria were developed specifically 

for the Pactola Project to minimize potential cumulative, negative effects from vegetation 

management, prescribed broadcast-burning, and road related activities occurring on 

sensitive soils. Design Criteria may include one or more of the following measures: use of 

designated skid trails; winter harvest; partial or full suspension (e.g., forwarder) yarding; 

equipment exclusion; suspension cable yarding; processing at the stump; and other proven 

measures. These Design Criteria are expected to minimize soil disturbance in general, 

prevent detrimental disturbance, and maintain long term soil productivity. 

Soil disturbance associated with livestock grazing, wildlife high-use areas, OHV activity, 

recreation, mining, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents or 

authorities in the project area (see Appendix C) all have the potential to disturb soils. 

However, Design Criteria and WCP/BMP measures also apply to these other activities, and 

thus minimize their impacts to soils as well. Both action alternatives would have areas that 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 79

overlap these other activities, and thus would have a greater potential for additive soil 

disturbance. However, strict adherence to WCP/BMP measures, including proper 

implementation and maintenance of runoff and erosion control structures would ensure 

compliance with this soil standard. Therefore, long term soil productivity in the project 

area is expected to be maintained or improved. 

Monitoring of soil disturbance has also been included as part of the project proposal and 

would take place regardless of which alternative is chosen (see Appendix B). If the 

Alternative A is chosen, soil monitoring would take place at the Forest level and soils within 

the Pactola Project Area may or may not be randomly chosen as part of this sampling. 

If monitoring identifies detrimental soil disturbance levels have exceeded 15%, rehabilitation 

actions would be taken to improve soil conditions with a net improvement in soil quality, as

directed in the Region 2 Supplement to FSM 2550. Such rehabilitation actions may include, 

but are not limited to: scarifying skid trails and/or landings to de-compact soils, adding slash 

to inhibit and slow runoff, and seeding and fertilizing the site to aid in establishment of 

vegetation. According to research conducted by Luce and Black (1997), it is reasonable to 

expect that skid trail rehabilitation treatments would decrease soil compaction and improve 

water infiltration. Trail rehabilitation activities would meet R2 soil quality standards by 

trending toward a net soil improvement, and would further protect soils within the project

area through the elimination of potential OHV access and travel routes. Overall, soil 

conditions after project implementation and trail rehabilitation are expected to remain below 

the 15% detrimental disturbance threshold. 

Water Resources 

Water Resources Analysis Area and Time Period 

Since the project area does not coincide exactly with watershed boundaries, the water resources 

analysis area differs from the project area boundary, as well as the boundary created by the 

four watersheds that contain portions of the project area as shown in Appendix E, Map 2. The 

watershed analysis area encompasses the entire Pactola Reservoir-Rapid Creek 6th-level 

watershed, the upper 7th-level sub-watersheds within the Jim Creek-Box Elder Creek and 

Victoria Creek-Rapid Creek watersheds, and the entire contributing drainage area of the Silver 

Creek-Rapid Creek 6th-level watershed (see Table 3-4). 

This analysis area was used in determining direct and indirect effects to larger streams and 

river systems, such as Rapid Creek, that flow through a project area yet have multiple segments 

outside a project area – both upstream and downstream. This is done because watershed 

conditions upstream and downstream of a project area can cause adjustments to larger streams 

and rivers that propagate throughout the stream network - both upstream and downstream. 

Isolated water resources that are not interconnected are analyzed within the project boundary. 

These typically include springs, wetlands, and ponds. 

A second, smaller scale was used to evaluate direct and indirect effects at the 8th level 

watershed scale. This scale was chosen in order to assess points adjacent to and directly 

downstream from contributing activities because any impacts that may occur can be readily 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 80

observed and quantified and linked to activities associated with the project. Effects that are 

observable at this scale are referred to as localized in their extent. 

A subset of the Upper Rapid Creek watershed was selected for the cumulative effects analysis 

area because activities are proposed within portions of each watershed; only a small portion of 

the Jim Creek and Victoria Creek watersheds include project activities; the majority of 

proposed project activities would take a place in the Silver Creek and Pactola Reservoir 

watersheds which all drain to Pactola Reservoir; Pactola Reservoir serves as a “storage and 

assimilation” point for any upstream effects that may occurs; downstream of which, any effects 

in the upper watershed should not be detectable; any resource impacts occurring in the upper 

headwaters of the Castle Creek watershed, which is tributary to Rapid Creek upstream of the 

project area, would be absorbed by Deerfield Reservoir; and beyond this level, it is difficult to 

link any cumulative impacts to water resources to activities associated with the Pactola Project. 

Effects to water resources were analyzed for the same time period as geologic, hydrogeologic, 

and soil resources for the same reasons stated previously. Effects to water resources are also 

summarized in the context of short term effects (five years or less) as well as long term effects 

(longer than five years). 

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix C of the Pactola EIS were 

considered for cumulative effects to water resources. Effects from known past actions were 

included in the analysis of existing resource conditions. Generally, this includes activities that 

have occurred since the 1874 Custer Expedition to the Black Hills region. Proposed activities 

associated with each alternative were considered in the Analysis of Direct and Indirect Effects 

section. Past and present land use and activities within the analysis watersheds, which 

encompasses both the soil analysis area and Pactola Project boundary, include timber harvest, 

wild and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, private land ownership, roads and off road vehicles, 

mines and quarries, various types of recreation, and forest product gathering. All of these 

activities or events individually have some level of impact on the watershed, which results in 

cumulative effects to watershed and water resources conditions and processes.

Watersheds 

A watershed is defined as an area of land where all of the water that drains from it goes into a 

common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, groundwater aquifer, or even the 

ocean (US EPA 2009, US EPA 2011a). The water moves through a network of drainage 

pathways, both underground and on the land surface. Watershed boundaries are also known 

as drainage divides, the boundary between one drainage area and another (USGS 1995). 

The Pactola Project Area is located within four 6th-level watersheds within the Rapid 

Creek watershed (Table 3-4 and Appendix E, Map 2). All four watersheds are within the 

Cheyenne River Basin. Watershed boundaries and HUC codes were obtained from the 

National Hydrography Dataset developed and maintained by the USDA Service Center and 

USGS (USGS 2008). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 81

Table 3-4 6th Level Watersheds (HUC12) within the Pactola Watershed Analysis Area 

6th Level 

(HUC 12) 

Watershed 

6th Level (HUC 12) 

Watershed Name 

Total 

Watershed 

Acres 

Acres of 

Watershed 

in Project 

Percent of 

Watershed 

in Project 

101201100110 Silver Creek - Rapid Creek 22,348 1,957 9% 

101201100201 Pactola Reservoir - Rapid Creek 21,324 21,161 99% 

101201100202 Victoria Creek - Rapid Creek 30,805 1,370 4% 

101201110305 Jim Creek – Box Elder Creek 17,687 1,491 8% 

“A healthy watershed operates in dynamic equilibrium. Soil and water quality, flow regimes, 

and aquatic and riparian habitats vary within a certain range of conditions. Large natural 

disturbance events shift a watershed out of equilibrium. Recovery then begins. Poor land 

management practices can also shift a watershed out of equilibrium. Laws and common sense 

direct us to maintain equilibrium conditions between large natural disturbance events, avoid 

actions that may shift a watershed out of equilibrium or worsen major events, and assist 

watershed recovery. The natural resilience of the system must be conserved in order to sustain 

ecosystem health. Some disturbance can occur and still sustain watershed health. If runoff and 

sediment regimes, soil and channel conditions, water quality, and aquatic and riparian habitats 

are maintained between large natural disturbance events, watershed health is conserved” 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c). 

Water Rights 

Management activities would not alter the status of water rights claims or uses, directly or 

indirectly. Thus, water rights will not be analyzed further in this document. Potential impacts 

to water quantity and quality are discussed for each alternative and considered in cumulative 

watershed effects within the respectively titled sections. 

Annual Water Yield 

Forested landscapes intercept rain and snow, evapo-transpiring the moisture back to the 

atmosphere. As a result, forests can lower the quantity of water that reaches the ground surface 

to then trickle through soil and groundwater systems, and eventually emerge in streams. 

However, forests also help conserve moisture by providing shade and cooler temperatures 

which provide for less overall evaporation. The transpiration of moisture back to the 

atmosphere contributes to rain and snow development in the area. Thus, the annual water yield 

depends upon the density or coverage of the forest, the type of forest vegetation, as well as 

many other factors including climate, weather patterns, geology, slope, soils, stream channel 

conditions, and riparian area conditions. 

Water yield is a concern for communities in and around the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 

1996). The water provided by streams that flow from the Black Hills is an important resource 

utilized for drinking water supplies, irrigation, stock watering, fisheries, and recreation in the 

surrounding area. The influence of forested landscapes on water yield has been investigated in 

the Black Hills in several studies (Anderson 1980; Orr 1968, 1972, and 1975; Orr and 

VanderHeide 1973; Smith 1983). In general, water discharge increases after timber harvest or 

wildfire due to the decreased interception by the vegetation and a decrease in the

evapotranspiration rate (Gary 1975, Leaf 1975, Shepperd et al. 1992). Anderson (1980) 

reported an average increase in the annual water yield of 2.24 inches (5.7 cm) after 25% of the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 82

timber volume was cut. However, as regeneration occurs after timber harvest or wildfire, 

water yield declines. The rate of this decline, or recovery, depends on habitat type and the rate 

and density of vegetative growth. 

Since the creation of the Black Hills National Forest and implementation of fire suppression in 

the early 1900s, annual water yields throughout the Black Hills region have decreased, 

primarily due to aggressive fire suppression tactics that have encouraged the growth and 

expansion of dense forest stands (Parrish et al. 1996, Grafe and Horsted 2002, Horsted 2006). 

As forests become denser, more precipitation (both rain and snow) is intercepted or trapped in 

the canopy; evapo-transpiration of precipitation is increased. Water budget calculations 

performed by the USGS for the Black Hills Hydrology Study (BHHS) concluded that 92% of 

the annual precipitation is evapo-transpired by these dense forest stands (Driscoll et al. 2002). 

The overall result is less water infiltrating through soils and deeper into groundwater aquifers, 

reduced water tables in wetlands, and reduced volume of base flow in springs and stream 

channels, as well as shorter durations of flow throughout summer months. When persistent 

drought conditions are added to the over-growth of woody biomass, some seeps and springs, as 

well as perennial and intermittent streams, may “dry up” completely due to the lack of enough 

base flow to saturate the alluvium and appear as surface water. Once precipitation returns to 

near normal for a period of years and recharges groundwater aquifers, seeps, springs, and 

stream channels sustain surface water for a longer period throughout the summer months. In 

fact, this has recently been observed in 2010 following four successive years of normal or 

above normal precipitation in the overall Black Hills Region. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Water Yield 

Alternative A reflects the existing watershed conditions. This alternative would not 

directly contribute to changes in water yield in the short term. Indirectly, the existing 

MPB infestation would continue to expand and kill forest stands. With less live, healthy 

trees to take up soil moisture and intercept and evapo-transpire precipitation, more water 

would be available for runoff and groundwater aquifer recharge in the short term. 

However, over the long-term the available water would decrease again as new trees 

establish themselves in these areas. Areas not affected by MPB currently would continue 

to increase in biomass and water consumption until a natural disturbance such as a 

wildfire or MPB outbreak occurs. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Water Yield 

Any silvicultural activity or natural disturbance that removes ponderosa pine trees from a forest 

has the potential to increase water yield. However, the growth of new seedlings and remaining 

trees would potentially offset this and decrease water yield. The overall increase or decrease in 

water yield depends on the amount of forest removed. Studies conducted on the Black Hills 

and in similar ecosystems in Colorado indicate that 25% to 30% of the growing stock in a 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 83

forested watershed must be removed before there is a measurable increase in water yield from 

that watershed (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). 

None of the proposed treatment methods, individually or combined, are expected to 

significantly affect water yields. Both action alternatives propose prescribed burning, which 

does not involve enough crown removal to have a measurable effect on water yield. However, 

the annual water yield may increase with the removal of trees associated with both action 

alternatives, especially in the Precambrian Crystalline geologies. Whether the increase in 

water yield is measurable depends on how much forest canopy is removed on a watershed 

basis, as well as when harvest occurs within the watershed over the life of the project. 

Cumulative Effects for Water Yield 

Livestock grazing, routine maintenance of trails, developed recreation facilities, and dispersed 

campsites, public use, and the operations of outfitters/guides would not involve activities 

which could remove trees to an extent that would affect annual water yield. These activities 

are generally dispersed across the landscape and the amount of vegetation removal, if any, as a 

result of these activities, is inconsequential in relation to the amount of yearly vegetative 

recovery within the analysis watersheds. Timber harvest and road construction activities are 

expected to continue to occur on private lands, but occur less often and scattered across the

landscape, such that water yield increases would not be discernable in comparison with harvest 

on the surrounding Federal lands. 

Under Alternative A, current water yield would likely persist until the mountain pine beetles 

kill enough trees across watersheds, or a wildfire occurs. Timber management activities 

associated with Alternative B and C would cumulatively make more soil moisture available 

throughout the watersheds especially in the Precambrian Crystalline geologies. This would 

cumulative provide slightly more annual water yield from the project watersheds which would 

supply Pactola Reservoir. 

Stream Flow Regime 

The Pactola Project Area contains approximately 33 miles of perennial streams, 43 miles of 

intermittent streams, and 28 miles of ephemeral streams (see Table 3-5). A map of streams and 

the field-determined flow regime is included in the project file. Due the highly dissected 

nature of the Black Hills, numerous ephemeral drainages are also present. These channels 

generally do not have a defined channel and are often swales, and carry water only in response 

to larger storm events or snowmelt. Ephemeral drainages and swales carry water in dispersed, 

shallow, sheet-like flows versus a concentrated streamflow path. Ephemeral drainages/swales 

are not specifically mapped. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 84

Table 3-5 Miles of Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Streams in the Pactola Project Area 

Stream Flow Regime Stream Miles 

Acres Associated 

with Protected 

Streams (WIZ) 

Perennial – defined channel and generally flows year-round. 33 miles 800 acres

Intermittent – defined channel but flows for only part of the 

year; includes loss zones where streamflow goes underground 

into aquifers. 

43 miles 1,040 acres 

Ephemeral – defined channel or flow path, but carries water 

only in response to larger storm events or snowmelt. 28 miles N/A 

Stream flow in the Black Hills is influenced by the amount and timing of precipitation. Snow 

thaw is common from the middle to the end of March. By the end of March, flows start to 

increase in the streams. In April, a sharp increase in flow is attributed to the combination of 

precipitation and melting of accumulated snow. Flows reach their maximum during May or 

June. Although precipitation is highest in June, streamflow does not increase proportionally 

due to the increased evapotranspiration of the forested stands. 

The drainages in the Pactola watershed analysis area are in a stream flow regime dominated by 

runoff resulting from both snowmelt and intense summer thunderstorms (Sando 1998). Runoff 

from rapid snowmelt or rain-on-snowmelt can occasionally occur in the late spring months. 

Peak flows result from both rainfall and snowmelt but no studies have been conducted to 

determine the proportion or relative magnitude of peak flows resulting from snowmelt (Sando 

1998). Peak stream flows resulting from rainfall runoff account for roughly 90% of the annual 

peaks observed in the Black Hills (Sando 1998). Peak flows generally occur during the months 

of April, May, or June, but can occur any month from March to September if significant 

thunderstorm activity occurs (Carter et al. 2002). Since these thunderstorms generally occur 

between May and September, flash floods can and do often occur during these months as well. 

In fact, two such events have been known to occur in the project area within the past twenty 

years. The most recent occurred in the spring of 2008 and the previous was in 1998 (USGS 

2011). Both flooding events caused significant damage to reaches of Rapid Creek, as well as 

other streams in the general area. It is important to note that these floods only caused damages 

where streams were already impacted and unstable due to problem road crossings, roads 

encroaching or isolating floodplains, past in-stream mining, stream channelization, and other 

anthropogenic causes. 

Stream flow within the crystalline core is also highly variable due to the relative impermeable 

igneous and metamorphic rocks that shed runoff rather than infiltrate it into aquifers (Carter et 

al. 2002). Within this hydrogeologic setting, ground-water discharge contributes to the base 

flow of many streams; however, base flow can diminish rather quickly during periods of 

minimal precipitation (Driscoll et al. 2002). 

Stream flows have been altered from historic conditions by various human-related 

disturbances. Historic accounts by the Custer and Dodge Expeditions in 1874 and 1875 noted 

more perennially-flowing streams, more abundant and lush riparian zones, and more wetlands 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 85

in low-gradient valley bottoms than conditions today (Grafe and Horsted 2002, Horsted 2006, 

Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). Subsequent post-settlement timber harvesting, mining, 

livestock grazing, and beaver trapping changed the water yield as described previously, and 

thus also affected streamflow (Shepperd and Battaglia 2002). These changes damaged the 

riparian zones and led to an increase in peak flows and the intensity of flash floods, and a

decrease in the perennial flow of some streams (Parrish et al. 1996). More recently, the 

construction of the Pactola Reservoir in the 1950’s significantly altered the flow regime of 

Rapid Creek, both upstream and downstream of the dam. Pactola Reservoir now stores and 

dampens the natural effect of pulse-type runoff events (e.g., floods) that occur in the Rapid 

Creek headwaters. Thus, Rapid Creek downstream of the reservoir now receives regulated 

flow releases. However, the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has taken steps in recent years 

to mimic pulse-type flood events during the spring runoff season to benefit stream habitat by 

providing “flushing flows” without causing significant flood damage to the stream and the 

multitude of commercial and residential properties along Rapid Creek (USDI Bureau of 

Reclamation 2011, USGS 2011). 

The primary watershed concern with vegetation removal is the potential for increased stream 

flows, which can degrade unstable stream channels. Streams in watersheds of the same size 

can have different levels of response, due to natural factors such as soils, topography, and 

geology. Changes in stream flow can be described in terms of changes in runoff magnitudes 

(increases or decreases). Annual water yield is also fundamental in stream channel formation, 

maintenance, and/or destabilization. Stream flow regimes can be altered by major changes in 

cover type or ground cover, dense road networks, or engineering projects such as reservoir 

storage and releases. If vegetation and/or organic ground cover in a watershed is reduced 

enough to markedly increase the magnitude or duration of peak stream flows, stream channels 

may erode their banks, causing channel instability and damage to aquatic habitat. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Stream Flow Regime 

Alternative A reflects the existing watershed conditions. This alternative would not directly 

contribute to changes in stream flow in the short term. Indirectly, as more forest stands are 

affected by the spread of MPB, more water would be made available for streamflow in the 

short-term for the reasons discussed previously under Annual Water Yield. However, over the 

long-term the stream flows would decrease again, returning to current levels as new trees grow 

and the forest stand regenerates. These flow conditions would continue until a large 

disturbance occurred, such as a wildfire. 

If wildfire were to occur, fire residence times would be longer and fire temperatures higher due 

to the amount of large tree boles on the soil surface. This would result in more complete 

consumption of vegetation, litter, and duff and soil alterations. This in turn would lead to 

another short (less than five years) post-fire period of accelerated runoff in response to summer 

thunderstorms and rapid snowmelt. Many residences located adjacent to streams within 

floodplains would be threatened by post-fire flooding. Thus, the threat to downstream life and 

property following a fire is greatest with this alternative. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 86

If a large enough wildfire were to occur, snowmelt and runoff characteristics may be altered in 

the long term due to the loss of a large amount of forest canopy. An increased amount of 

runoff (more volume of water) as well as a decreased time to peak (runoff is concentrated in 

less time) often leads to hill slope erosion, channel scouring, channel instability, and increased 

sediment loads. Similar post-fire watershed responses have been observed and documented for 

large fires throughout the Black Hills, including the 1988 Galena Fire (Driscoll et al. 2004), the 

2000 Jasper Fire (Gould 2003), the 2001 Elk Mountain Fire (USDI Interagency BAER Team 

2001), and the 2002 Grizzly Gulch Fire (USDI Interagency BAER Team 2002). However, 

unlike the Jasper Fire area, a large fire in the Pactola Project Area may affect snowmelt and 

runoff characteristics in the long-term (15 years or longer) due to the less permeable, 

metamorphic geology present. Once forest stands began to re-establish, this response would 

diminish and return to background levels. 

Indirectly, in the long-term wildfire and runoff responses would mimic natural cycles in which a 

disturbance would cause a “pulse” of water and sediment to be flushed through the stream

network followed by a period of recovery. This cycle would repeat based on natural disturbance 

cycles (e.g., fire frequency intervals). 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Stream Flow Regime 

Stream flow is not anticipated to be negatively affected by implementation of project activities 

associated with either Alternative B or C. Stream base flows may be sustained for a longer 

period in the late summer and early fall due to the reduction in overall forest canopy

throughout the project area. A slight increase in flow magnitude may be seen but may not be 

measurable for the reasons discussed previously under Annual Water Yield. Ephemeral 

streams and drainages occasionally flow in response to very intense summer thunderstorms 

currently and would continue to do so. In these events, the amount and rate of rainfall is the 

driving force behind streamflow being produced and carried throughout the drainage network. 

Therefore, proposed treatments are not expected to measurably alter this current response. 

Furthermore, WCPs are included in the project design. These measures are designed to control 

runoff damage from at least a 10-year storm of any duration (USDA Forest Service 2006c). 

Therefore, for typical precipitation events observed in the Black Hills area, storm runoff is not 

expected to cause damages to soil or water resources, so long as WCP/BMP measures are 

implemented properly. 

A wildfire may still occur within the project area under both action alternatives. However, 

vegetative and fuel treatments are expected to reduce the intensity and the size of a fire (see the 

Vegetation and Fire/Fuels sections for further discussion). Watershed effects as described for 

Alternative A may also still occur following a wildfire, although it is expected to a lesser 

degree and in localized areas. 

Cumulative Effects for Stream Flow Regime 

Livestock grazing, routine maintenance of trails, developed recreation facilities, and dispersed 

campsites, public use, and the operations of outfitters/guides would not involve activities 

which could alter stream flow regimes. These activities are generally dispersed across the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 87

landscape and do not involve alterations to stream flows through major diversions, storage, or 

releases of water from or back into streams. 

Under Alternative A, current stream flow conditions would likely persist until the mountain 

pine beetles kill enough trees across watersheds, or a wildfire occurs, both of which could 

cumulatively result in increased stream flows in the short term. Timber management activities 

associated with Alternative B and C would cumulatively make more soil moisture available 

throughout the watersheds to sustain higher stream base flows, especially in the Precambrian 

Crystalline geologies. This would cumulative provide slightly more streamflow within the 

project watersheds. 

Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

Stream channel conditions are a function of the upland watershed’s natural characteristics, 

changes related to land management activities, the inherent stream channel sensitivity, and the 

recent stream channel disturbance history. Alterations in the watershed’s hydrologic processes 

can change the duration, magnitude, and timing of stream flows as compared to natural flow 

regimes. Increases (flooding) or decreases (drought) in magnitude or duration of peak stream 

flows can change stream channel conditions. Typical adjustments to increased peak flows are 

increased channel scour in the steeper reaches and increased deposition of the scoured 

sediment in the flatter reaches. Typical adjustments to decreased stream flows include 

deposition of sediment and bedload, filling of pools and stream habitat features, shifts in 

vegetation type, and loss of channel definition. Adjustments in stream channels can in turn 

result in decreased water quality due to the additional sediments and any other pollutants 

present in the eroded soils. 

The ability of increased stream flow to cause channel erosion depends on the stream channel 

type and condition. The relative sensitivity of a channel to disturbance depends on a number of 

factors including stream gradient, size and shape of substrate, bank stability, and access to 

floodplain and overflow channels. Sensitivity to erosion varies naturally among stream 

reaches. Stable channel segments can withstand sizable flood events without a major departure 

from its dimension, pattern, and profile, whereas channels that are in an unstable condition may 

be measurably degraded by relatively small runoff events. 

The greatest risk of stream channel degradation in the Black Hills occurs during periods of 

high-flow, usually resulting from intense summer thunderstorms and particularly 

thunderstorms occurring in burned watersheds (Gould 2003) and direct bank damage 

associated with forest use and management. Effects to stream channels from an increase in 

runoff magnitude can include accelerated streambed erosion and stream channel 

destabilization. However, silvicultural prescriptions used on the Black Hills and specifically in 

the project area, do not remove most or all of the forest canopy in one cutting (e.g., clear 

cutting), and thus do not result in significant increases in flood magnitudes. Direct bank 

damage can occur from forest use and management activities such as road construction, stream 

crossings, livestock concentration along streams, and other activities that take place along 

streams. Damage to stream banks through either natural or human causes may add large 

amounts of sediment directly into streams. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 88

Streams within the watershed analysis area have not yet been quantitatively surveyed and 

evaluated for stream stability (e.g., Rosgen methods utilizing surveyor’s transit, level, etc.). 

However, general stream health assessments were completed during 2009 and 2010 for the 

perennial streams and many of the intermittent streams in the Pactola Project in accordance with 

Region 2 and Forest Plan guidance. The Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

(FSH 2509.25) provides both quantitative and qualitative definitions for stream health based on 

departure from natural, potential condition. Although these stream assessments are qualitative 

in nature, they incorporated the complex geomorphic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and biologic

principles associated with overall stream stability and stream health as presented by Rosgen 

(1996). Most streams were rated “At-risk” for moderate departures in geomorphic, hydrologic 

and/or biotic integrity relative to their natural, potential condition, due largely in part to past 

mining activities, road-related problems, and livestock concentration and associated damages. 

Jim Creek, Kelley Gulch, and Nugget Gulch were rated as “Diminished” according to Region 

2 protocols, because these streams exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity 

relative to their natural, potential condition and are experiencing major departures from the 

stable dimension, pattern, and profile appropriate for their stream type. These streams are 

rated as such due to extensive alteration associated with roads encroaching on the floodplain, 

re-routing or channelizing the stream, and multiple stream crossings; and heavy livestock 

concentration and trampling of stream banks and adjacent riparian and wetlands, including 

two fens. A rating of “Diminished” stream conditions is an indicator that State assigned 

beneficial uses and water quality criteria may not be adequately supported. None of these 

three streams are listed on the 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water 

Quality Assessment (SD DENR 2010). More detailed field investigations should be

completed, in addition to some basic water quality monitoring in order to quantitatively

validate or revise the general stream health assessments. 

Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management gives responsibility to all federal agencies 

to provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains (Carter 1977a). Floodplains provide for flood 

moderation, water quality protection, ground water recharge, wildlife habitat, among other 

benefits. This order is directly tied to the National Flood Insurance Act and Flood Disaster 

Protection Act. To meet the requirements of these acts, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) has mapped 100-year floodplains across the nation, including Pennington and 

Lawrence Counties (FEMA 1998). A floodplain is the flat area on either side of a stream or 

river that is susceptible to inundation by floodwaters. There are approximately 1,600 acres of 

100-year floodplains within the project area. The 100-year flood is a flood having a 1% chance 

of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year. It is not a flood occurring once 

every 100 years. Floodplains slow flood velocities and decrease erosion because they are by 

nature wide and flat, thus allowing for shallower and slower water. Mapped floodplains are 

located along the following major streams: Rapid Creek, Deer Creek, and Jim Creek. A map 

depicting the mapped 100-year floodplains is included in the project file. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 89

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

Alternative A does not propose any management actions, and thus would not directly 

contribute to changes in stream channel stability or floodplains in the short term or long term. 

However, indirectly, if the spread of MPB continues and a wildfire should occur, post-fire 

flooding can be expected to cause significant changes to stream channels and banks through 

excess channel scour, bank erosion, channel abandonment, and excess deposition in low 

gradient reaches. However, as stated previously, recovery would be expected to occur in three 

to five years, so stream flow would also return to background levels. Stream channels and 

floodplains would stabilize naturally until the next “pulse” disturbance and response cycle. 

However, stream channel stability is dependent on “channel maintenance” flows occurring 

periodically. As biomass continues to increase, less water would be available for maintaining 

stream beds and banks and natural transport processes of nutrient, sediment, and woody debris. 

The extended drought conditions and dense forest in the project area are currently affecting 

streams in this way. On the other extreme, if a wildfire should occur, post-fire flooding can be 

expected to cause significant changes to stream channels and banks through excess channel 

scour, bank erosion, channel abandonment, and excess deposition in low gradient reaches. 

Recovery of already unstable streams would be very slow, so the accelerated timing of runoff, 

increased water volume, accelerated erosion and sediment delivery may persist for several 

years. Furthermore, road improvements would occur as appropriated funding is available, thus 

current impacts to streams and floodplains at road crossings, CDAs, and areas where roads 

closely parallel streams would persist. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

No measureable, negative direct or indirect effects to stream channels and floodplains in the 

project area are expected as a result of changes in annual water yield or runoff magnitudes 

resulting from either action alternative, due to the reasons mentioned previously. 

Short-term impacts may occur to stream channels and floodplains under both action 

alternatives in areas where vegetative treatment and road work is proposed within riparian 

corridors and adjacent to streams. However, Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs (see Appendix 

B) are included to protect stream courses and minimize floodplain and riparian impacts during 

management activities. All perennial and intermittent streams and other water bodies have 

100-foot vegetative buffers, as required by the agreement between the USFS and the State of 

South Dakota (USDA Forest Service 2009g) stipulating that USFS Region 2 WCPs would be 

used above and beyond South Dakota BMPs to comply with State and Federal water quality 

regulations related to the Clean Water Act (EPA 2011b). Forest Plan Standards 1301, 1302, 

1306, and Guideline 1115 also stipulate the use of buffers for streams and riparian areas 

(USDA Forest Service 2006). 

This 100-ft. buffer is referred to as the Watershed Influence Zone (WIZ) buffer and applies to 

both sides of each perennial and intermittent stream, as well as other water bodies (e.g., lakes, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 90

wetlands, etc). The WIZ buffer is more protective than the 50-foot buffers, known as Streamside 

Management Zones or SMZ buffers, required by the South Dakota State Forestry BMPs (SDSU 

et al. 2003). Vegetation within streamside buffers provides physical stream bank stability and 

serves to slow water velocities during flood events. For most stream sections, this 100-ft. buffer 

also includes the 100-year floodplain. For stream sections located in wide valley bottoms that 

also have a floodplain zone that is wider than the 100-ft. buffer, Design Criteria has been 

included specifying the types of activities that may occur in these areas. 

Forest 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. In general, WIZ buffers would be avoided by ground-based equipment 

except at designated crossing points, to perform road work, to end-yard any cut trees out of the 

WIZ, or where site-specifically approved. Design Criteria has been included to protect 

streamside vegetation within the WIZ, including willows, aspen, spruce, or other trees or 

shrubs providing physical bank stabilization, and thus would not be removed unless site 

specifically approved otherwise by the hydrologist and the appropriate resource professional 

for any other resource concerns that may exist within that stream-side buffer. This could 

include the wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist, botanist, or other disciplines based on the 

inter-relation of resources associated with each stream segment. 

Implementing project Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs also ensures compliance with Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines 1115, 1301, 1302, and 1306 through the use of buffers for 

streams and riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2006). In addition, road improvements 

associated with timber sales would provide for improvements to stream channels and 

floodplains that are currently problematic. 

The risk of negative impacts to stream channel stability and floodplains resulting from a slope 

failure is greatest with Alternative C for the reasons described previously throughout the soils 

discussion. Impacts to streams and floodplains may be localized and short term, or chronic and 

extensive, depending on the severity and size of the slope failure and its location relative to 

stream channels. This could be accompanied by a loss of streamside wetlands and riparian 

ecosystems; floodplain deposition, scouring, and/or blockage; a decrease in channel stability; 

and increased scouring of stream channels should slope failures and debris transport to streams 

and floodplains occur. 

Cumulative Effects for Stream Channel Stability and Floodplains 

Past mining, livestock grazing, and road construction are the primary contributors to stream 

instability. Roads are also the primarily source of impact on floodplains. The environmental 

impacts of roads have been described previously. Grazing impacts on stream bank stability 

has not been specifically analyzed since changes in grazing management are beyond the 

scope of this project. However, changes in grazing management would be pursued to 

achieve more stable stream banks. Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs have been included in 

both action alternatives to protect streams and floodplains during harvest activities. Road 

improvements associated with both action alternatives would lead to improved floodplain 

access and channel stability at some stream crossings. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 91

Cumulatively, stable stream channels throughout the area are expected to remain in their 

current conditions until a natural disturbance such as wildfire occurs, which would likely cause 

instability as discussed previously, or improvements are brought about through changes in 

grazing management and road alignment. Conversely, already unstable stream channels would 

continue to degrade, causing impacts to ripple throughout their tributary networks as well. 

This would continue until management activities are implemented to arrest head-cutting and 

channel incision, and restore the necessary stream channel dimensions, pattern, and profile to 

achieve system stability again. Detailed stream stability surveys and assessments are 

recommended to design a solution for road alignment that improves stream stability in streams 

identified as unstable. 

Water Quality 

Black Hills groundwater and surface water are highly interconnected, and thus the quality of 

groundwater can affect the quality of surface water, and vice versa. The quality of water can 

change as it flows over the land surface into streams and lakes, as wells as through 

underground aquifers. Water quality standards for both groundwater and surface water have 

been established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of South 

Dakota, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR) depending on the 

identified beneficial uses (SD DENR 1999, EPA 2011b). 

The quality of groundwater is important for the Black Hills region because of the aquifers 

present and recent increase in development of the aquifers to provide water for uses such as 

residential and municipal water supplies, commercial and industrial uses, livestock water, and 

irrigation. As ground water comes in contact with soil and rock materials, some of the 

minerals, chemicals, and nutrients dissolve and become part of the groundwater chemistry. 

Chemicals and nutrients in groundwater can result from both natural and human influences. 

The potential for groundwater contamination in the Black Hills can be high, especially where 

aquifer recharge zones (outcrops) occur. 

Naturally high concentrations of iron and manganese are associated with groundwater 

originating in the Precambrian aquifers present in the project area (Carter et al. 2003). 

Hardness is determined by the amount of dissolved calcium and magnesium in the water. 

Precambrian rocks have few carbonate rocks, and thus water from this aquifer is much lower in 

hardness. Throughout the Black Hills, water from the major aquifers is generally fresh and low 

in dissolved solids within and near outcrop areas (Carter et al. 2003). 

Many activities have the potential to contribute contamination to soils and ground water simply 

through the presence of fuels, oils, solvents, paints and detergents, and by the generation of

solid or liquid wastes. Typical contamination sources on the NFS include mines, oil and gas 

wells, landfills, and septic systems (USDA Forest Service 2007c). Contamination of soils and 

ground water can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to clean up. Since the release of 

even small amounts of stored chemicals or fuels may substantially damage ground-water 

resources, efforts must be made to ensure that all Forest Service activities and facilities comply 

with regulations for preventing ground-water contamination (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

Forest Service lands also contain the headwaters for many streams that flow off-forest and 

recharge zones for groundwater aquifers from which water is used for human consumption. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 92

Therefore, the protection of groundwater from contamination is also covered by the Safe 

Drinking Water Act of 1974. 

Groundwater pollution is most often associated with sanitary sewer systems and chemical spills. 

The USFS has several vault toilet installations within the Pactola Project Area. These include 13 

vault toilets associated with the Pactola Recreation Complex, including the Pactola Visitor 

Center; Pactola North Overlook; Veterans Point, Pactola Point, and Jenny Gulch Picnic Areas; 

North and South boat ramps; and Bear Gulch and Pactola Campgrounds (Slepnikoff, 2009). One 

additional vault toilet is located at the Rapid Creek Trailhead on the Centennial Trail just below 

the Pactola Dam (Slepnikoff 2009). All USFS vault toilets are regularly maintained and 

inspected and are not currently known to be leaking. Numerous residential septic systems also 

exist on privately owned lands throughout the project and watershed analysis areas. No sewer 

system problems have been reported to the SD DENR in this area, although some small 

petroleum product spills have occurred along US Highway 385 (SD DENR 2011b). 

According to the SD DENR (2010), “The Black Hills region traditionally has some of the best 

surface water quality in the state. This is due in a large part to a cooler climate and higher rainfall 

than the surrounding plains as a result of greater elevation and forest cover. Also contributing to 

the water quality in this region is the nature of local bedrock formations which are much less 

erodible than the highly erodible and leachable marine shales and badlands on the surrounding

plains. However, the Black Hills streams are vulnerable to losses of flow exacerbated by periodic 

droughts. Grazing of streamside vegetation, which increases stream bank erosion, water 

temperature and nutrient loading, also continues to be a problem in some streams in this area” (SD 

DENR 2010). Establishing consistent long-term trends in water quality for Black Hills streams 

can be difficult, especially for smaller streams, due to water quality fluctuations that naturally 

result from climatic and hydrologic factors in the region (SD DENR 2004). 

The SD DENR assigns water quality standards based on the beneficial uses of each water body. 

All streams in South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation, fish and wildlife 

propagation, recreation, and stock watering (SD DENR 1999). Most streams and water bodies in 

the project area are also classified as supporting coldwater fisheries and limited-contact 

recreation waters. In addition to all these beneficial uses, Rapid Creek and Pactola Reservoir are 

also both considered public drinking water supplies and classified as immersion-contact 

recreation waters. Detailed information pertaining to the State assigned beneficial uses for each 

stream and waterbody with the Pactola Project Area, along with water quality criteria for each 

beneficial use is included in the project file. 

No formally identified Municipal Watersheds are located in the Pactola Project Area. 

However, the Pactola Reservoir is a municipal water supply for the City of Rapid City. 

Residents of Silver City obtain water from their individual, residential wells, and thus this 

community does not meet the definition of a Public Water Supply. A public water supply is 

defined as having at least 15 service connections or regularly serving at least 25 individuals 

daily for at least 60 days out of the year. However, the Pactola Recreation Complex is 

considered a Public Water Supply and has two wells, one at the Visitor Center and another for 

the campground, that are used to supply domestic water (Slepnikoff 2009). A few private 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 93

groundwater wells, both shallow alluvial wells and deeper aquifer wells, are located throughout 

the area on privately-owned land parcels (SD DENR 2011a). 

Due to the remote nature of the project area, few stream monitoring stations exist. 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 water quality in Rapid Creek in the vicinity of the 

Pactola Project at station 47 (Storet 460647). Water quality parameters are monitored monthly 

and include water temperature; dissolved oxygen; pH; conductivity; alkalinity and hardness; 

dissolved and suspended solids (turbidity); total and dissolved phosphorus; ammonia , nitrates, 

and nitrites; Escherichia coli (e. coli) and total fecal coliform; total calcium; chloride; total 

magnesium; total sodium; and sulfates (SD DENR 2010). Results for this site have not

indicated a problem with any of the water quality parameters monitored. 

None of the waterbodies within the Pactola Project Area are currently listed as impaired (SD 

DENR, 2010). However some stream segments within the project area have been listed on 

previous years’ reports and there are impaired stream segments within the watershed analysis 

area that are not meeting one or more beneficial uses currently or have not in previous years 

(SD DENR 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010). 

Rapid Creek (R34), from its headwaters to Pactola Reservoir, was listed in 1996 for Total 

Suspended Solids (TSS), pH, and ammonia (SD DENR 1998). Subsequent monitoring data 

showed it to be meeting the criteria for each, and thus fully supporting its beneficial uses 

(SD DENR 1998, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010). Pactola Reservoir was listed in previous 

reporting years as a Category 2 waterbody, meaning that some uses were met and others 

had insufficient data to make a determination. It was identified as a high quality waterbody 

but vulnerable to nutrient enrichment and sedimentation from natural soil erosion, 

recreational activities, and various silvicultural activities (SD DENR 2004). Water quality 

monitoring of the reservoir currently confirms that it is indeed meeting all assigned 

beneficial uses (SD DENR 2008 and 2010). 

Non-point sources of pollution are the primary potential causes of degraded water quality 

within the project area. Non-point source pollution is water pollution that has sources that 

cannot be isolated to a single source, but can best be controlled by proper soil, water, and land 

management practices, such as WCPs (USDA Forest Service 2006c) and SD BMPs (SDSU et 

al. 2003). Fine sediment is perhaps the most important potential non-point pollutant. Although 

a natural level of sediment exists in all streams, a substantial change in sediment delivery to the 

streams can lead to adverse geomorphic channel adjustments and impacts to aquatic species. 

Depending on the composition of sediment, nutrients and other contaminants may be adsorbed 

to particles and carried throughout a stream network and into water bodies (Waters 1995). 

Road use, road construction, and road maintenance are considered the principle sources of 

sediment from many upland watersheds (Brooks et al. 1997, Waters 1995, Meehan 1994). A 

number of studies indicate that as much as 90% of the sediment associated from timber 

harvesting operations in the United States originates from roads (Brooks et al. 1997). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 94

Considerable sediment can be generated during and immediately following new road 

construction. Sediment delivery usually declines substantially over time as vegetation reestablishes on cut and fill slopes and ditches and channels adjust to culverts. Road/stream 

crossings can continue to be a chronic source of sediment to streams because sediment from 

the road surface or ditch water is delivered directly to the stream at these sites. Sediment 

usually originates from erosion on the cutslopes, scour in the ditch line, or washing of surface 

fines from the road surface. Unnatural channel widths, gradient, and streambed form occur 

upstream and downstream of stream crossings. Often scour occurs at the outlet of culverts 

causing channel instability downstream. The frequency and amount of sediment delivery to 

the streams is highly variable, and is largely influenced by road segment length, slope, and 

location within the watershed, as well as precipitation type, amount, and timing (Luce and 

Black 1999, King and Tennyson 1984). Excess sediment deposits in stream beds can harm 

insect populations and fish reproduction (Waters 1995). Refer to the Wildlife and Fisheries 

sections for more discussion. 

Changes in water temperature and dissolved oxygen can also affect overall water quality and 

stream health. Water temperatures can be increased through the removal of streamside vegetation 

that provides shade, and thus cooler stream temperatures. Water temperatures can also increase 

when streams are widened, and thus get shallower, or during periods of reduced stream flow. The 

temperature of the water controls how much dissolved oxygen is present. As water temperatures 

get warmer, less dissolved oxygen is available for use by aquatic organisms such as fish. 

The Pactola Project does not propose stream stabilization or restoration activities, and thus 

potential effects associated with advancing stream channel incision or “head cutting” apply 

under both action alternatives. However, both action alternatives include Design Criteria and 

WCPs/BMPs to prevent further effects to these already impaired and unstable systems. Some 

existing stream problems may be fixed through road maintenance and improvement work 

associated with timber haul routes. Other restoration activities would be pursued through 

separate NEPA authorities. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Water Quality 

Alternative A would not involve any additional management activities or road improvements. 

Rates and volumes of sediment delivered to streams and other water bodies are expected to 

continue at current rates for most of the project area. However, rates and volumes may 

possibly increase in problem areas and as faulty stream crossings continue to degrade, or in 

response to a natural disturbance, such as a wildfire, occurs. Rates and volumes of sediment 

delivered to streams and other water may increase if problem road crossings and unstable 

streams are not fixed. Stream temperatures and dissolved oxygen would generally remain 

unchanged from current conditions. Alternative A would not involve road improvements, so 

sediment delivery to streams would continue to occur. 

A wildfire, that may be experienced under Alternative A, is expected to have the greatest 

potential of exposing and altering soil conditions, and thus the greatest risk of indirectly 

contributing to increases in soil erosion and off-site sediment transport to water bodies. If a 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 95

wildfire occurs, and intense rainfall events follow it, soil erosion and the resulting sediment 

transport would likely mimic conditions previously observed during post-fire precipitation 

events in the Jasper Fire area, in which sediment was carried in flood waters all the way to 

Angostura Reservoir. Post-fire flooding may impact water quality in a significant and negative 

way for several years following the fire, leading to impairment of beneficial uses within and 

downstream of the project during and immediately following any post-fire flooding events. 

This would continue until watershed conditions have recovered. Flash floods have and would 

still occur in the project area in response to intense summer thunderstorms. Should a wildfire 

occur, these flash floods may be intensified in both magnitude and frequency. 

Recovery of the watershed following a wildfire could be very slow based inherent 

characteristics such as slope, soils, geology, vegetation, etc. So the accelerated timing of 

runoff, increased water volume, accelerated erosion and sediment delivery may persist for 

several years. If an intense rainfall event occurs, soil erosion and the resulting sediment 

transport to Pactola Reservoir would likely mimic conditions previously observed during postfire precipitation events in the Jasper Fire area, in which sediment was carried in flood waters 

all the way to Angostura Reservoir in 2001 (Gould, 2003). Post-fire flooding may lead to 

degraded water quality and impairment of beneficial uses within and downstream of the project 

area. Similar post-fire watershed responses have been observed and documented for large fires 

throughout the Black Hills, including the 1988 Galena Fire (Driscoll et al. 2004), the 2001 Elk 

Mountain Fire (USDI Interagency BAER Team 2001) and the 2002 Grizzly Gulch Fire (USDI 

Interagency BAER Team 2002). 

In addition, the town of Silver City and many residences located adjacent to streams, would be 

threatened by post-fire flooding. Furthermore, large ponds would pose an additional threat to 

life and property if post-fire flooding exceeded the storage capacity of the impoundments, 

causing dams to be breached and send a large “pulse-type” flood wave. Thus, the threat to 

downstream life and property following a fire is greatest with this alternative. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Water Quality 

Proposed timber and fuels management, and prescribed burning activities associated with 

both action alternatives is not expected to degrade water quality or exceed State specified 

thresholds for the various water quality parameters associated with each beneficial use. 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning and prescribed burning activities associated with 

Alternative B and C are not expected to result in detrimental levels of soil erosion as 

explained previously in the soil erosion discussion, and therefore no substantial increase in 

sediment transport to streams and water bodies is anticipated. Measures have been included 

in the project to protect the quality of ground water as required by Forest Service Manual 

2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards, and Services (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Applicable WCPs found in FSH 2509.25 (USDA Forest Service 2006c), along with SD 

BMPs (SDSU et al. 2003), are used to prevent degradation of both surface and ground water 

quality. These measures apply to all proposed activities and are listed in Appendix B. These 

measures include stream and riparian buffers, avoidance of sensitive areas, seasonal 

operations, drainage features, and restrictions on harvest, road activities, and fire ignition in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 96

and immediately adjacent to water resources. Measures are also included to prevent the use 

and storage of concentrated pollutant sources near water bodies or applying harmful 

chemicals near water bodies, including fuels, oils, and lubricants used in equipment 

operations as required by the WCP Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006c) and Forest Plan 

Standard 1107 (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

These practices have been proven effective in preventing runoff, erosion, sediment delivery, 

and chemical pollution of water resources when implemented properly (Lee 2001, Lee and 

Everett 2001, Everett 2004, Thomas 2008, Hoxie and Engelskirger 2009, USDA Forest 

Service 2003, 2006c, and 2010c). All management activities have been designed to meet 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines through the inclusion of project Design Criteria and 

specified WCP/BMP measures. These measures also help to ensure compliance with the 

Clean Water Act (EPA 2011b) and all State and National water quality regulations. So long 

as project Design Criteria are properly implemented and adhered to, no substantial or longlasting effects to surface or ground water quality are expected. 

Furthermore, vegetative buffers would remain in place to filter any incoming sediment or 

chemical pollutants, provide stream bank stability and minimize bank erosion, and provide 

necessary shading to maintain cooler water temperatures necessary for coldwater fisheries. 

All water bodies including, but not limited to lakes, ponds, wetlands, springs, and perennial 

and intermittent streams, have 100-foot WIZ vegetative buffers as required by agreement 

with the SD DENR (USDA Forest Service 2006c and 2009g) and Forest Plan Standards 

1301, 1302, 1306, and Guideline 1115 (USDA Forest Service 2006). These buffers protect 

streams and other water resources from increased sediment delivery or chemical pollutants 

by filtering runoff prior to entry into streams and wetlands. Vegetation within streamside 

buffers provides physical stream bank stability, and thus minimizes bank erosion and 

associated suspended sediment transport in streams. Streamside vegetation also provides 

necessary shade to maintain cooler stream temperatures essential for coldwater fisheries. 

Forest 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. In general, WIZ buffers would be avoided by ground-based 

equipment except at designated crossing points, to perform road work, to end-yard any cut 

trees out of the WIZ, or where site-specifically approved. Design Criteria has been included 

to protect vegetation within the WIZ associated with streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and 

other water bodies. Within this buffer, willows, aspen, spruce, or other trees and shrubs 

providing physical bank stabilization or shade to the stream or water body would not be

removed unless site specifically approved otherwise by the hydrologist and the appropriate 

resource professional for any other resource concerns that may exist within that buffer. This 

could include the wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist, botanist, or other disciplines based on 

the inter-relation of resources at each stream or water body. 

The Pactola Project is being proposed under the HFRA authority, which limits road 

improvements to only those roads used during vegetation treatments. The HFRA authority 

cannot authorize project-wide road management. With this in mind, the project was designed 

to reduce the impacts of existing roads on watersheds to the extent possible under the HFRA 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 97

authority. Other problem areas can still be addressed through existing authorities (e.g., road 

maintenance) or brought forth for analysis under other NEPA projects. 

Approximately 69 miles of road maintenance activities are proposed under Alternative B and 

72 miles under Alternative C. Road maintenance activities under both alternatives would 

focus on reducing the distance water flows in ditches, reducing road surface erosion, filtering 

ditch water before entering streams, and reducing the probability of stream-crossing failures. 

Research has demonstrated that improved road design, construction, and maintenance can 

reduce road-related erosion (Gucinski et al. 2000). In addition, adding aggregate to road 

surfaces can greatly reduce erosion and sediment delivery (Kennedy 1997). 

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 

use of Design Criteria and BMPs, sediment delivery to water resources should be minimized. 

Furthermore, road problems and CDAs would be corrected as part of the commercial timber 

harvest and road package, thus reducing sediment to the streams. Reducing stand density in 

upland areas, and thus potentially increasing stream base flows would have a positive effect on 

stream temperature. Streamside vegetation would be protected through required buffers, and 

thus would not be removed. Design Criteria and BMPs are included to prevent use and storage

of concentrated pollutant sources near water bodies or applying harmful chemicals near water 

bodies, including fuels, oils, and lubricants used in road-related equipment operations. 

Both Alternative B and C could result in localized, short term sediment delivery to water 

resources from road-related activities adjacent to streams or at stream crossings. Although very 

minor, this would add to sediment from existing road conditions and on-going road maintenance 

activities. However, these road-related activities are designed to improve existing stream 

channel conditions or water quality issues at individual sites (e.g., culverts, low water crossings, 

etc.). In the long term, roads would produce less sediment as a result of the implementation of 

the committed road work in these alternatives (road work associated with timber sale areas). 

Other road improvement work is planned, but not guaranteed. The committed road work would 

trend toward improvement in sediment delivery and overall water quality. 

Implementation of project Design Criteria including WCP/BMP measures is expected to protect 

soil and water resources, and thus minimize any adverse impacts to the downstream water 

quality that may result from road work. The various impoundments within and downstream of 

the project would trap sediment and nutrients if an extreme event were to occur. Such an event 

might be severe thunderstorms, similar to those that occurred in 1998 and 2008 that caused major 

flooding of Rapid Creek, or rain events following a large wildfire. If a significant amount of 

precipitation occurred with such an event, some sediment and nutrients could be carried through 

the stream network all the way to Pactola Reservoir. However, this type of event cannot be 

predicted and is independent of proposed actions associated with the project. 

The risk of observing negative impacts to water quality associated with cable road construction 

and potential failure is highest with Alternative C for the reasons described throughout the soil 

and water discussion. A measurable, negative change in water quality may result from cable road 

construction and long-term presence on the landscape if environmental conditions (e.g., saturated 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 98

soils, excess precipitation, etc.) were to occur. The longer the cable roads remained on the 

landscape, the higher the probability of failure and the higher the probability of impacts to water 

quality. Depending on the severity and size of the slope failure, impacts to water quality may be 

localized and short term or chronic and long-lasting. However, if such an event occurred, 

immediate actions would be implemented to stabilize road and resource problems and reduce 

impacts to soil and water resources. Therefore, long-lasting water quality effects to Rapid Creek 

or Pactola Reservoir – both classified as public drinking water supplies – are not anticipated. 

Cumulative Effects for Water Quality 

Cumulatively, all activities are expected to maintain current water quality levels with the 

implementation of Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs (see Appendix B). No measurable change 

in overall water quality is expected in any of the streams from activities associated with the 

project other than decreased sediment delivery where problem road crossings and other roadrelated CDAs are corrected, as discussed above. Other federal ongoing and foreseeable 

activities would also adhere to applicable Forest Service policy and Federal and State 

regulations regarding water resources. 

Grazing management strategies are employed to prevent water quality impairment associated 

with livestock concentration in or near water bodies. Routine maintenance of trails, developed 

recreation facilities, and dispersed campsites or the operations of outfitters and guides would not 

involve activities which would increase sedimentation or affect water quality. Public 

Recreational uses would have no measurable effect on sediment yields in the project area, due to 

the fact that disturbance created by these activities would be small, if any and dispersed across 

the landscape. Routine road maintenance is likely to occur as needed on existing roads in the 

project area. The roads most likely to receive maintenance are those open to vehicle traffic. 

Roads with restricted vehicle access would receive maintenance as needed to correct problems as 

they occur. Although minor sediment inputs into streams are possible, the long-term benefit of 

road maintenance is a reduction in routed sediment and water. Short-term sediment input to 

streams is expected to be minimized or eliminated by using WCP/BMP measures. 

Connected Disturbed Areas 

Connected Disturbed Areas (CDAs) are disturbed sites that have a continuous surface flow 

path into streams and other water bodies (USDA Forest Service 1999). Hydrologic connection 

exists where overland flow, sediment, or pollutants have a direct route to the stream network, 

lake, pond, wetland, etc. (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Sediment delivery to and transport in 

streams is a natural process, but roads and other disturbed sites can act as channels that 

multiply sediment loads to the stream network during runoff events. Most material that enters 

streams comes from an adjacent source zone and would eventually reach an aquatic ecosystem 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c). Such "connected disturbed areas" can be a major source of 

damage to aquatic ecosystems. CDAs can lead to decreased physical habitat, impaired water 

quality, and increased risk of flood damage. CDAs include roads, ditches, compacted soils, 

bare soils, mine spoils, and areas of severely burned soils that are directly connected to the 

stream network. Ground disturbing activities located within the water influence zone are also 

considered connected unless site-specific actions are taken to disconnect them from streams 

(USDA Forest Service 2006c). CDAs in the Pactola Project Area are primarily associated with 

roads, past mining activities, and livestock concentration in wet areas. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 99

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Connected Disturbed Areas 

Alternative A would not involve any additional management activities or resource improvements. 

Therefore, existing CDAs would remain as problem areas until road maintenance, grazing 

allotment improvements, or wetland and stream restoration projects occurred. These activities 

would take place as funding and current project authorities allowed. Refer to the Water Quality 

discussion for Alternative A for impacts to water quality related to CDAs.

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Connected Disturbed Areas 

CDAs associated with roads that would be used to complete commercial vegetation management 

activities (e.g., timber sales) can be corrected under the HFRA authority. Road related CDAs are 

listed in the project file, as well as the Engineering/Transportation Report. Fixing other CDAs is 

generally beyond the scope of the Pactola project, but can be accomplished under other projects, 

as funding allows. 

Cumulative Effects for Connected Disturbed Areas 

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix C of the Pactola EIS were 

considered for cumulative effects to Connected Disturbed Areas. Cumulative impacts 

associated with Connected Disturbed Areas would be similar to those discussed under the 

Water Quality section. 

Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater-Dependant Ecosystems 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater dependent ecosystems are susceptible to 

degradation from land use activities such as livestock grazing, roads, land development, and 

recreation activities that inherently tend to be concentrated along streams and other water 

bodies. Livestock concentration and road-related problems are the primary impact sources to 

these resources within the Pactola Project Area. Nearly all wetlands, riparian areas, and 

particularly spring areas in the Pactola Project Area exhibit signs of livestock concentration 

including trampled and hoof-sheared banks; hummocky ground; over-utilization of willows, as 

well as grasses and forbs; excess sediment deposition; and extensive manure within and 

immediately adjacent to stream channels, seeps, springs, and other wet areas. A map depicting 

known wetlands, springs, and riparian areas is included in the project file. 

Executive Order 11990 on Protection of Wetlands gives responsibility to all federal agencies to 

provide leadership and take action to prevent the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, 

and to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands (Carter 1977a). 

Wetlands and the activities that occur in wetlands are regulated by the EPA and the US Army 

Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. “Wetlands control runoff and 

water quality; recharge ground water; and provide special habitats. Actions that may alter their 

ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, drainage patterns, and long-term plant composition 

can impair these values” (USDA Forest Service 1996c). Wetlands have been mapped for the 

Black Hills region as part of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program. Wetlands are 

classified as Lacustrine, Palustrine and Riverine according to the NWI classification system 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 100

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Field investigations were conducted during 2009 and 

2010 to verify the NWI wetland mapping and identify any additional un-mapped wetlands. A

map depicting the known wetlands is included in the project file. This includes both the NWI

mapped wetlands and those discovered during field investigations. 

There are approximately 866 acres of wetlands mapped by the NWI within the Pactola Project 

Area (see Table 3-6). Pactola Reservoir comprises most of this acreage, totaling approximately 

824 acres. The remaining wetlands range from 0.1 acre to over 14 acres in size, but most are 

less than half an acre. With the exception of Pactola Reservoir and the associated wetlands 

where Rapid Creek enters the reservoir, all of the remaining wetlands are classified as 

Palustrine, many of which are impounded by beavers or man-made dams. 

Additionally, there are 20 miles of mapped linear wetlands within the project boundary, 

about half of which are classified as Riverine and the remainder classified as palustrine (see 

Table 3-6). Riverine linear wetlands are associated with Rapid Creek. Palustrine linear 

wetlands can be found along streams and drainage ways associated with Gimlet Creek, Jim 

Creek, Deer Creek, Jenny Gulch, West and Middle Nugget Gulches, and Empress Gulch. All 

lakes and ponds in the Black Hills are man-made, and thus have impoundment structures. 

Many of these are included in the NWI wetland mapping with codes indicating the presence 

of man-made impoundments. The largest of these is Pactola Reservoir, which has nearly 18 

miles of shoreline associated with the 824 acres of surface water (at full pool). 

Table 3-6 Mapped Wetlands in the Pactola Project Area 

Wetland 

Classification Wetland Type(s) 

Wetland 

Areas 

(acres) 

Linear 

Wetlands 

(miles) 

Lacustrine Lakes 838 None 

Palustrine Marshes, swamps, floodplains, fens, bogs, wet 

meadows, etc. 28 12 

Riverine Adjacent to rivers, streams and includes ox bows, 

freshwater marshes, etc. None 8 

Total 866 acres 20 miles 

A determination has not been made as to whether the NWI-mapped areas within the project 

area are “jurisdictional wetlands” according to US Army Corp of Engineers wetland definitions 

and classifications (US Army Corps of Engineers 1987). Design Criteria has been included to 

protect all wetlands in the Pactola Project (see Appendix B). 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, nor would any dredge or fill material be placed in any wetland. Therefore, no 

consultation with the US Army Corps of Engineers is necessary, and no permitting under 

Section 404 of the CWA is necessary. 

Riparian areas are a transition zone between permanently saturated wetlands and drier upland 

areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface 

or subsurface water influence (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998). Riparian ecosystems 

provide shade; root strength for bank stability; organic matter and woody debris for fish habitat 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 101

and cover; sediment storage and release; pollutant filtering; flood and moisture storage; and 

interaction between surface and ground water supplies (USDA Forest Service 1996c). 

The health of riparian systems is largely dependent on the condition of the vegetative

community. Healthy riparian vegetation provides overhead cover, and thus temperature

moderation; habitat for aquatic and terrestrial insects, two critical components for fish habitat 

and fisheries condition; as wells as sediment filters, water storage, and floodwater dissipation. 

Riparian areas can also provide critical habitat for many unique plant species and many 

wildlife species. Refer to the Botany, Fisheries, and Wildlife Reports for more discussion on 

plants, fish, and wildlife with respect to riparian areas. Depending on the stream channel type 

and volume or rate of flow, the relative magnitude of these functions can vary widely. Where 

disturbance occurs in riparian areas there is an increased risk of erosion and reduced 

productivity thereby reducing the buffering effect that the riparian area has on streams and the 

protection of beneficial uses. 

Riparian areas within the Black Hills generally coincide with perennial and intermittent 

streams. There are approximately 29 miles of perennially flowing streams and 42 miles of 

intermittently flowing streams in the project area, for a total of 71 miles of riparian areas. 

Nearly all riparian areas in the project area exhibit signs of livestock concentration including 

trampled and hoof-sheared banks; hummocky ground; over-utilization of willows and grasses 

and forbs; excess sediment deposition; and extensive manure within and immediately 

adjacent to stream channels. Past mining activities and road building have further impacted 

and impaired many of these same areas. 

Groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDEs) are communities of plants, animals, and other 

organisms whose extent and life processes depend on groundwater (USDA Forest Service, 

2007c). Some examples of GDEs include springs, aquifer systems, caves and karst systems, 

streams and lakes fed by groundwater, and many types of wetlands, including the rare peatforming wetlands such as fens and bogs. These special ecosystems rely on the nearly constant 

supply of groundwater to sustain their unique hydrologic and ecologic characteristics. GDEs 

vary dramatically in how much they depend on ground water, from being entirely dependent to 

having occasional or partial dependence. GDE wetlands also fall under the authority of 

Executive Order 11990 (Carter 1977b) and regulating agencies such as the EPA, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and US Army Corps of Engineers. Forest Service land managers are directed 

by the USFS national groundwater policy to “protect the ecological processes and biodiversity 

of ground-water-dependent ecosystems; and minimize adverse impacts on ground-waterdependent ecosystems by: 1) maintaining natural patterns of recharge and discharge, and 

minimizing disruption to ground-water levels that are critical for ecosystems; 2) not polluting 

or causing changes in ground-water quality; and 3) rehabilitating degraded ground-water 

systems where possible” (USDA Forest Service 2007c). This national policy also stipulates 

that preferential consideration be given to ground-water-dependent resources when conflicts 

among land use activities occur (USDA Forest Service 2007c). 

A spring is defined as “any natural discharge of water from rock or soil onto the land surface 

or into a surface waterbody” (Carter et al. 2002). Major springs are those that discharge 

greater than one cfs, whereas seeps are small springs, with generally less than one cfs 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 102

average discharge (Rahn and Gries, 1973). There are six spring headworks recorded in the 

water development database maintained by Range Resources within the Pactola Project Area. 

However, over 30 additional seeps and springs were found in the project area during field 

surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010. A map depicting known springs is included in the 

project file. 

Some of these springs also have fens associated with them. Confirmed fen locations within 

the Pactola Project include Jim Creek Fen at the headwaters of Jim Creek and Nugget 

Junction Fen near the intersection of NFSR 249 and NFSR 677. Two other potential fen sites 

also exist – one in Hay Draw and the other along NFSR 249 near NFSR 249.2F in Nugget 

Gulch. Each of these is small in size, generally less than one acre each. A map depicting 

known fen locations is included in the project file. 

Fens are defined in the Region 2 WCP Handbook as “Geographically restricted wetlands where 

perennial groundwater discharge occurs on the time scale of millennia and where little erosion or 

mineral sediment deposition occurs. Fens are generally characterized by their stable presence on 

the landscape for thousands of years and associated plant and animal communities that may be 

relics from historic glaciation periods” (USDA Forest Service 2006c). Fens differ from bogs in 

that they are sustained by primarily by ground water, where as bogs are primarily maintained by 

surface and atmospheric waters. Fens are peat-forming wetlands usually vegetated with mosses 

and sedges. Black Hills fens are relatively rare and unique from other fens worldwide. Fens are 

typically formed in basins with impeded drainage or where springs have been present on the 

landscape for millennia. Peat develops due to the incomplete decomposition of dead plant 

material in saturated soils. Because of their water-holding capability, fens provide very stable 

habitats for plants and wildlife species in the long term. For example, many of the fens of 

Colorado are over 10,000 years old, with organic soil accumulation rates ranging from about 4 to 

16 inches per thousand years (USDA Forest Service 2002). It can take up to 10,000 years to 

form a fen naturally (USDA Forest Service 2007c). Fens in the Black Hills are undergoing 

research so little is currently known regarding ages and peat accumulation rates. However, 

preliminary carbon dating of samples in the Rochford area indicate that Black Hills fens are at 

least 3,000 years old (Grimm, 2000). Because the rate of peat accumulation is so slow in fens, 

these ecosystems are essentially irreplaceable. 

Peat-forming wetlands, including fens and bogs, are recognized by wetland regulating agencies 

(EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers) as rare wetlands that cannot be replaced in-kind (US 

Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2008). Mitigation for loss of fens is problematic, as there 

are no known methods to create new functional fens. Thus, avoidance and preservation of 

these rare wetlands is emphasized by these regulatory authorities as documented in 33 CFR 

Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230 (US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA 2008). The 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS), Mountain-Prairie Region, has made conservation 

and protection of fens one of their wetland priorities (USDA Forest Service 2002, USDI FWS 

1999a and 1999b). Furthermore, the Mountain-Prairie Region has determined that all 

functioning fens fall within their Resource Category 1. This means that the goal is no loss of 

existing habitat value, and that every reasonable effort should be made to avoid impacting 

these habitats. The Forest Service also recognizes the rarity and importance of such peatforming wetlands and the unique plant and animal habitats they support and requires that land 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 103

managers “avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs” (USDA Forest Service 

2002, 2006c, and 2007c). 

Roads have impacted many of the wetland, riparian, and GDEs present in the Pactola Project 

Area. Road-related problems exist where roads are located immediately adjacent to these 

streams and wetlands and in the vicinity of stream crossings. Stream channel adjustments 

continue to occur both upstream and downstream of problem road crossing, some migrating

through wetland features, including fens (e.g., channel incision or “head cutting” and 

draining of GDE features). All fens in the project area exhibit signs of livestock 

concentration including trampled and hoof-sheared banks; hummocky ground; overutilization of willows and grasses and forbs; excess sediment deposition; and extensive 

manure within and immediately adjacent to seeps, springs, and fens. Livestock impacts to 

wetland and riparian areas is outside the scope and authority of the Pactola HFRA Project, 

but can be addressed through allotment management and/or water resource improvement

projects. More detailed site information and maps are included in the Watershed section of 

the project file. A map depicting known wetlands, riparian areas, springs, fens, floodplains, 

lakes and ponds, and other water bodies is also included in the project file. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Wetland, Riparian, and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems 

This alternative would not have any new activities within the project area, so there would be no 

direct impact or affect on wetland and riparian ecosystems. Existing problems at wetlands, 

riparian areas, seeps, springs, and fens are associated primarily with livestock grazing and roads. 

Protective and restorative measures would occur primarily through grazing allotment 

management and road improvements, both of which are beyond the scope and authority of this 

project, depending on when and how much appropriated funds are available. 

As described previously, the risk of negative impacts to both soil and water resources is greatest 

with this alternative. Therefore, the risk of degradation of wetlands, riparian areas, seeps, springs, 

and fens is also greatest with this alternative. These ecosystems can be filled with sediment, ash, 

and debris entirely or they can be scoured by high-energy flood waters. These processes were 

also observed following post-fire flood events within and downstream of the Jasper Fire. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Wetland, Riparian, and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater dependent ecosystems (springs and fens) have been 

identified in or adjacent to proposed treatment units throughout the Pactola Project Area. Design 

Criteria have been included to protect these areas during management activities and are found in 

Appendix B. Since buffers provide protection for these areas, no effects to wetland and riparian 

areas are anticipated for proposed activities so long as WCP/BMP measures are properly 

implemented and adhered to. Therefore, this project would comply with all water-quality related 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and all State and National water quality regulations. 

Forest Service Manual 2880 – Geologic Resources, Hazards, and Services (USDA Forest 

Service 2008) requires inclusion of measures to manage and protect ground-water quality and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 104

quantity, as well as ground-water dependent ecosystems. Measures used to do this come 

from WCPs and SD BMPs. Although springs and fens require special Design Criteria to 

prevent any loss of these rare groundwater dependent ecosystems from occurring, it would 

not be necessary to eliminate entire stand polygons from treatment due to the presence of a 

spring or fen within an individual stand. Rather, avoidance of spring and fen areas, as well as 

the small contributing areas to these ecosystems, along with Design Criteria addressing 

harvest and hauling operations, should be sufficient to preserve these fragile ecosystems. 

Wetlands, riparian areas, seeps and springs, and fens are all buffered in a “bulls-eye” manner, 

in which ground based activities can take place within the 100-foot buffer in order to 

accomplish project objectives so long as resources are protected, but no equipment is allowed 

within the 50-foot buffer. The hydrologist would be consulted prior to initiating management 

activities within these buffers in order to make a site specific determination of what kinds of 

activities are acceptable and the specific locations they could be implemented while protecting 

wetland and riparian resources. The botanist and wildlife biologist may also be involved 

depending on the resource concerns associated with each individual wetland, riparian area, or 

GDE. A typical example of this situation is the need for a short segment of skid trail within the 

outer buffer due to restrictive topography. Site specific needs of this type arise as thinning 

units are laid out, marked, and logging plans developed, as well as during timber sale 

administration. Any additional wetlands and riparian areas discovered during project layout 

and implementation would also be protected. 

Timber harvest, road construction, construction of fire line (hand or dozer), operation of heavy 

equipment, or ignition of prescribed fire is generally not allowed within these buffers due to 

project Design Criteria and WCP/BMP requirements. However, it is possible that prescribed 

fire may enter wetlands and riparian ecosystems, but due to the naturally moist conditions of 

these areas only low intensity fire is anticipated. This should closely mimic natural fire 

conditions, and no long-term adverse effects are expected. However, prescribed fire is not 

allowed in fens and springs because of the presence of organic soils that are highly combustible 

as discussed previously in the Organic Soils section. Roads that cross wetland and riparian 

areas have Design Criteria and WCPs/BMPs associated with them and would be improved or 

relocated out of these areas where feasible. The net result is expected to be an overall 

improvement in wetland and riparian conditions once protective measures around these areas 

are installed (e.g., fencing or natural barriers) and road improvements are made. 

The Pactola Project does not propose wetland stabilization or restoration activities, and thus 

potential effects associated with advancing headcuts through iron-rich fens and wetlands apply 

under both action alternatives. However, both action alternatives include Design Criteria and 

BMPs to prevent further effects to these already impaired and unstable systems. Some impacts 

may be addressed through road maintenance and improvements associated with timber haul 

routes. Other restoration activities would be pursued through separate NEPA authorities. 

The risk of negative impacts to wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater dependent

ecosystems resulting from a cable road slope failure is greatest with Alternative C for the 

reasons described previously throughout the soil and water discussion. Impacts may be

localized and short-term, or chronic and extensive, depending on the severity and size of the 

slope failure and its location relative to these water resources. If such an event were to occur, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 105

these areas would be very difficult to stabilize and rehabilitate, and thus the risk of losing 

wetlands, especially the irreplaceable springs and fens, is greatest with this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 

Current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix C of the Pactola EIS were 

considered for cumulative effects to wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater dependent 

ecosystems such as springs and fens. These areas are expected to remain in their current 

condition until grazing management changes are implemented to repair fences and prevent 

concentrated use in these areas and road problems are addressed. Although grazing management 

is beyond the scope and authorization of the Pactola Project, protective and restoration measures 

for problem areas identified during field investigations would be pursued through adaptive 

management under the grazing allotment management plans and grazing permits. 

The creation of new openings resulting from timber harvest may lead to increased livestock use 

over a larger area, which could reduce grazing pressure on existing high-use areas, which tend 

to be wetlands, springs, fens, streams, and other riparian areas. However, opening up areas 

around already existing problem areas could make those areas even more accessible to 

livestock, thus exacerbating existing problems. Livestock grazing can disturb soils in localized 

areas of concentrated use such as watering areas, salt block locations, and easily accessible 

stream banks or meadows. Bank shearing and compaction are the two most common soil 

disturbances resulting from grazing. Stream bank shearing occurs when livestock cross a 

stream or wetland and collapse the bank. This can lead to an increase in bank scour during 

high flows. Compaction by livestock occurs in areas of concentrated use, usually when soils 

are moist and more prone to compaction. Impacts to soil and water resources as a result of 

livestock management are beyond the scope of this project. Although grazing management is 

beyond the scope and authorization of the project, protective and restoration measures for 

problem areas identified during field investigations will be pursued through adaptive 

management under the grazing allotment management plans and grazing permits. 

Overall Watershed Condition and Processes 

Alternative A – No Action 

Cumulative Effects Overall Watershed Condition and Processes 

No cumulative, measurable change in water yield, flow regime, stream channel stability, 

floodplains, water quality, or wetland and riparian conditions is expected, unless a wildfire occurs, 

followed by intense summer thunderstorms. As discussed throughout the soil and water resources 

sections, Alternative A poses the greatest risk of severe fire effects resulting from a wildfire and 

multiple degraded resources resulting from post-fire runoff and flooding. If this happens, then 

adverse impacts to water quality would be expected to mimic those observed following the Jasper 

Fire and Grizzly Fire, as well as other large wildfires in the Black Hills. These post-fire floods 

would transport ash, sediment, and debris through the stream networks and into lakes, clogging 

culverts, washing out roadways, eroding stream banks, scouring channels, filling ponds and 

reservoirs, and clogging or damaging irrigation points. Wetlands would be scoured or filled with 

ash and debris depending on their position in relation to flood waters. Infrastructure located within 

streams and floodplains would be at risk of damage, clogging, or complete removal (e.g., washout) 

by these debris-laden floodwaters. Thus, downstream water uses, water rights, and water quality 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 106

would be at risk. The risk of downstream impairment of water quality in Pactola Reservoir 

following a post-fire flood is greatest with this alternative. 

Disturbances associated with livestock grazing, wildlife high-use areas, OHV activity, recreation, 

mining, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents or authorities in 

the project area (see Appendix C) have the potential to disturb watershed processes as discussed 

throughout the soil and water resources section, and thus can also affect overall watershed 

condition. However, Design Criteria and WCP/BMP measures also apply to these other 

activities, and thus minimize their impacts as well. Strict adherence to WCP/BMP measures, 

including proper implementation and maintenance of runoff and erosion control structures would 

ensure protection of water resources. 

Alternatives B and C 

Cumulative Effects for Overall Watershed Condition and Processes 

No measurable, negative change in water yield, flow regime, stream channel stability, 

floodplains, water quality, or wetland and riparian conditions is expected to result from the 

implementation of either action alternative, when cumulatively combined with other activities. 

This project and all other Forest Service activities use applicable WCP and BMP measures to 

prevent or minimize effects to water resources. Additionally, private lands are limited within the 

watershed analysis area and activities occurring on them must still comply with State water 

quality laws and standards, SD State Forestry BMPs (SDSU et al. 2003) for harvest and road 

building, and permitting for construction sites or alteration of wetlands. 

Overall, the risk of severe post-fire watershed conditions would be reduced and the future health 

and function of the watershed improved. Vegetation management and fuels treatment associated 

with both action alternatives provides an opportunity to cumulative improve watershed 

conditions, as well as prevent adverse effects should a wildfire occur for the reasons discussed 

previously. With improved watershed conditions, it would take a much larger storm event to 

produce runoff and erosion, and thus flood damage is limited and localized. This means that the 

risk of cumulative impairments to downstream water quality and beneficial uses (e.g., Pactola 

Reservoir) would also be minimized. If drought conditions persist, the risk of watershed 

impairment caused by high-severity wildfire would be decreased. If climatic conditions return to 

normal or cycle towards colder and wetter conditions, the risk of watershed impairment caused 

by high-severity wildfire would be lower, and thus management activities associated with the 

Action Alternatives would have less effect. Over the long term climate cycling between hot and 

dry, and cool and wet periods, the action alternatives would decrease the long term risk of 

watershed impairment resulting from a high-severity wildfire. 

Disturbances associated with livestock grazing, wildlife high-use areas, OHV activity, 

recreation, mining, and other forest activities authorized under other planning documents or 

authorities in the project area (see Appendix C) have the potential to disturb watershed 

processes as discussed throughout the soil and water resources section, and thus can also affect 

overall watershed condition. However, Design Criteria and WCP/BMP measures also apply to 

these other activities, and thus minimize their impacts as well. Strict adherence to WCP/BMP 

measures, including proper implementation and maintenance of runoff and erosion control 

structures would ensure protection of water resources. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 107

TRANSPORTATION 

Primary access into the Pactola Project Area, from the city of Rapid City, is provided by 

SD Highway 44. US Highway385 (Forest Highway-1) provides access to the area from

the communities of Lead and Deadwood and US Highway 16/385 provides access to the 

area from the cities of Custer and Hill City. 

Unique characteristics and transportation challenges of the Pactola Project Area are the 

presence of Rapid Creek, Castle Creek, Slate Creek, and other stream courses; Pactola 

Lake and associated recreational facilities; steep, rugged terrain; the Centennial, 

Deerfield, Michelson, Osprey, and Veterans Point Trails; and the implementation of the 

Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Decision (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Affected Environment 

The existing transportation system in the Pactola Project Area was inventoried in 2008 and 

2009 and reviewed in 2010. Road condition surveys were conducted during the 2010 review. 

Road conditions vary throughout the area. In areas of active or recent timber sales, the roads 

meet maintenance standards due to the ongoing or recent maintenance activities by the timber 

purchaser (Placer Timber Sale is active and Bullock Timber Sale recently closed). Other 

maintenance level 1 and 2 roads, which have not had grid maintenance recently, do not meet 

maintenance standards. Segments of roads are located in or cross drainage bottoms, meadows 

or other wet areas. These road segments do not drain properly and are contributing to sediment 

movement. Some road sections that cross drainages do not have a hardened surface or a proper 

design through the crossing and portions have steep grades, which show evidence of road 

rutting and surface material loss. 

During the road inventories, “unauthorized” routes were identified in the project area. Many of 

these routes are “user defined,” poorly located and have no drainage structures resulting in 

sediment movement, rutting and vegetation compaction or loss. 

Road access is limited by private property and/or steep terrain. The Silver City area in Township 

2 North, Range 5 East, Section 31 is one example of restricted access. The landscape is too steep 

for road access on forest land and would require access (easement) through private property and 

a recreational summer home. Similar situations exist in the Edelweiss Estates (T1N, R5E, 

Sections 17 and 20), the Nugget Gulch area (T1N, R5E, Sections 18 and 19), and the Sunnyside 

Gulch area (T2N, R5E, Sections 30 and 31). Road access is also limited by steep terrain and 

Pactola Lake north of the lake. 

Newly designated motorized trail system routes are located in the north section of the project area. 

Some of these trails would be utilized as log haul routes and would create mixed use traffic. 

Road condition surveys identified some existing closures that are not effective. There is 

evidence of motorized traffic gaining access behind gate and closure barriers. 

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

was signed on May 7, 2010 and implementation began with publication of the Motorized 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 108

Vehicle Use Map effective December 1, 2010. The ROD designates certain roads and trails as 

open to motorized vehicle traffic on lands administered by the Forest and also assigns a class 

of vehicle and season of use to these designated roads or trails. Trail designations in the ROD 

were the result of either changing an existing National Forest System Road (NFSR) to a Forest 

System Trail, or converting an unauthorized route to a system trail. Some NFSR’s were also 

changed from the status of “highway legal only” to “mixed use” (also referred to as roads open 

to all motorized uses). 

Most, but not all of the designated roads and trails included in the Travel Management ROD 

have been implemented on the ground. Implementation of the full Travel Management ROD is 

ongoing and expected to be completed within the next two to three years. Full implementation 

of the Travel Management ROD is used as the baseline or existing condition for the Pactola 

Project transportation analysis. This baseline is presented in Table 3-7. 

Table 3-7 TMP Designated Routes/Trails Open 

Designation Length in Miles

Open Yearlong Seasonal Total

Highway Legal Only 22 7 29

Roads Open to All 12 2 14

Trails Open to All 5 8 13

Trails Open to Vehicles <62” 13 16 29

Trails Open to Motorcycles 10 2 12

Totals 62 35 97

Closed Forest System Roads are approximately 60 miles.

The following table displays road and trail densities within the Pactola Project Area. This 

does not include State, County, or private roads, nor does it include private land. 

Table 3-8 Road Density 

Road/Trail Density Length (Miles) Miles/Square Mile 

Seasonal Open (May 15 to Dec 15) 97 2.5 

Yearlong Open (Dec 15 to May 15) 62 1.6 

Within the Pactola Project Area, eight miles of road are maintained by the South Dakota 

Department of Transportation, 10 miles are maintained by Pennington County, and 19 

miles are maintained annually by the Forest Service (Maintenance Level 3, 4, and 5). 

The remaining system roads are reviewed for maintenance needs every five years or 

sooner if identified for other management needs or if they are causing resource damage 

(Maintenance Level 1 and 2). 

The following table shows National Forest System Roads within the Pactola Project Area that 

are maintained annually by the Forest Service. These roads are Maintenance Level 3, 4, or 5. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 109

Table 3-9 Annually Maintained Routes 

Road No. 

(Trail No.) 

Road Name Length in 

Miles 

Maintenance Level Surface 

251 Cross Over 3.8 3 Aggregate 

253 Bear Creek 1.5 3 Aggregate 

258 Custer Gulch 2.7 5 Asphalt 

258.1D Pactola Point PG 0.1 4 Asphalt 

261 Jenny Gulch 4.1 3 Aggregate 

269 Pactola Boat Dock 0.8 5 Asphalt 

450 Jenny Gulch PG 0.7 3 Aggregate 

545 Pactola CG 1.1 4 Asphalt 

545.1A Pactola CG Loop 1A 0.9 4 Asphalt 

545.1B Pactola CG Loop 1B 0.5 4 Asphalt 

545.1C Pactola CG Loop 1C 0.4 4 Asphalt 

657 Pactola Overlook 0.1 4 Asphalt 

657.1A Blue Star Memorial 0.1 4 Asphalt 

657.1B Veterans Point 0.1 4 Asphalt 

672 (TR6232) Broad Gulch 2.3 3 Aggregate 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, there would be no direct effects to the existing transportation 

system. Scheduled annual and grid maintenance would continue as it has in the past. 

Implementation of the Travel Management ROD would continue. Road densities would 

not change under this alternative. 

The beneficial effects of taking no action are that there would be no ground disturbing

activities, no increased dust and noise, no tree removal, etc. as which would occur with 

Alternatives B and C (see direct effects under Alternative B and C). 

The adverse indirect effects of taking no action include foregoing the opportunity to 

provide additional maintenance, reconstruction, reclassification of unauthorized roads, and 

road closings associated with and funded by timber harvesting. Annual maintenance would 

continue on approximately 19 miles and grid maintenance would continue on a five-year

rotation on the remaining forest system roads. With budgets continuing to decline, fewer 

miles of roads within the area may be maintained to the current standard in the future. 

Since the system roads within the Pactola Project Area are on different grid maintenance 

schedules, some of the roads would not receive grid maintenance for up to five years. 

Roads located through meadows and in flatter terrains could create changes to the road bed. 

These roads are difficult to maintain. The location of these roads do not provide for surface 

water relief or drainage structure effectiveness. Continued use, especially during wet 

periods, result in the roadbed being lower than the surrounding ground elevation. This 

would increase maintenance costs and effectiveness. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 110

Roads located on steeper grades and roads without an adequate number of drainage structures 

would continue to lose roadbed surface material. Ruts would deepen as material washes off 

the road. More substantial maintenance would be required as road conditions deteriorate. 

Positive driving experiences for some users would be affected as these roads become more 

difficult to navigate. 

Unauthorized roads would remain on the landscape until future projects and funding is 

secured. Unauthorized roads, in most cases, have no drainage structures, have poor 

alignment and are located in drainage bottoms, on steep slopes or in meadows, resulting 

in compaction and vegetation loss. 

Current road closures in the project area range from effective to ineffective. The ineffective 

closures would not be secured to prevent motor vehicle travel. Additional funding would be 

needed to reinforce these existing closures. This would have the effect of continued use in 

areas that are meant to be closed to motorized travel to protect the roads and other resources. 

Forest lands that are not easily accessed due to steep terrain or land-locked by surrounding 

private property would continue to be difficult to access for future management activities and 

would slow wildfire suppression activities. 

Although Alternative A proposes no action, there are effects in the area that would result from 

ongoing and future actions. Additional roads and easements may be needed to access private 

land, and new roads could be needed for transmission line construction. The exact location of 

these roads is unknown at this time. Increased recreation use of system trails and mixed use 

roads might require additional maintenance over time. Tree mortality due to mountain pine 

beetles and the consequent increase in wildfire hazard could result in increased water runoff onto 

the roads and increased erosion. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The action alternatives propose additional maintenance, reconstruction, new construction, and 

road closure activities. Direct adverse effects from these proposed activities are short term 

vegetation loss, vegetation removal, soil disturbance and compaction, an increase of mixed 

traffic, and traffic delays during project implementation. Short term increases of noise and 

dust would occur. 

The action alternatives would utilize existing National Forest System Roads (NFSR), reconstruct 

existing NFSRs, reclassify unauthorized routes, utilize/reconstruct trails, and construct additional 

system roads. Road reconstruction could include improvements, restoration or realignment. 

Select system roads would be closed to protect and prevent damage to resources. Some existing 

unauthorized routes would be reconstructed and converted to NFSRs, and some trails would be 

temporarily changed to roads and then returned to trails after vegetation management activities 

are completed. Some existing unauthorized routes would be used as temporary roads and then 

reclaimed and closed when vegetation management activities are completed. 

Direct and indirect beneficial effects include improvements to existing roads and trails. All 

road work would comply with Best Management Practices and road design criteria (see 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 111

Appendix B). Safety issues would be addressed in the road design. Existing roads located in 

meadows would be relocated and/or armored with aggregate material to prevent road 

indentation, rutting and sediment movement. Existing roads would be realigned and relocated 

to reduce grades if needed. 

Once road improvements are completed, long term maintenance and deferred maintenance 

costs would decrease. As vegetation is reestablished, the effects on soil erosion would be 

reduced. The vegetation would aid in stabilizing the roadway and the cut and fill slopes. 

Positive driving experiences would improve from proper road design and repair of the travel 

way. The road use pattern in the area would change as unauthorized roads, used as temporary 

roads, are closed and closure devices are secured. 

Crushed aggregate needed to stabilize the roadbed or to plate drainage dips would come from 

a commercial source unless the quantity needed is large enough to justify the cost of crushing 

in a Forest Service quarry. Benchmark Quarry is the closest Forest Service rock source. 

The average road density for the Black Hills National Forest, including system and 

unauthorized road miles, is 4.4 miles per square mile as shown in the Forest Plan (Phase II 

Amendment). The current open road density for the Pactola Project Area is 2.5 miles/square 

mile from May 15th through December 15th and 1.6 miles/square mile from December 15th 

through May 15th. Total road densities would increase under both Alternatives B and C because 

of new road construction and converting unauthorized roads to system roads. These roads

would be closed following harvest operations, therefore open road densities would not change. 

Maintenance on system roads used for timber harvest is the responsibility of the 

Purchaser/Contractor for the life of the Timber Sale Contract. Maintenance includes cleaning 

out silt from sediment collecting ponds and depositing it in upland locations, keeping erosion 

control measures functioning by cleaning out any sediment collected in the structures and 

depositing it in upland locations, keeping all drainage structures and ditches clear and functional, 

eliminating erosion of cut and fill slope and roadway soils, removing roadway vegetation and 

blading road surfaces. 

Maintenance of the roads after the proposed activity would be the responsibility of the Forest 

Service and would be performed when needed or with grid maintenance every five years, 

whichever comes first. 

Recreational road and trail use associated with the Travel Management ROD could be negatively 

affected by transportation needs associated with timber hauling, equipment access, and 

harvesting activities. Recreational users might not be able to use some of the roads and trails at 

times during implementation of either action alternative (see Travel Management section). 

Fourteen miles of “Roads Open to All Vehicles” would be utilized as haul routes under both 

action alternatives. Twenty-three miles of designated trails under Alternative B and twentyfive 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 alternatives to 

support commercial haul and to protect soil and water resources. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 112

Alternative B would maintain 69 miles of road, reconstruct 27 miles, temporarily change 23 

miles of trails to NFSRs, and add 3.5 miles to the forest road system by converting 0.5 miles of 

existing unauthorized routes to NFSRs, and constructing three miles of new system roads. 

Alternative B would close all newly constructed roads, NFSR conversion, and approximately 13 

miles of unauthorized routes used for temporary access after use as part of timber operations. 

Alternative C would maintain 72 miles of road, reconstruct 28 miles, temporarily change 25 

miles of trails to NFSRs, and add 20.5 miles to the forest road system by converting 1.5 miles 

of unauthorized roads to NFSR and constructing 19 miles of new system roads (includes 15 

miles for cable logging). Alternative C would close all new road construction, NFSR 

conversion, and approximately 12 miles of unauthorized roads used for temporary access 

after use as part of the logging operations. 

The proposed transportation plan for Alternative B would maintain, reconstruct, and 

construct fewer miles than Alternative C. Direct effects in terms of cost and ground 

disturbance are lower under this alternative. Alternative B would improve and repair slightly 

fewer miles of road than Alternative C, but would still reduce adverse indirect effects, such 

as soil erosion and sedimentation. Future maintenance cost would likely be reduced. 

The following table summarizes mileages and costs contained within the action alternatives. 

Table 3-10 Action Alternatives – Activity in Miles and Estimated Cost 

Activity Alternative B Alternative C 

Maintenance 69 72 

Reconstruction 27 28 

Reconstruct/Convert Unauthorized Road to NFSR 0.5 1.5 

Temporary Change from Trail to NFSR 23 25 

New Construction 3 19 

Estimated Cost $281,700 $1,0630,600 

Designated trails temporarily used as roads are included under the road mile figures in Table 

3-10, and would be returned to trails when operations have been completed. New 

Construction miles are based on the success of obtaining road rights-of-ways (ROW) through 

private property. The miles of new construction needed could increase if ROWs are not 

obtained or decrease if ROWs are obtained. New construction miles under Alternative C 

would decrease if helicopter logging is implemented in place of cable logging units. 

Cost estimates are based on the following average cost per mile: Maintenance = $300/mi., 

Reconstruction = $8,000/mi., Reconstruct/Convert = $8,000/mi., New Construction = 

$15,000/mi., and New Construction (Cable Logging) = $50,000/mi. 

Miles of road work shown Table 3-10 are approximate lengths. A significant storm event or 

the extent of time between project planning and project implementation could trigger changes 

in road conditions. If road conditions worsen before project implementation, additional 

reconstruction may be necessary. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 113

Cumulative Effects 

There are cumulative effects in the area that would result from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities. Additional roads and easements may be needed to access private land, 

and new roads could be needed for transmission line construction. The exact location of or

need for these roads is unknown at this time. Increased recreation use of system trails and 

mixed use roads might require additional maintenance over time. Tree mortality due to 

mountain pine beetles and the consequent increase in wildfire hazard could result in increased 

water runoff onto the roads and increased erosion. Since wildfire hazard would be reduced 

compared to Alternative A, there would be less potential for large scale wildfire and 

subsequent road erosion under the action alternatives. 

MINERALS 

Affected Environment 

Mining has played a big part in the development of this area as evidenced by the 

numerous prospect pits, adits, shafts, and abandoned mine workings. US Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) index to mining claims LR 2000 lists numerous claims within the 

project area. While not active, there is always the possibility that they may become so 

during the life of the project. This could affect travel management as the owners of these 

claims need access to their area of operation. 

Minerals can be divided into three categories on National Forest System lands. This 

includes locatable, leasable, and saleable minerals. 

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are minerals such as gold, copper, silver, and other metals subject to 

claim and development under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. As set forth in 

this law, all locatable minerals on public domain lands such as the Pactola Project Area are 

open to location, discovery, and mining, except in areas that have been withdrawn from 

mining entry. The Forest Service has only limited authority to restrict and regulate locatable 

mineral activities on public domain lands (USDA Forest Service Mineral Program Handbook 

1991). A person or company can file a mining claim with the BLM when they have 

something of value, and must get approval from the Forest Service before conducting any 

surface disturbing activities. Based on the January 5, 2010 search of BLM’s Geographic 

Claim Index (LR2000), there are six active mining claims located within the Pactola Project 

Area. There are also seven additional active claims that lie just outside of the project area. 

Leasable Minerals

Oil, gas, and coal are leasable minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. This act 

provides authority to the BLM to lease oil and gas deposits on public domain National Forest

system lands. Oil and gas production is occurring along the western and southwestern 

margins of the Black Hills. Leases are awarded at the discretion of the government for these 

types of minerals. There are no mineral leases within the project area. Based on the geology 

in the project area the potential for these types of minerals is low. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 114

Salable minerals

Salable minerals are a group of mineral commodities such as common variety sand, gravel, 

slate, and building stone that are salable under the Materials Act of 1947. The Forest Service 

has discretionary authority over production of these commodities from National Forest 

system lands (USDA Forest Service Mineral Program Handbook 1991). The project area

contains deposits of saleable type minerals such as sand, gravel, and slate. Sand and gravel is 

present in alluvium along a small portion of Rapid Creek just above Pactola Reservoir. The

limited size of this alluvial deposit would make its development unlikely. Slate is also 

present in the project area and has been quarried in several locations just outside the project 

area. However, there are currently no projects of this type within the project area. 

Environmental Consequences 

All Alternatives 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Effects to travel management would occur as the owners of the active claims, discussed 

above, need access to their areas of operation. Future road access needs are unknown. 

However, once an operating plan is submitted to develop a mining claim, reasonable 

access must be provided. This possible requirement for road access is stipulated under 36 

CFR 228.1 subpart A and United States Mining Laws 30 USC 21-54, which confers a 

statutory right to enter upon public lands to search for minerals. If road access becomes a 

necessity, then the category of road use and maintenance level of the road will be

determined. Roads currently in place may be suitable for access thus reducing the need 

to open decommissioned or construct additional new roads. 

Roads used and maintained to support any of the action alternatives could potentially provide 

improved travel access to mining claims. There could be positive direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to the mineral resource or to mining claimants from any of the alternatives 

that would reconstruct or construct roads available for miners to access their claims. 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for each 

alternative to the Biological Environment (Vegetation, Fire and Fuels, Range, Noxious and 

Invasive Weeds, Wildlife Habitat, Fisheries, and Botany). 

VEGETATION 

The overall goal of silviculture is to manage the forest environment to achieve desired 

management goals and objectives. This involves not only the timber resource, but also all of 

the resources that can be found in a forested ecosystem, as well as the needs of the forest users. 

This input is designed to only address the timber resource however, and does so realizing that 

all of the resources in the entire forested ecosystem are interrelated and interactive. It is the 

intent of this input to add only information, issues and concerns with regards to the timber

resource using the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan standards, 

guidelines and Phase II Amendment as a desired future condition. In addition, this report is 

intended to supplement the analysis in the Black Hills LRMP and Phase II Amendment and not 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 115

duplicate it. This is tiered to the aforementioned documents and applicable silviculture 

sections. Each site was analyzed to determine if it met forest plan condition and/or the purpose 

and need both on a site specific basis and its contribution to the landscape. Treatments were 

formulated to move the project area towards the desired condition. 

Affected Environment

Records indicate that harvesting within the project area has occurred as far back as the turn of 

the century. Since that time, additional harvesting has occurred on a periodic basis. Much of 

the area has had vegetative treatments within the past 30 years. District records show 

commercial harvests and non-commercial thinnings from the early 1980’s to the present have 

taken place on approximately 50% of the project area. Many treatments were designed to 

lower the basal area to promote increased growth and vigor and regenerate the stands of 

timber. Much of the activity that has occurred within the project area has been timber sales 

and related activities, which include the sales listed in Appendix C, Table 1. 

The following discussion summarizes existing conditions in terms of topography, roads, 

fuel loading, plant species composition, age class distribution, stocking levels, 

regeneration, insects and disease, and structural stage distribution. 

Topography: The topography is dominated by Rapid Creek and its tributaries with many 

small drainages leading into the larger and more developed drainages and into Pactola 

Reservoir. Elevations run from a low of 4,580 feet in valleys to almost 6,000 feet on some of 

the ridge tops. Slopes are moderate over most of the area with an average slope of 20%. There 

are steep rocky outcroppings above Rapid Creek and steep rimrock running below some ridges 

scattered throughout the project area. There are approximately 6,000 acres or 25% of the 

forested stands within the project area that have average slopes in excess of 40%. Pactola 

Reservoir covers 868 acres within the project area. 

Insects and Disease: Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is the number one killer 

of pines throughout the western United States. The beetle is a native species to the West and 

attacks most pine species including ponderosa pine in the Black Hills. Mountain pine beetles 

(MPB) have always been a part of the Black Hills Forest ecosystem, with outbreaks occurring 

periodically. The largest recorded outbreak occurred from the late 1890’s through the early 

1900’s, and killed an estimated 1-2 billion board feet of timber (USDA Forest Service 2010d).

Mountain pine beetles prefer dense stands of mature pine trees greater than seven inches in 

diameter. Adult flight typically occurs in July and August, with the peak flight around the first 

week of August. During this flight, adult beetles leave previously infested trees and attack and 

kill new host trees. The adults attack green trees, chew through the bark and construct galleries 

along which eggs are laid. Larvae hatch from the eggs and begin feeding on the phloem of the 

tree in late summer to early fall. Larvae, pupae or callow adults over-winter under the bark of 

the infested tree. 

Currently, in the Pactola Project Area, beetle activity is characterized as an incipient or 

growing epidemic (USDA Forest Service 2010e). At this time, parts of the Pactola Project 

Area and the Nautilus Project Area just to the north have some of the most actively expanding 

beetle spots in the entire Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010d). Generally speaking, the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 116

western part of the project area is where the most intense beetle activity is occurring (in and 

around West Nugget Gulch to Canyon City and north to the Experimental Forest), with the 

central part (around Silver City) being more moderately infested, and the eastern portion along 

US Highway 385 having the lowest infestations at this time. Across the project area, 80% of 

the dead trees encountered in the fall of 2009 were infested but still green, compared to 20%

killed in the previous two years. The combination of the high percentage of green infested 

trees compared to those killed the past few years and the widespread movement of new

infestations over the entire landscape, indicate a rapidly growing mountain pine beetle 

infestation. Although beetle activity and mortality is currently light to moderate in the eastern 

part of the project area, stand conditions in much of that area are conducive to sustaining high 

levels of beetle-caused mortality and allowing the outbreak to expand. 

Stands were rated for mountain pine beetle hazard using the Insect Rating Guide based on 

structural stage from the Forest Plan Amendment (FEIS Phase II Amendment, III-385). The 

hazard rating is summarized in Table 3-11 as follows: 

Table 3-11 Pactola Project Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Rating – Ponderosa Pine

Rating Sum Area Percent \1 

Low 1,881 8% 

Medium 6,256 28% 

High 14,181 64% 

\1 Percent based on National Forest System lands 

The overall hazard of MPB infestation can be considered high in the project area. The hazard 

rating refers to the potential for losses within a stand if an infestation occurs and not the 

probability of an infestation. If an infestation occurs within stands with a high hazard rating, 

then one can expect higher overall losses than those stands with lower hazard ratings. 

Approximately 64% of the area is rated at high hazard for MPB, with an overall infestation 

hazard rating of high for the project area. The probability - or risk - of infestation is also high 

due to the ongoing epidemic in the area. 

Figure 3-2 Existing Mountain Pine Beetle Hazard Rating in Pactola Project Area

Western gall rust (Peridermium harknessii) has been observed in the area. Most of the galls 

have been observed to be occurring on the limbs and not on the boles of the ponderosa pine. 

This would reduce growth of the pine stands to a certain extent but should not be considered a 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 117

major threat to the merchantability of the stands in the area. Other diseases that occur in the 

tree species are either occurring infrequently or have not been observed. 

Roads: Roads are abundant in the project area from past mining, harvesting and recreation. 

Many of the roads are Forest Development Roads and are maintained by the Forest Service. 

Other roads and trails are not maintained and provide access for recreational users and hunters. 

Fuel-loading: Most of the slash from past harvesting and non-commercial thinning has been 

treated to a point where existing fuels are at levels below existing forest plan standards. 

Approximately 27% of the area has had treatments that, at the time of treatment may have 

reduced the crown cover to a level that would reduce the hazard of a crown fire. Residual 

densities however were designed for timber vigor and growth and not fire hazard reduction and 

many stands have grown into high fire hazard conditions. 

Stand Structure: The Black Hills Land and Management Plan Phase II Amendment specifies 

that certain management areas (MAs) should be managed to provide a distribution of structural 

stages in a variety of sizes and shapes. It further specifies the structural stage objectives 

(percentage) for each MA. Within the Pactola Project Area there are two such MAs: MA 5.1, 

Resource Production Emphasis; and MA 5.4, Big Game Winter Range Emphasis. Both of the 

MAs have the same structural stage objectives. Table 3-12 displays the distribution of

structural stages within each management area across the Black Hills National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2010c). 

Table 3-12 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area. Ponderosa Pine Stands – Structural Stage 

Distribution

Objective MA 5.1 Existing MA 5.4 Existing 

SS % Acres % Acres % 

1 5% 26,760 6% 45,616 13% 

2 5% 16,673 4% 10,152 3% 

3A 10% 24,236 5% 17,454 5% 

3B 15% 17,047 4% 22,227 7% 

3C 5% 10,269 2% 15,763 5% 

4A 25% 185,062 39% 86,487 25% 

4B 25% 142,228 30% 87,864 26% 

4C 5% 50,437 11% 52,865 16% 

5 5% 1,227 0% 1,066 0% 

Total 100% 473,939 100% 339,494 100% 

Additional Forest-wide objectives in Phase II include providing 10% of the 4 structural stage 

with an average tree size of “very large” where the average size pine is greater than 16 inches 

DBH; seek opportunities to increase understory shrubs in open-canopy structural stages; and 

actively manage stands to provide 5% in desired late successional characteristics. Table 3-13 

displays the acres of Structural Stage 4 (SS4) with a tree size of very large within each 

management area across the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 118

Table 3-13 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area. Ponderosa Pine Stands – Structural Stage 

4 with Very Large Tree Size 

Objective MA 5.1 – Existing MA 5.4 – Existing 

% of SS4 Acres % of SS4 Acres % of SS4 

10.0% 48,756 12.9% 19,761 8.7% 

Plant Species Composition: Within the project area the vast majority of the cover type on 

NFS lands are ponderosa pine (22,317 acres). Other cover types include 253 acres of white 

spruce and 938 acres of aspen. There are numerous small inclusions (10 acres or less in size) 

of aspen located in non-aspen sites. These are usually very productive sites where conifers 

would eventually take over the site if no treatment is done. In addition, there are 394 acres of 

grasslands which may have conifers encroaching on them. 

Table 3-14 Existing Condition Cover Types of National Forest Lands within the Pactola Project Area

Cover Type Acres Percent 

Grass 394 1.6% 

Shrubs 28 0.1% 

Aspen 938 3.8% 

Ponderosa Pine 22,317 89.8% 

White Spruce 253 1.0% 

Water 868 3.5% 

Non-Vegetated 64 0.3% 

TOTALS 24,863 100.0% 

Age Class Distribution: Approximately 7,605 acres (54%) of the suitable pine acres 

inventoried within the project area are greater than 105 years of age. 5,571 acres (40%) of the 

suitable pine acres are between 66 and 105 years old, with 855 acres (6%) being 65 years or less. 

The distribution of age classes ranges from 20 to 280 years with the majority of stands (66%) 

in the 90 to 140 year age classes. The age class curve is a bell shaped curve with the greatest 

acreage in the 100-year class. The majority of the stands were regenerated post-European 

settlement and are indicative of intensive harvest activities and fire protection occurring within 

the last 130 years. The width of the bell curve where the majority of acres occur is between 90 

and 140 years which indicate that many of the stands were regenerated over a 50 year period 

from the 1870s through the 1920s which corresponds to historical accounts of heavy logging 

activity. There is a period from the 1950s to the 1980s where the amount of new stand 

regeneration declines rapidly indicating that harvesting activities to regenerate stands and 

natural stand level disturbances were not as prevalent. Within the past 20 years, an increase in 

the amount of regeneration harvesting has occurred as can be seen by the slight upward trend 

in acres in the 20 year age class. Not unexpectedly, a much larger percentage of pine stands 

are in the 160 year age class or older (28%) in unsuitable stands than the more actively 

managed suitable stands (6%). Topography and management direction in these areas limit our 

management options. To develop an even distribution of age classes across the landscape over 

a 120-year period, approximately 1,400 acres of stands would have to be regenerated each 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 119

decade. While in theory this could occur, management objectives, accessibility and natural 

stand replacement events make the probability of this unlikely. 

Stocking Levels: The majority of suitable ponderosa pine acres in the project area are within 

the timber management zone as identified in Appendix H-3 of the LMRP. Although they are

within the zone, many of these stands are at a high hazard rating for MPB infestation. 

Considering the existing ongoing epidemic within the project area, and that Forest Plan Goal 

10, Objective 10-07 states “where outbreaks of MPB could present risks to management 

objectives, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are in medium or high risk for 

infestation,” management activities would move many of these stands to the lower range 

within the management zone. Although basal areas are generally a good indication of stocking 

in most sawtimber and pole timber stands, it does not represent smaller diameter stands (< 6 in. 

dbh) nor large diameter stands (> 16 in. dbh) well. 

Late Successional Stands: There are currently no stands within the project area classified as 

late successional, Structural Stage 5 (SS5). We have identified 21 sites, totaling over 900 

acres, within the project area that have the age and stand structure characteristics for SS5. 

These stands would be designated as SS5 for this analysis. There are currently more than 

9,700 acres of SS4B stands within the project area that would be available to grow into older, 

denser late successional stands. These stands would be needed to increase the amount of old 

growth and replace existing old growth as they deteriorate or are lost through fire, insects or 

other natural events. These stands would also be susceptible to mortality from MPB infestation 

and wildfire, and that mortality is reflected in the Alternative A MPB chart in Figure 3-3. An 

additional 2,100 acres of 3B structural stage stands would also be available to grow into SS5 

stands in the future as additional replacement stands. 

Regeneration: Pine regeneration is occurring in the project area where the crown canopy is

open and where competition from grasses and forbs is low. In areas where grasses have 

invaded the site, regeneration is at moderate to low levels. Where pine regeneration is desired 

such as in regeneration harvests, activities within the project area should be designed to reduce 

ground cover competition and expose mineral soil, increasing natural regeneration potential. 

Past regeneration harvests in adjacent areas have resulted in fully stocked stands of pine when 

the soil was disturbed or in conjunction with site preparation. In stands that are scheduled for 

regeneration harvests, prescribed burning should generally be excluded unless needed to retard 

regeneration for other resource needs (e.g., fire, range, or wildlife) since burning would 

encourage grass establishment and discourage pine regeneration. Experience shows that even 

with competition from grass, pine sites in the project area generally regenerate to full stocking 

levels without site preparation within five to ten years. 

Desired Future Condition (DFC)

Insect and Disease: The Forest Plan direction is to “consider preventive vegetation 

management practices, including silvicultural treatments, to protect forest stands from insect 

and disease epidemics” (Phase II Amendment, Page II-47). Also, Phase II Goal 10, Objective 

10-07 states “Where outbreaks of mountain pine beetle could present risks to management
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 120

objectives for ponderosa pine, reduce acreage of ponderosa pine stands that are in medium or

high risk for infestation” (Phase II, I-36). 

Silvicultural Prescriptions: Silvicultural systems used would be dependent on the structure 

desired to meet the purpose and need of this project. Even-aged systems would result in 

even-aged stands and would include the Shelterwood method in the pine forest type. 

Uneven-aged systems that would result in uneven-aged stands would include group selection 

and single tree selection methods. Hardwoods would be managed using either coppice for

even-aged stands or group selection for uneven-aged stands. 

Guidelines for commercial and non-commercial thinning would be followed as specified in 

Chapter II of the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan and stocking charts in Appendix H 

of the Forest Plan. Generally, stands would be treated to achieve lower stocking levels for a 

reduction of crown fire hazard and mountain pine beetle hazard. For further detailed 

discussion of these methods refer to Chapter II-24 of the Phase II Amendment and Appendix 

H of the Forest Plan. 

Stand Structure: The desired stand structure for the ponderosa pine type would be even-aged 

with the majority of the trees in a stand having an age within a range of 20 years of one 

another. Most of the pine would be either dominant or co-dominant. The exception to this 

would be stands regenerating after shelterwood treatments and uneven-aged stands managed 

for wildlife, recreation and visual objectives. 

Very Large Tree Size: Objectives 4.1-203, 5.1-204, and 5.4-206 in the Phase II Amendment 

call for 10% of the 4 ponderosa pine structural stage (sawtimber nine inches and larger) have 

an average tree size of “very large,” where the average size pine is greater than 16 inches DBH. 

 

Age Class Distribution: Ideally, there should be a mosaic of pine stands with varying ages, 

well distributed across the landscape with approximately 8% of the acreage in each ten-year 

class based on a 120 year rotation. This would provide horizontal diversity for wildlife, an 

opportunity to create an even flow of products over time, and reduces the area’s hazard to 

fire and insects. 

Stocking Levels: The Forest Plan direction (page II-31) is to “use thinning practices which 

consider genetic diversity and competition among trees for water, nutrients and light.” This 

direction specifies “use the stocking charts contained in Appendix H to implement 

intermediate cuttings in even-aged, suitable timberland stands...” 

Within Management Area 5.4 - Big Game Winter Range, commercial thinning should be heavy, 

leaving stands with lighter stocking yet still within management zone limits. This would 

provide healthy plant communities with a variety of species for forage as specified in the Forest 

Plan (page III-98). 

Most stands scheduled for treatments would have basal areas reduced to 60 BA or less in 

pine stands to minimize susceptibility to mountain pine beetle and reduce the hazard of high 

intensity fires. Exceptions may occur for other resource management objectives. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 121

Plant Species Composition: Forest Plan direction is to manage for “double current 

aspen acres” (Phase II, Page I-7). 

Wildfire: Phase II Goal 10: Establish and maintain a mosaic of vegetation conditions to 

reduce occurrences of high intensity fire, insect, and disease events, and facilitate insect and 

disease management and firefighting capability. Objective 10-01 states that stands will be 

managed for 50% to 75% moderate-to-low fire hazard in the wildland-urban interface and 

reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures to current NFPA standards. Additional 

guidance has also been provided from the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and other

National level policy and directives. 

Environmental Consequences 

Most of the treatments and cutting methods discussed below are described and illustrated 

in section II-31 “Methods to Achieve or Influence Vegetative Diversity” of the Black 

Hills National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Revised Forest 

Plan for the Black Hills National Forest (1996). 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, no timber management activities would occur, other than on-going 

activities such as firewood gathering, right-of-way clearing, Christmas tree cutting, and some 

minor vegetation treatments for other resource purposes. There are state and county rightsof-way throughout the planning area. Many of these rights-of-way have both commercial 

and non-commercial timber in them. Hazard trees and timber within these rights-of-way 

would be removed to reduce the risk to motorists and “daylight” the roads to reduce icing. 

Timber may be removed with small sales, or in the case of very small quantities or 

unmerchantable timber, the timber may be removed as administrative free use. The effects of 

removing this timber would be minimal. Public safety would be increased by the removal of 

hazard trees that could fall on the roads; removing shade in some areas would reduce winter 

icing or allow quicker melting of ice and snow pack; and visibility around curves would be

improved. The amount of volume removed would be insignificant and the impacts to the 

timber resource almost non-measurable when compared to the project area. 

Insects and Disease: The overstocked stands of pine pose a high hazard to attack by 

mountain pine beetle. This hazard would increase over time, with growth, due to increasing 

stocking levels, until natural disturbances act to reduce stand densities. There are 20,437 

acres (92%) of National Forest conifer stands in the project area that currently have a high or 

moderate hazard rating. When this fact is added to the fact of high beetle populations in the 

area, the likelihood of a continuing widespread epidemic-level infestation of mountain pine 

beetle is high. There are considerable changes in the landscape taking place within the 

Pactola Project Area due to MPB mortality. If no action is taken, many currently forested 

areas could lose most or all of their mature pine overstory. This loss of mature pine trees 

would add greatly to fuel loads and wildfire hazard on a long-term basis (see Fire and Fuels 

section), and cause substantial changes to wildlife habitat (see Wildlife section). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 122

If not treated, the hazard should remain high until stocking levels decrease due to mortality 

from MPB activity or wildfire. It is not possible to determine exactly which stands would 

become infested and the precise level of MPB-caused mortality, but reasonable estimates can 

be made based on the current extent of the epidemic, the expanding MPB brood populations 

available to infest new trees, and the large volume and wide distribution of medium to high 

hazard stands in the project area. Based on MPB-caused mortality estimates, it reasonable to 

assume that there would be considerable changes to the landscape within the Pactola Project 

Area (USDA Forest Service 2010e). 

Stands in high mortality areas would revert to younger age structural stages over time. The 

highest levels of pine tree mortality are expected in the western portion of the project area, 

with significant mortality moving to the east over the next three to five years. Projections by 

Kurt Allen, Forest Service Entomologist for this project, estimate that most of the closed 

canopy stands, structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C would be converted to more open 

structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A. (USDA Forest Service 2010e) In the hardest hit areas, near 

complete mortality of the larger trees would occur on up to 75% of structural stages 4B, 4C, 

and 5 (dense stands with larger trees). Approximately one half of the dense sawtimber stands 

would be converted to seedling, sapling and pole stands, SS2, 3A, and 3B, while another 

25% would become SS4A open sawtimber stands. The remaining 25% would be moderately 

dense sawtimber stands, 4B. Significant but lesser amounts of mortality would be expected 

in structural stage 3B, 3C, and 4A stands; 3B and 3C because of the tree density and 4A 

because of the larger tree size. One half of the 4A stands would be converted to SS2 and 3A 

stands, while the other half would retain enough live large trees to remain as open sawtimber 

stands. It is estimated that one half of the 3B and 3C stands have average diameters large 

enough to be susceptible to MPB infestation. These would be converted to a SS2. Adding 

younger structural stage stands helps to increase vegetation diversity in the area, which is 

dominated by mature pines. However, the large volume of dead and down trees significantly 

increases fuel loads and wildfire hazard in this wildland-urban interface (see Fire and Fuels 

section). This increases the probability for large, intense wildfires resistant to control that 

threaten natural resources, private property, and human life. 

The charts below displaying current conditions and conditions projected three to five years 

into the future show the effects of the current MPB epidemic continuing and spreading 

throughout the project area. The hazard ratings for the future condition were based on 

projections from RCSC-2-11, Consequences of the “No Action” Alternative in the Pactola 

Project Area (USDA Forest Service 2010e). The MPB hazard decreases due to the beetlecaused mortality reducing stocking levels in stands currently rated as high and medium 

hazard stands. Even though the MPB hazard would decrease, the fire hazard would increase 

due to the number of dead trees that would be present. The amount of heavy continuous 

fuels on the ground as the dead trees fall would create especially dangerous conditions. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 123

Figure 3-3 No Action MPB Hazard Rating

The pine engraver beetles (Ips pini) are non-aggressive and breed in damaged ponderosa pine 

trees and slash greater than two inches in diameter. Unless severe drought, weather damage 

or fire damage occurs, the probability of a major buildup of these insects is very unlikely. 

Plant Species Composition: Plant species composition and diversity would decrease. Pine 

is encroaching into hardwood and meadow areas and filling in small openings in the forest 

canopy. As the canopy closes, aspen and other hardwoods would diminish in numbers until 

natural disturbances once again open up the canopy. Within many sites, forbs and grasses in 

the under story would be shaded out reducing benefits to other resources such as wildlife, 

range, recreation, and scenic quality. It is expected that hardwoods and meadows would 

benefit as a result of continued pine mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle, although 

the amount of that increase is unknown. 

Other Effects: The effects of deferring treatment in the project area would be increased 

mortality and the resulting decrease in growth and yield due to the continuation of the MPB 

epidemic; reduction of diameter growth due to age and overstocking in stands not impacted by 

MPB activity; and an increase in the hazard for high intensity wildfire. With no treatments, the 

9,955 acres of pine type that have a basal area greater than 100 square feet per acre would 

experience reduced growth due to overcrowding and competition for nutrients, water, and light. 

Age class distribution would not change except for changes created through unpredictable 

natural processes, such as insect infestations and wildfire. Structural stage imbalances would 

persist and be exacerbated by the lack of regenerated stands. Long-term effects in stands not 

heavily impacted by MPB infestation would be an increase in mortality due to competition 

between pine and an increase in merchantable defect due to disease. Long-term sustainability 

of the timber resource would be in jeopardy since much of the mature forest would be killed by 

the MPB and relatively few acres are currently young and available to grow into the next 

generation of mature forest. 

Periodic annual increment is declining in some of the stands and is less than desired due to 

overstocking and age. Deferment would cause a further drop in the periodic annual increment. 

The NFMA law requires that even-aged stands scheduled to be harvested during the planning 

period will generally have reached the culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) of growth. 

During the diagnosis phase of the analysis, stands were identified totaling more than 8,000 acres 

that had reached CMAI. Net growth would remain positive, but it would be below its potential. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 124

Overall, quality of the pine would decline due to MPB activity, and remain below its potential 

due to suppression, mortality, damage, disease, and poorly formed trees. As the stands of pine 

become dense, they would become susceptible to snow damage. Dense stands of pine with 

interlocking crowns cannot shed snow, as well as open stands. During times of heavy snowfall 

and wind, snow can build up on the crowns of dense stands and cause heavy breakage. Stands 

with open canopies shed their snow as wind shakes them and are less susceptible to snow 

buildup. Under this alternative, more snow damage would most likely occur. 

The hazard of a stand replacing wildfire would be higher without treatment. Crown fires, such 

as the Battle Creek fire of 2002 would cause many of the stands to be completely killed. The 

effect of such a high intensity fire to the timber resource would be a loss of timber value, a 

large reduction of age class distribution, a disruption of an even flow of timber to local mills, 

an increase in insects, and a disruption of the natural regeneration process. Solarization would 

reduce the success of both natural and artificial regeneration. Soil sterilization would reduce 

productivity for many years, as the process of rebuilding soil horizons in this relatively dry 

climate is slow. 

Cumulative Effects 

Much of the area has had vegetative treatments within the past 30 years. Commercial harvests 

and non-commercial thinning from the late 1970’s through the early 2000’s have taken place 

on approximately 70% of the project area. Many treatments were designed to lower the basal 

area to promote increased growth and vigor as well as regenerate the stands.

The effect of past treatments has been an increase of merchantable volume growth; increase in 

the quality of timber and until recently, a minimal amount of insect and disease infestations. 

The commercial thinning has reduced the stocking levels in overstocked stands. The effect has 

been an increase in the quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and 

poorly formed trees. There has been increase in individual tree growth by releasing the 

remaining trees from competition for light, water, and nutrients. Trees have developed larger 

diameters due to a reduction of competition. A reduction of the MPB hazard to the pine stands 

due to the reduction of basal area to lower the level of susceptibility to pine beetle attack has 

also occurred for stands which have recently been treated. 

Some timber harvesting is occurring on private land within the project area, mostly in 

conjunction with mountain pine beetles, fuels reduction and development. Since private land 

comprises approximately 4% of the project area (1,154 acres) and approximately half of that is 

timberland, the effects of timber harvesting practices could affect the project area. The amount 

of timber harvesting during any one decade however has been small and its effects on National 

Forest timberland should be minimal. 

Anticipated future silviculture activities, not connected to this analysis, that would occur within 

the area are as follows: Fuel breaks adjacent to developed private land may be created for 

protection of those improvements. Firewood gathering and Christmas tree cutting by permit 

would continue to occur within the area. Other silvicultural treatments such as small salvage 

sales for the removal of storm damaged or beetle infested timber, road right-of-way clearing, 

pine encroachment removal, hardwood regeneration, and release may occur within the project 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 125

area. The size of these projects would generally be small (less than ten acres) and the 

cumulative effects of these projects should not be of any measurable significance 

With an increasing interest from landowners to manage their forested land, protect their 

property from fire and mountain pine beetle infestation, and clear land for home sites, an 

additional 400 acres may be treated within the next decade. Since the amount of silvicultural 

activities not connected to this analysis would be minimal, the cumulative effects of these 

activities under any of the alternatives would also be minimal. Treatments on private land for 

fire hazard reduction or mountain pine beetles would contribute to both a reduction of hazard 

from high intensity wildfire and mountain pine beetle. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, approximately 13,000 acres of forestland would be mechanically 

treated. Treatments specified generally apply to 80% or more of the stand. Many of the stands 

in the project area have inclusions of less than ten acres in size that may have basal areas, age 

classes, size classes, and tree species that differ from the majority of the stand. As these stands 

are laid out and marked these inclusions may not be prescribed and marked as specified in the 

stand treatment table, but rather prescribed using criteria developed for other stands with 

similar characteristics, e.g., an inclusion of pole size pine may be thinned if located within a 

stand scheduled for a removal cut. 

The law generally prohibits the harvest of stands before they reach their maximum growth rate 

(National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 USC 1604(m)). Exceptions in the law allow 

the harvest of individual trees, or even parts or whole stands of trees, before this time to thin 

and improve timber stands, and salvage damaged stands of trees (part m1 of the law). Further 

exceptions are allowed in order to achieve multiple-use objectives other than timber harvest 

(part m2). This alternative would harvest some trees before the maximum potential growth 

rate of some stands in the project area has been reached. These harvest treatments are 

consistent with the exceptions provided in part m2 of the law, and include the following: 

Commercial Thinning, Non-Commercial Thinning, Meadow Retention and Restoration 

Treatments, and Hardwood Restoration and Retention Harvests which are designed to meet 

other than timber objectives. These treatments are proposed to move towards meeting Forest 

Plan direction and respond to HFRA guidance. Illustrations of many of these treatments can be 

found in Appendix E. 

Rights-of-Way: There are state and county rights-of -way throughout the planning area. 

Many of these have both commercial and non-commercial timber in them. Hazard trees and 

timber within these rights-of-way would be removed to reduce the risk to motorists and 

“daylight” the roads to reduce icing. Where timber harvest units are adjacent to these areas the 

rights-of-way would be included in the timber sale. The effects of removing this timber would 

be minimal to the timber resource. Public safety would be increased by the removal of hazard 

trees that could fall on the roads. Removing trees in some areas would increase melting of ice 

and snowpack and speed the drying of roads. Visibility around curves would be improved. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 126

Commercial Thinning: Commercial thinning would occur on approximately 6,400 acres of the 

area with many of those acres also having non-commercial thinning after completion of harvest 

activities. Commercial thinning would generally consist of thinning from below, removing 

suppressed and intermediate pine from the stand, and the overmature pine from the overstory, 

leaving the larger mature pine of good form. Some areas have been identified to thin from 

above, removing the older, larger trees to create a younger stand of smaller trees. Generally, the 

range of basal areas (BA) for commercial thinning would be from 40 to 80 BA. Residual 

stocking would generally be 50 square feet of BA per acre with some stands treated to lower or 

higher BA’s based on proximity to structures on private land, communities, and the need to 

achieve the structural stage goals for the management emphasis areas. This alternative calls for a 

lower basal area than is normally prescribed for under the Forest Plan, but still within 

management parameters. In areas where there are ongoing beetle outbreaks, lowering stand 

densities even further, such as to 40 BA would be advised (USDA Forest Service 2010d). Fire 

managers have determined a lower basal area and associated reduced bulk density of crown fuels 

reduce the potential for high severity wildfires. Leave trees in commercial harvest units would 

generally not be uniformly spaced to create a more natural appearing stand. Treatments adjacent 

to developed private property would serve as fuel breaks and may be treated differently. Whole 

tree skidding would be the preferred logging method to remove as much slash as possible during 

harvest activities. Sanitation harvest to remove mountain pine beetle infested pine trees may be 

conducted in areas near or adjacent to stands identified for treatment in order to limit the 

expansion of MPB populations. Large trees would generally be retained and removed only 

where infested with MPB or necessary to meet density objectives, other resource needs, and for 

landings and other clearings to facilitate timber harvesting activities.

 

The thinning would reduce the stocking levels in overstocked stands. The effect would be an 

increase in the quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed 

trees and an increase in individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition 

for light, water, and nutrients. Trees would develop larger diameters due to a reduction of

competition which concentrates the stand growth on fewer stems and a reduction of MPB rating 

would occur due to the reduction of basal area to lessen the level of susceptibility to MPB attack. 

Total yield would not be maximized because the trees would not fully occupy the stand. 

Non-Commercial Thinning: Non-commercial thinning would occur on 3,770 acres within 

the project area outside of commercial timber sale cutting units. Non-commercial thinning 

would occur in pine stands and consists of the removal of pine one foot in height up to 8.9 

inches in diameter leaving the largest pine of good form at a rate of approximately 130-200 

trees per acre depending on size of trees and management objectives. Spacing of leave trees 

may vary from 12 to 24 ft. to create a more natural appearing stand. A reduction of MPB 

hazard would occur due to the reduction of stocking to lower the level of susceptibility to 

pine beetle attack. Slash buildup from non-commercial thinning, if not treated properly, 

could encourage Ips Beetle (Ips pini) buildup and mortality in residual stands of pine. Past 

practices of lopping, scattering, and burning of slash piles within a year of treatment has 

reduced Ips infestation to less than a few trees per acre. Additional fuel treatments for fire 

hazard reduction would also reduce the probability of insect infestations. Scattering slash 

facilitates the rapid drying of fuels, which reduces conditions favorable for Ips buildup. No 

major adverse effects are anticipated to the timber resource. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 127

Shelterwood Removal Cuts: Removal cuts would occur on approximately 800 acres and 

would generally be followed with non-commercial thinning. Most of these overstory stands 

have reached CMAI and are no longer needed for seed production and shade. The removal 

of the pine overstory would release the established understory from competition for light, 

water, and nutrients. Generally, all overstory pine eight inch dbh and greater would be 

removed, retaining only pine necessary for other resource needs. The stands identified for 

liberation cuts would also have the overstory removed to create needed younger, earlier 

successional stands. The effect would be an increase of approximately 800 acres of early 

successional, younger structural stage pine towards meeting Forest structural stage 

objectives; an increase in growth of the remaining pine; the establishment and production of 

forage for both cattle and wildlife; and a reduction of aerial fuels, reducing potential for fire 

spread from individual tree torching and associated spotting. 

Hardwood Release and Restoration: The retention and restoration of approximately 2,000 

acres of hardwoods (aspen) from conifer competition would occur in this alternative. 

Commercial treatments and non-commercial treatments removing all of the pine from hardwoods 

would occur. Hardwood stands would be enlarged to include adjacent pine stands that have 

encroached upon them. Treating a 33 ft. buffer around existing aspen sites would increase the 

aspen component by 220 acres. Pine would be removed from the area within 33 ft. of the edge 

of the inclusion or, in the case of draws where there are remnants of past hardwood occupation, 

the pine would be removed to the boundary of the original stand which would normally be 33 ft. 

to 100 ft. Small inclusions of established hardwoods that are scattered throughout the stands 

scheduled for treatment in the project area would be restored by removing pine from within and 

adjacent to these hardwood inclusions. Most of these areas would be small, less than five acres 

in size or narrow linear bands adjacent to existing hardwood stands. Currently, there are 938 

acres of the hardwood cover type and approximately 2,600 acres of mixed pine-hardwood stands 

typed as ponderosa pine on NFS lands within the project area. Adding 120 acres of type 

conversion of large aspen inclusions in pine stands to aspen stands and 220 acres of type 

conversion in buffers around existing hardwood stands, there would be a 340 acre increase in 

hardwood communities. We have also identified mixed conifer-aspen sites totaling 477 acres in 

Alternative B to be converted to hardwoods through conifer removal. This would result in a total 

increase of the aspen component in Alternative B of 817 acres (87%). Since these acres are 

within sites identified for other commercial treatments listed above, and would be identified 

during the sale preparation process, these inclusions have already been accounted for in the total 

area treated in Table 3-17. Upon completion of these treatments, hardwood acreage would be 

increased to approximately 1,756 acre in this alternative, almost doubling the aspen component 

to 7.3% of vegetated NFS lands within the project area. Additionally, 260 acres (10%) of mixed 

pine-hardwood stands would become pure aspen inclusions through conifer removal. Although 

they would not be typed as aspen stands and are not included in the acres of aspen above, these 

treatments would contribute to the Forest Plan goal of conserving existing hardwood 

communities and restoring historic hardwood communities (LRMP I-10 - 201). The effects of 

these treatments would be an increase in vegetative diversity and increased vigor of hardwood 

communities by release from the competition of conifer, increasing and improving the habitat of 

the hardwood dependent wildlife species. An additional indirect benefit would be the value of 

hardwood stands as natural fuel breaks. It is also expected that aspen would benefit as a result of 

continued pine mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle, although the amount of that 

increase is unknown. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 128

Meadow Retention and Restoration: Pine encroaching in meadows and draw bottoms would 

be removed on approximately 500 acres. Currently, there are 394 acres of the grass cover type 

in the project area and an additional 106 acres of grassland with a ponderosa pine cover type. 

Commercial treatments and non-commercial treatments removing all of the pine from meadows 

would occur. Most of these grass sites have only scattered individuals or small groups of 

conifers so the commercial volume removed from these sites would be low. These grass sites 

would be enlarged to include adjacent pine stands that have encroached upon them. Assuming a 

33 foot treatment buffer around these grass sites would increase the grass sites by approximately 

120 acres. Since these acres are within sites identified for other commercial treatments listed 

above, and would be identified during the sale layout process, the treatment of these inclusions 

have already been accounted for in the total area treated in Table 3-17. One small, three acre 

pine site would be converted to a grass site. Small openings that are within some of the stands 

in the project area would be enlarged by removing pine from within and adjacent to the 

openings. Pine would be removed from the area within up to 66 ft. of the edge of the opening 

or, in the case of historic meadows, especially in draw bottoms, the pine would be removed to 

its original boundary as defined by soil type, slope, and moisture regime, which usually is less 

than 100 ft. The amount of increase in acreage is estimated to be 1% of the treated acres or 

approximately 130 acres in Alternative B, but since most of these inclusions would be small 

(less than five acres in size), they would likely not be converted to a grass cover type site so are 

not included in the statistics below. Upon completion of these treatments, the grass cover type 

would increase by 123 acres (31%) to approximately 520 acres in this alternative, which is 

approximately 2% of the NFS lands within the project area. This increase would move the area 

toward the Forest Plan goal of conserving existing meadow acreage and restoration of some 

historic meadows. The effects of this treatment would be an increase in vegetative diversity and 

an increase in grass and forb production in the meadow communities by release from the 

competition of pine, improving and increasing the habitat of meadow dependent wildlife

species. An additional indirect benefit would be the value of meadows as fuel breaks. It is also 

expected that openings would increase within forested sites as a result of continued pine 

mortality caused by the mountain pine beetle, although the amount of that increase is unknown. 

Prescribed Burning: Moderate intensity broadcast prescribed burning would occur on up to 

5,037 acres in the project area, reducing ground fuels and increasing vegetative diversity in the 

understory. Approximately 3,100 acres would be burned in conjunction with mechanical 

treatments, while 1,900 acres would be burned outside of commercial or non-commercial 

treatment areas. In some of the stands, the understory vegetation is lacking due to needle cast 

and a closed canopy cover. A moderate intensity prescribed fire would reduce inhibiting duff 

and stimulate residual grasses and forbs. Broadcast prescribed burning should be designed to 

limit mortality in the polesize and sawtimber size pine stands within the suitable land base to 

10% or less with seedling/sapling mortality less than 75%. Burning in stands to be regenerated 

would favor grass establishment and reduce regeneration. The effects of prescribed burning on 

the timber resource would be a short-term increase in growth from the nutrients released into 

the soil. Total yield in the project area would be reduced by the burn-related mortality. The 

reduction in yield should be minimal for the project area using the low levels of mortality 

which have occurred on recent prescribed burns. 

Insects and Disease: Current losses from insect and disease are at an epidemic level in the 

western part of the project area. According to Schmid et al. 2007, the most important aspect of 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 129

managing mature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills is minimizing MPB-caused 

mortality. The only effective long-range strategy to minimize beetle-caused mortality is 

controlling stand conditions through silvicultural means over large landscapes and monitoring 

for areas of beetle buildup (USDA Forest Service 2007a). These are forest management 

actions that increase tree vigor and reduce stand susceptibility to beetle attack through reducing 

stocking levels. They are preventive treatments that should be completed prior to stands 

experiencing beetle outbreaks. Sanitation harvest (removal of infested trees) can also provide 

protection to surrounding uninfested trees and stands by removing a large source of attacking 

beetles. Creating diverse stand conditions across the landscape would result in an overall 

forest that is less susceptible long term to beetles (Fettig et al. 2007). 

Alternative B would substantially reduce the existing MPB hazard within the Pactola Project 

Area. To achieve a MPB hazard rating of low, most of the project area would have to consist 

of grass/forb, seedling or open sapling/pole stands. 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 according to Forest Plan 

Amendment guidance (Forest Plan Amendment FEIS ch.III-385 and Appendix B-14 Table 5, 

FEIS ch.II-3). There are currently 14,181 acres (64%) of the ponderosa pine stands in the high 

hazard rating. Insect hazard ratings for all untreated stands in Alternative B are based on 

structural stages three to five years from present using mortality estimates developed by Kurt 

Allen (USDA Forest Service 2010d). There would be a reduction of 11,556 acres of stands 

from a hazard rating of high to a lower rating. The lower mountain pine beetle hazard is a 

result of reducing stocking levels below the levels most susceptible to MPB. The protection 

provided for the area would extend into the next two decades and would remain moderate for 

much of that time. Upon completion of the treatments, there would be 2,625 acres (12%) of 

the area with the high hazard rating. Forty-six percent (10,112 acres) of conifer stands would 

have a medium hazard rating while 42% (9,117 acres) would have a low hazard rating. Not

included in Figure 3-4 below are the 123 acres of pine converted to grass and the 818 acres of 

pine converted to aspen. These acres have no mountain pine beetle rating since they are no 

longer typed as conifer stands. 

Figure 3-4 Alternative B MPB Hazard Rating

Slash buildup from treatments, if not treated properly, could encourage Ips Beetle (Ips pini) 

buildup and mortality in residual stands of pine. Past practices of lopping, scattering, and 

burning of slash piles within a year of treatment has reduced Ips infestation to less than a few 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 130

trees per acre. Whole tree skidding, which would significantly reduce the amount of slash 

and need for additional fuel treatments for fire hazard reduction, would also reduce the 

probability of insect infestations. Scattering slash facilitates the rapid drying of fuels, which 

reduces conditions favorable for Ips buildup. Other insects and diseases affecting both pine 

and other species of trees in the project area that are present are having minimal impact on 

the area and would probably continue to have a low impact under this alternative. 

Stand Structure: Stand structure within the project area generally would be even-aged 

with the majority of the trees within a stand having an age within a range of 20 years of 

one another. Most of the pine would be either dominant or co-dominant. Most of the 

intermediate and suppressed pine would be removed in treatment areas to raise crown 

heights and reduce ladder fuels for crown fire hazard reduction. 

Within the project area, stand structure generally would change from a more closed canopy 

structure to an open canopy structure. More than 13,000 acres would move from the more 

closed 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C structures to the open structure of Structural Stages 2, 3A, and 4A. 

This change results from the combination of treatments and the application of MPB mortality 

estimates for the untreated stands. Of this total, approximately 70% of the 3,857 untreated pine 

acres (2,546 acres) are a consequence of MPB activity and would still have high or very high 

fire hazard ratings. Treatments are designed to reduce mountain pine beetle hazard, increase 

acres of younger structural stages, and to accomplish the fire hazard reduction over the 

landscape within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This was done also to achieve the Forest 

Plan Objective 10-01 to manage for 50% to 75% moderate-to-low fire hazard in the WUI and 

reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures (Phase II amendment I-35). 

Forest-wide management area stand structure changes occur in the structural stages as 

displayed in the table below (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Generally, structural stages 

change only slightly, less than 1%, except as follows. For Management Area 5.1 there is a 

586 acre (0.1%) decrease in Structural Stage 3B that changes the Forest percentage from 4% 

(3.6%) to 3% (3.47%) of the total, an increase in 4A from 39% to 40% which exceeds Forest 

Plan (FP) Objectives, and a decrease of 1% in 4C towards FP Objectives. In Management 

Area 5.4 there is a 1% increase towards the FP Objective of 10% in 3A with a corresponding 

1% decrease in 3B and 3C away from FP Objectives. Both Structural Stages 4B and 4C 

decreased in Management Area 5.4 by 1% towards FP Objectives, while Structural Stage 4A 

increased 1%, away from FP Objectives. These changes from denser stands to more open 

stand conditions were necessary to lower the MPB hazard and to accomplish fire hazard 

reduction over the landscape within the WUI. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 131

Table 3-15 Forest-Wide Ponderosa Pine Structural Stage Distribution: Existing vs. Post Treatment

Objective Management Area 5.1 Management Area 5.4 

SS % Existing Alternative B % Existing Alternative B % 

1 5% 26,760 26,760 6% 45,616 45,616 13% 

2 5% 16,673 17,361 4% 10,152 11,676 3% 

3A 10% 24,236 24,905 5% 17,454 19,937 6% 

3B 15% 17,047 16,461 3% 22,227 21,274 6% 

3C 5% 10,269 9,951 2% 15,763 15,201 4% 

4A 25% 185,062 187,195 40% 86,487 88,110 26% 

4B 25% 142,228 140,256 30% 87,864 84,280 25% 

4C 5% 50,437 49,698 10% 52,865 51,988 15% 

5 5% 1,227 1,249 0% 1,066 1,097 0% 

Total 100% 473,939 473,836 100% 339,494 339,179 100% 

Very Large Tree Size: Objective 204 in the Phase II Amendment calls for 10% of the 4 

ponderosa pine structural stage have an average tree size of “very large,” where the average 

size pine is greater than 16 inches DBH. There would be an increase in the number of 

acres of stands with a very large size class rating in Alternative B for both management 

areas with a tree size objective. In Management Area 5.1, the increase exceeds the Phase II 

objective of 10% while in Management Area 5.4 the acreage moves towards the goal of 

10%. There is a total increase of 69 acres in these two management areas. In order to 

reduce the acreage of stands in the very large size class, more of the area could be thinned 

from above removing the larger pine. However, to meet the objective of reducing fire

hazard, it was necessary to thin the intermediate and suppressed pine to raise the crown 

base height. This retains the larger pine, and thus moves some stands into the very large 

size class. The table below displays the existing acreage of stands with a tree size of “very 

large” and the acreage of “very large” upon completion of planned activities. 

Table 3-16 Forest-wide Conditions by Management Area and Alternative. Ponderosa Pine 

Structural Stage 4 with Tree Size Class of Very Large

Management Area 5.1 Management Area 5.4 

Existing Alternative B Existing Alternative B 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

48,756 13% 48,862 13% 19,761 9% 19,896 9% 

Age Class Distribution: Age class distribution would improve in this alternative, with 

an increase in the younger, early seral stages towards Forest Plan objectives. There 

would also be an increase in the older age classes due to removal of smaller and younger 

pine and retention of large, older trees where thinning from below occurs. However, in 

the 6”+ diameter classes in many even-aged stands, age would change little due to the 

removal of pine spread out over a range age classes within the stand. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 132

Stocking Levels: This alternative was designed to reduce mountain pine beetle hazard and 

fire hazard within large portions of the project area by increasing the spacing between trees. 

The only long-range strategy to minimize beetle-caused mortality is controlling stand 

conditions through silvicultural means over large landscapes and monitoring for areas of 

beetle buildup (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Fire managers have determined lower basal 

areas and associated reduced bulk density of crown fuels reduce the potential for high 

intensity wildfires. The effect would be an increase in the quality of the timber through the 

removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees and an increase in individual tree 

growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition for light, water and nutrients. 

Trees would develop larger diameters due to a reduction of competition, which concentrates 

the stand growth on the fewer stems. This alternative would contribute to the Forest Plan 

Goal of providing for sustained commodity uses while using acceptable silvicultural systems. 

This alternative would also provide adequately stocked pine stands for future management. 

Basal area distribution for Alternative B after treatment is illustrated below: 

Plant Species Composition: The amount of hardwood and meadow acreage would increase 

in this alternative. The extent and effects are described in the meadow and hardwood 

restoration sections previously discussed above. Opening of the stands would allow other 

grasses and forbs to become established in the understory. Pine regeneration in the understory 

after harvest would become abundant and may be a limiting factor in their establishment. 

Understory species establishment and diversity would be much greater than the No Action 

Alternative because mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would limit pine 

regeneration and encourage grass, shrub, and forbs establishment. It is also expected that 

hardwoods and meadows would benefit as a result of continued pine mortality caused by the 

mountain pine beetle, although the amount of that increase is unknown. 

Table 3-17 Pactola Project Area Cover Type Composition

 Existing Alternative B Post Treatment 

Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Grass 394 1.6% 517 2.1% 

Shrubs 28 0.1% 28 0.1% 

Aspen 938 3.8% 1,756 7.1% 

Ponderosa Pine 22,317 89.8% 21,394 86.0% 

White Spruce 253 1.0% 235 0.9% 

Water 868 3.5% 868 3.5% 

Non-Vegetated 64 0.3% 64 0.3% 

Late Successional Stands: There are currently no stands within the project area classified as 

late successional, Structural Stage 5 (SS5). Twenty one sites totaling almost 900 acres have 

been identified within the project area that have the age and stand structure characteristics to be 

classified as SS5. These stands would be designated as SS5 stands in this alternative. We 

would treat approximately 187 acres in four of these stands from below, maintaining the late 

successional characteristics of these stands. The designation of these stands would be due to 

analysis of current condition, not through treatment. An additional 700 acres of 4B and 4C 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 133

stands would be treated from below in this alternative to remain in a closed canopy structural 

stage. The treatment would make them less susceptible to high intensity fires and MPB 

infestation. Approximately 6,700 acres of SS4B/4C stands within the project area would be 

available to grow into older, denser late successional stands. It is estimated that approximately 

70% of the untreated closed canopy stands would be converted to open canopy stands by MPB 

activity. Due to commercial thinning, Alternative B leaves over 3,600 acres more of 

sawtimber stands than the no action alternative. These larger and older stands would grow into 

late successional stands much earlier than the younger stands created by MPB activity in 

Alternative A. These stands would be needed to increase the amount of late successional 

stands and replace existing old growth as they deteriorate or are lost through fire, insects or 

other natural events. Any treatments in Management Area 3.7, Late Successional Forest 

Landscape, would be to manage for late successional characteristics. This may include 

thinning from below and removing MPB infested green trees. 

Regeneration: The natural regeneration of pine and other native species of trees within the 

project should be good with the treatments in this alternative. Whole tree skidding would have 

the effect of site preparation by scarification of the forest floor, which favors regeneration 

establishment and has a positive effect in discouraging competition from grasses and forbs 

during seed germination and early seedling establishment. This abundance of regeneration 

would, however, create dense sapling size pine within the next 20 to 40 years, posing an 

increased fire hazard as these pine become ladder fuels which would necessitate the need for 

non-commercial thinning in the future. Where prescribed burning occurs, regeneration would 

be reduced due to the rapid establishment of competitive grasses and forbs. 

Growth and Yield: The thinning would reduce the stocking levels in overstocked stands 

and bring those stands into forest plan condition. The effect would be an increase in the 

quality of the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees and 

an increase in individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition for 

light, water and nutrients. Trees would develop larger diameters due to a reduction of

competition which concentrates the stand growth on fewer stems and a reduction of hazard to 

the pine stands would occur due to the reduction of basal area to lower the level of 

susceptibility to pine beetle attack. Total yield would be lower over time than if the stand 

were fully stocked because the trees would not fully occupy the stand. But higher density 

stands are much more susceptible to MPB infestations and high intensity fires, and with the 

proximity of large populations of MPB, this decrease in yield should be weighed against the 

benefits of reductions in MPB and fire hazard. 

Snags: Currently for the Pactola Project Area, there is an average of approximately 4.7 hard 

snags per acre on forested NFS lands. We would not be cutting snags in either action 

alternative except for safety reasons. For this reason we would meet Standards 2301, 2304, 

and 2305. For additional information on snags, refer to the Black Hills National Forest

Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 134

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, approximately 17,000 acres of forestland would be treated 

mechanically. The treatments in this alternative are the same as those in Alternative B 

with four exceptions: 

• Propose treating approximately 400 acres along designated roadways within the 

project area to improve safe access. Primary ingress/egress roads associated with 

the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) access in Pennington County have been 

identified in the Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(PCCWPP) and should be treated to provide for safe access during a fire event. 

• We have also identified approximately 1,270 acres of cable logging to treat overstocked pine stands that are not treatable using conventional ground-based systems. 

• Propose helicopter logging of up to 500 acres of mountain pine beetle infestations in 

areas that are not accessible by other means. These are areas that would be 

identified in response to MPB activity outside of other treatment areas identified in 

the Pactola Project Area. 

• We would treat an additional 71 acres of fuel breaks adjacent to private property 

that are not being treated in Alternative B. 

Treatments specified generally apply to 80% or more of the stand. Many of the stands in the 

project area have inclusions of less than ten acres in size that may have basal areas, age 

classes, size classes, and tree species that differ from the majority of the stand. As these 

stands are laid out and marked these inclusions may not be prescribed and marked as 

specified in the stand treatment table, but rather prescribed using criteria developed for other 

stands with similar characteristics, e.g., an inclusion of pole size pine may be thinned if 

located within a stand scheduled for a removal cut. 

The law generally prohibits the harvest of stands before they reach their maximum growth rate 

(National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 USC 1604(m)). Exceptions in the law allow the 

harvest of individual trees, or even parts or whole stands of trees, before this time to thin and 

improve timber stands, and salvage damaged stands of trees (part m1 of the law). Further 

exceptions are allowed in order to achieve multiple-use objectives other than timber harvest (part 

m2). This alternative would harvest some trees before the maximum potential growth rate of 

some stands in the project area has been reached. These harvest treatments are consistent with 

the exceptions provided in part m2 of the law, and include the following: Commercial Thinning, 

Non-Commercial Thinning, Meadow Retention and Restoration Treatments, and Hardwood 

Restoration Harvests which are designed to meet other than timber objectives. These treatments 

are proposed to move towards meeting Forest Plan direction and respond to HFRA guidance. 

Illustrations of many of these treatments can be found in Appendix E. 

Rights-of-way: Right-of-way clearing would occur as described in Alternative B above. 

Commercial Thinning: Commercial thinning would occur as described in Alternative B 

above, but would include an additional 783 acres of thinning. Sanitation harvest to remove 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 135

mountain pine beetle infested pine trees may be conducted in areas near or adjacent to stands 

identified for treatment in order to limit the expansion of MPB populations. 

Non-Commercial Thinning: Non-commercial thinning treatments would occur as 

described in Alternative B above, but would include an additional 770 acres of treatment.

Shelterwood Removal Cuts: Shelterwood seed cut treatments would occur as described 

in Alternative B above, but would include an additional 213 acres of treatment. 

Hardwood Release and Restoration: Hardwood treatments would occur as described in 

Alternative B above, but would include an additional 204 acres of treatment. 

Meadow Retention and Restoration: Meadow treatments would occur as described in 

Alternative B above, but would include an additional 25 acres of treatment to be converted 

to grass cover type. 

Roadside Treatments: Primary ingress/egress roads associated with the Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) access in Pennington County have been identified in the Pennington County 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (PCCWPP) and would be treated to provide for safe 

access during a fire event. The Pennington County CWPP has recommended a 180 ft. buffer 

on either side of these roads be managed to minimize a high intensity crown fire from

threatening the use of these travel routes. Specific treatments would include thinning from 

below to approximately 60 square feet of basal area to raise crown base height and increase 

crown separation of the overstory, and thinning the understory and treating the slash to 

reduce ladder fuels. Leaving small groups of two to three trees and variable spacing may be 

desirable to create a more diverse appearance to these treatments. Whole tree harvesting 

would be used in these areas where possible, and all slash would be removed or piled and 

burned. Also, conifers would be removed from hardwood stands and inclusions along these 

routes to reduce the fire hazard. The area of these roadside treatments would be 

approximately 1,600 acres. 1,200 of these acres are already identified for treatments in this 

alternative, leaving approximately 400 acres to be treated as a special roadside treatment. 

Cable Logging: The harvest of approximately 1,270 acres of ground not conducive to 

harvest by ground-based systems would be accomplished by cable logging. This treatment 

would generally thin from above, removing the larger overstory trees and leaving an 

understory of seedlings, saplings, and pole timber. Following the commercial harvest the 

understory may be thinned non-commercially to reduce stocking levels for improved growth, 

vigor and to reduce the fire hazard. Additional new road construction would be necessary to 

access the cable units. See the Transportation section for specific information. 

Helicopter Logging: In areas where mountain pine beetle infestations are occurring in 

inaccessible areas outside of stands scheduled for treatment, helicopter logging may be used 

to treat a maximum of 500 acres. Treatment would generally include hand fallers cutting 

green, infested trees, removing the non-merchantable parts of the trees, and then attaching the 

logs to a cable suspended from a hovering helicopter. The helicopter would then fly the logs 

down to a landing located adjacent to a road. Logs would be loaded on a truck at the landing 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 136

and transported to a mill. Since ground based equipment would not be used, the impact to 

the resources would be less than ground-based logging. All logging slash left at the site of 

the cut trees would be treated to a maximum of 18 inches in depth. 

Fuel Breaks: Fuel breaks would be constructed adjacent to private property in areas 

where other treatments are not already planned. A 200 ft. buffer would be thinned from 

below along the property boundary to remove ladder fuels increase the spacing between 

trees. Commercial sized materials may be removed where equipment is not limited. 

Whole tree logging is preferred where possible, but piling and burning of slash may be

necessary where access is limited. Seventy-one acres of fuel breaks are planned in this 

alternative. Areas adjacent to developed private property identified for other treatments 

in both action alternatives would be treated similarly. 

Prescribed Burning: Prescribed burning treatments would occur on 5,037 acres as 

described in Alternative B above, with approximately 1,600 acres of burning outside of 

units identified for other treatments. 

Insects and Disease: Current losses from insect and disease are at an epidemic level in the 

western part of the project area. According to Schmid et al. 2007, the most important aspect of 

managing mature ponderosa pine stands in the Black Hills is minimizing MPB-caused 

mortality. The only effective long-range strategy to minimize beetle-caused mortality is 

controlling stand conditions through silvicultural means over large landscapes and monitoring 

for areas of beetle buildup (USDA Forest Service 2007a). These are forest management actions 

that increase tree vigor and reduce stand susceptibility to beetle attack through reducing 

stocking levels or controlling other stand conditions. They are preventive treatments that 

should be completed prior to stands experiencing beetle outbreaks. Creating diverse stand 

conditions across the landscape would result in an overall forest that is less susceptible long 

term to beetles (Fettig et al. 2007). 

 

Alternative C would substantially reduce the existing MPB hazard within the Pactola Project 

Area. To achieve a MPB hazard rating of low, most of the project area would have to consist of 

grass/forb, seedling, or open sapling/pole stands. 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. (Forest Plan Amendment 

FEIS ch.III-385 and Appendix B-14 Table 5, FEIS ch.II-3) There are currently 14,181 acres 

(64%) of the ponderosa pine stands in the high hazard rating. There would be a reduction of 

11,932 acres of stands from a hazard rating of high to a lower rating. Insect hazard ratings for all 

untreated stands in Alternative C are based on structural stages three to five years from present 

using mortality estimates developed by Kurt Allen. (USDA Forest Service 2010d) The lower 

mountain pine beetle hazard is a result of reducing stocking levels below the levels most 

susceptible to pine beetles. The protection provided for the area would extend into the next two 

decades and would remain moderate for much of that time. Upon completion of the treatments, 

there would be 2,249 acres (10%) of the area with the high hazard rating. Fifty percent (10,730 

ac.) of conifer stands would have a medium hazard rating while 40% (8,668 acres) would have a 

low hazard rating. Not included in the figure below are the 123 acres of pine converted to grass 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 137

and the 1,021 acres of pine converted to aspen. These acres have no mountain pine beetle rating 

since they are no longer typed as conifer stands. 

Figure 3-5 Alternative C MPB Hazard Rating

Slash buildup from treatments, if not treated properly, could encourage Ips Beetle (Ips pini) 

buildup and mortality in residual stands of pine. Past practices of lopping, scattering, and 

burning of slash piles within a year of treatment has reduced Ips infestation to less than a few 

trees per acre. Whole tree skidding, which would significantly reduce the amount of slash 

and need for additional fuel treatments for fire hazard reduction, would also reduce the 

probability of insect infestations. Scattering slash facilitates the rapid drying of fuels, which 

reduces conditions favorable for Ips buildup. Other insects and diseases affecting both pine 

and other species of trees in the project area that are present are having minimal impact on 

the area and would probably continue to have a low impact under this alternative. 

Stand Structure: Stand structure within the project area generally would be even-aged 

with the majority of the trees in the stands having an age within a range of 20 years of 

one another. Most of the pine would be either dominant or co-dominant. Much of the 

intermediate and suppressed pine would be removed in treatment areas to raise crown 

heights and reduce ladder fuels for crown fire hazard reduction. 

Within the project area, stand structure generally would change from a more closed canopy 

structure to an open canopy structure. More than 13,700 acres would move from the more 

closed 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C structures to the open structures of 2, 3A, and 4A. This change 

results from the combination of treatments and the application of MPB mortality estimates 

for the untreated stands. Of this total, approximately 70% of the 2,579 untreated pine acres, 

(1,800 acres) are a consequence of MPB activity and would still have high or very high fire 

hazard ratings. Treatments are designed to reduce mountain pine beetle hazard, increase 

acres of younger structural stages, and to accomplish the fire hazard reduction over the 

landscape within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). This was done also to achieve the 

Forest Plan Objective 10-01 to manage for 50% to 75” moderate-to-low fire hazard in the

WUI and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures (Phase II amendment I-35). 

Forest-wide management area stand structure changes occur in the structural stages as 

displayed in the table below. Generally, structural stages change only slightly, less than 1%, 

except as follows, and mostly towards Forest Plan Objectives. In Management Area 5.4, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 138

there is a 1% change towards Forest Plan Objectives in Structural Stage 3A. There is a 1% 

change towards the Forest Plan Objective of 25% in the 4B structural stage in each of the 

management areas and a 1% change exceeding the 25% objective in the 4A structural stage 

in all management areas. 

Table 3-18 Forest-Wide Structural Stage Distribution: Existing vs. Post Treatment

Objective Management Area 5.1 Management Area 5.4 

SS % Existing Alternative C % Existing Alternative C % 

1 5% 26,760 26,760 6% 45,616 45,616 13% 

2 5% 16,673 16,953 4% 10,152 11,437 3% 

3A 10% 24,236 24,808 5% 17,454 20,268 6% 

3B 15% 17,047 16,465 3% 22,227 21,197 6% 

3C 5% 10,269 9,936 2% 15,763 15,153 4% 

4A 25% 185,062 187,629 40% 86,487 88,167 26% 

4B 25% 142,228 140,223 30% 87,864 84,298 25% 

4C 5% 50,437 49,698 10% 52,865 51,892 15% 

5 5% 1,227 1,227 0% 1,066 1,082 0% 

Total 100% 473,939 473,699 100% 339,494 339,112 100% 

Very Large Tree Size: Objective 204 in the Phase II Amendment calls for 10% of the 4 

ponderosa pine structural stage have an average tree size of “very large,” where the 

average size pine is greater than 16 in. DBH. There would be an increase in the number 

of acres of stands with a very large size class rating in Alternative C across all 

management areas. In Management Areas 4.1 and 5.1, the increase exceeds the Phase II 

objective of 10% while in Management Area 5.4 the acreage moves towards the goal of 

10%. This retains the larger pine, and thus moves some stands into the very large size 

class. Table 3-19 below displays the existing acreage of stands with a tree size of “very 

large” and the acreage of “very large” upon completion of planned activities. 

Table 3-19 Forest-Wide Conditions by Management Area and Alternative. Ponderosa Pine Tree Size 

Class of Very Large

Objective MA 5.1 - Alternative C MA 5.4 - Alternative C 

% of SS4 Acres % of SS4 Acres % of SS4 

10% 48,862 13% 19,896 9% 

Age Class Distribution: Age class distribution would improve in this alternative, with an 

increase in the younger, early seral stages to meet Forest Plan Objectives. Alternative C 

would create more of the younger seral stages than Alternative B since there are more 

removal cuts and the cable logging would generally be thinning from above. There would 

also be an increase in the older age classes due to removal of smaller and younger pine and 

retention of large, older trees where thinning from below occurs. However, in the 6”+ 

diameter classes in many even-aged stands, age would change little due to the removal of 

pine spread out over a range age classes within the stand. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 139

Stocking Levels: In this alternative, stocking levels would be decreased considerably 

compared to Alternative A. The alternative was designed to reduce mountain pine beetle 

hazard and crown fire hazard within large portions of the project area by increasing the 

spacing between trees. The only long-range strategy to minimize beetle-caused mortality is 

controlling stand conditions through silvicultural means over large landscapes and 

monitoring for areas of beetle buildup (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Fire managers have 

determined lower basal areas and associated reduced bulk density of crown fuels reduce the 

potential for high intensity wildfires. The effect would be an increase in the quality of the 

timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees and an increase 

in individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition for light, water 

and nutrients. Trees would develop larger diameters due to a reduction of competition, 

which concentrates the stand growth on the fewer stems. This alternative would contribute 

to the Forest Plan Goal of providing for sustained commodity uses while using acceptable 

silvicultural systems. This alternative would also provide adequately stocked pine stands 

for future management. 

Plant Species Composition: The amount of hardwood and meadow acreage would 

increase in this alternative. The extent and effects are described in the meadow and 

hardwood restoration sections previously discussed above. Opening of the stands would 

allow other grasses and forbs to become established in the understory. Pine regeneration in 

the understory after harvest would become abundant and may be a limiting factor in their 

establishment. Understory species establishment and diversity would be much greater in 

this alternative because mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would limit pine 

regeneration and encourage grass, shrub, and forbs establishment. It is also expected that 

hardwoods and meadows would benefit as a result of continued pine mortality caused by the 

mountain pine beetle, although the amount of that increase is unknown. 

Table 3-20 Alternative C Project Area Species Composition

 Existing Alternative C Post Treatment 

Cover Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Grass 394 1.6% 517 2.1% 

Shrubs 28 0.1% 28 0.1% 

Aspen 938 3.8% 1,959 7.9% 

Ponderosa Pine 22,317 89.8% 21,191 85.2% 

White Spruce 253 1.0% 235 0.9% 

Water 868 3.5% 868 3.5% 

Non-Vegetated 64 0.3% 64 0.3% 

Late Successional Stands: There are currently no stands within the project area classified as 

late successional, Structural Stage 5 (SS5). Twenty-one sites totaling almost 900 acres have 

been identified within the project area that have the age and stand structure characteristics to 

be classified as SS5 and would be designated in this alternative. We would treat 

approximately 150 acres in three of these stands from below, maintaining the late 

successional characteristics of these stands. The designation of these stands would be due to 

analysis of current condition, not through treatment. We would treat three additional sites 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 140

totaling 137 acres to reduce MPB hazard, creating a 3A or 4A structural stage. Almost 900 

acres of 4B and 4C stands would be treated from below in this alternative to remain in a 

closed canopy structural stage. The treatment would make them less susceptible to mortality 

from high intensity fires and MPB infestation. It is estimated that approximately 70% of the 

untreated closed canopy stands would be converted to open canopy stands by MPB activity. 

Due to commercial thinning, Alternative C leaves over 4,000 acres more of sawtimber stands 

than the no action alternative. These larger and older stands would grow into late 

successional stands much earlier than the younger stands created by MPB activity in 

Alternative A. These stands would be needed to increase the amount of late successional 

stands and replace existing old growth as they deteriorate or are lost through fire, insects or 

other natural events. Any treatments in Management Area 3.7, Late Successional Forest 

Landscape, would be to manage for late successional characteristics. This may include 

thinning from below and removing MPB infested green trees. 

Regeneration: The natural regeneration of pine and other native species of trees within the 

project area should be good with the treatments in this alternative. Whole tree skidding would 

have the effect of site preparation by scarification of the forest floor, which favors regeneration 

establishment and has a positive effect in discouraging competition from grasses and forbs 

during seed germination and early regeneration establishment. This abundance of regeneration 

would, however, create dense sapling size pine within the next 20 to 40 years, which would 

necessitate non-commercial thinning in the future and pose an increased fire hazard as these 

pine become ladder fuels. Where prescribed burning occurs, regeneration would be reduced 

due to the rapid establishment of competitive grasses and forbs. 

Snags: Currently for the Pactola Project Area, there is an average of approximately 4.7 hard 

snags per acre on forested NFS lands. We would not be cutting snags in either action 

alternative except for safety reasons. For this reason we would meet Standards 2301, 2304 and 

2305. For additional information on snags, refer to the Black Hills National Forest Monitoring 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

Growth and Yield: The thinning would reduce the stocking levels in overstocked stands and 

bring those stands into forest plan condition. The effect would be an increase in the quality of 

the timber through the removal of damaged, diseased, and poorly formed trees and an increase 

in individual tree growth by releasing the remaining trees from competition for light, water and 

nutrients. Where mechanical thinning occurs, trees would develop larger diameters due to a 

reduction of competition which concentrates the stand growth on the fewer stems. MPB hazard 

would be reduced in these areas due to the reduction of basal area to levels less susceptible to 

mountain pine beetle attack. Alternative C would have higher growth and yield than 

Alternative A and slightly more than Alternative B. This is due to the substantially higher 

amount of beetle-caused mortality in Alternative A and slightly higher levels in Alternative B as 

compared to Alternative C. Total yield would be lower over time than if the stand was fully 

stocked, because the trees would not fully occupy the stand. But higher density stands are much 

more susceptible to MPB infestations, and with the proximity of large populations of MPB, this 

decrease in yield should be weighed against the benefits of reductions in MPB and fire hazard. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 141

Cumulative Effects 

Past activities are listed in Alternative A above. Cumulative effects of past treatments and 

treatments proposed in this alternative generally would be positive. Thinning of stands created 

with regeneration harvests would bring those stands into desired condition. Fire hazard 

reduction and MPB hazard that was lowered with past treatments would be improved or 

maintained where treatment occurs in these alternatives. Plant species diversity was increased 

with past treatments and would be increased in these alternatives where treatment occurs. 

Present activities are minimal and their effects are listed in Alternative A above. Alternatives 

B and C treatments would have a minimal effect over those discussed under direct and indirect 

effects for these alternatives. 

Anticipated future silviculture activities, not connected to this analysis, that would occur within 

the area are as follows: Future silvicultural activities would be minimal and their effects are 

listed in Alternative A above. Alternatives B and C treatments would have a minimal 

cumulative effect over those discussed under direct and indirect effects for these alternatives. 

Silvicultural activities on other than National Forest System lands would be minimal and their 

effects are listed under in Alternative A above. Alternatives B and C treatments would have a 

minimal cumulative effect over those discussed under direct and indirect effects for this 

alternative. Treatments on private land for fire hazard reduction or mountain pine beetle would 

contribute to both a reduction of hazard from high intensity wildfire and mountain pine beetle. 

FIRE AND FUELS 

Affected Environment 

Historically, fire return intervals in the Black Hills were relatively frequent (0-35 years) and 

fire intensities were low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (partial overstory 

mortality)(Brown and Seig 1999, Brown et al. 2008). Fire return intervals combined with 

fire severity defines a Fire Regime. Much of the Black Hills, including the Pactola Project 

Area is classified as a Fire Regime I. Burn severity is the degree fire affects vegetation and 

soils over the landscape; the fire return interval is the amount of time between consecutive 

fires to burn in a given area. In a mixed severity forest, like the Black Hills, a mosaic pattern 

of vegetation across the landscape caused by the differing fire conditions should be the norm. 

Fuel loadings, both live and dead, topographic influences, and weather are all directly related 

to fire severity. Fast moving crown fire is often associated with severe fire effects, though 

surface fire can often cause severe effects as well (Lentile et al. 2006). 

Condition Class defines a landscape’s departure from its historic fire regime. Every fire regime 

has three condition classes (FRCC1, 2, and 3). They describe the extent that a landscape has 

departed from its historic vegetative cover and fire cycle: low (FRCC1), moderate (FRCC2), and 

high (FRCC3). Fire has in effect been removed from much of the Black Hills ecosystem, 

including the Pactola Project Area, for more than 100 years. Using a coarse scale, the Black 

Hills National Forest is in the high category or FRCC3 (Schmidt et al. 2002). Elements of 

FRCC3 that apply to the Pactola Project Area include: 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 142

• The fire regime has been significantly altered from its historical range. 

• The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

• Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from the historical range. 

• Fire frequencies have departed from the historical frequencies by multiple return intervals 

resulting in dramatic changes in fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. 

Fire History: Since 1970, 128 fires (3.2 fires per year average) have been recorded within 

the Pactola Project Area, totaling 76.3 acres. The largest recorded fire during that time 

period was the Boardinghouse Fire (1980) which burned five acres. In 1939, the McVey 

Fire, the worst recorded fire to that date in the Black Hills, burned approximately 22,000 

acres. The southern end of the project area was affected with 3,034 acres falling within the 

McVey Burn. Several prescribed fires have take place within the Pactola Project Area 

accounting for 3,660 acres, starting with Nugget prescribed burn in 1980 and most recently 

with Horse Nugget prescribed burn in 2007. These prescribed burns have largely covered 

the footprint of the McVey Fire. The balance of acres within the project area, 22,281 acres, 

has not been significantly affected by fire within the past 100+ years. 

Topography: The project area is as rough and broken country as the Mystic District has 

to offer. Elevation ranges from 4,600 ft. to 5,800 ft. Thirty percent of the project area is

over 40% slope. Consequently, access for firefighting is difficult resulting in slower 

response times. This can allow time for a wildland fire to establish itself making control 

more difficult and expensive. 

Vegetation: Ponderosa pine is the dominant species in the Pactola Project Area. The area 

is interspersed with pockets of Aspen and Birch. Some smaller meadow openings exist 

within the area as well. Vegetation distribution in the project area is shown in Table 3-21. 

Table 3-21 Forest cover types within the Pactola Project Area (NFS lands)

Forest Type Acres Percent of Project Area

Ponderosa 22,914 88% 

Grass 632 2% 

Aspen/Birch 946 4% 

White Spruce 253 1% 

Non-Vegetative 

(Pactola Lake, roads, etc.)

1,241 5% 

Mountain Pine Beetle: The ongoing mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic has 

established itself within the Pactola Project Area. Approximately 500 acres of infested 

trees were identified during the 2010 MPB aerial surveys performed by R2 Forest Health 

Management. Approximately 58% of the area is in stands that will provide favorable 

habitat for the beetles (USDA, Forest Service 2010d). Black Hills Land and Resource 

Management (LRMP) Goal 10-07 addresses the issue of MPB, “Where outbreaks of 

mountain pine beetle could present risks to management objectives for ponderosa pine, 

reduce acreage of ponderosa-pine stands that are in medium or high risk for infestation.” 

Though this report only speaks specifically to the Pactola Planning Area, adjacent stands 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 143

and planning areas are also susceptible to MPB outbreaks. An expanding outbreak within 

the Pactola Project Area would surely have an impact on those adjacent areas.

Fire Hazard: Fire Hazard can be defined as a combination of fire risk, fuel condition, 

weather, and topography. Fire risk is based on the potential for a fire to start in a given 

area. With an average of 3.2 fires a year within the project area, the risk is real. Fuel 

conditions are based on quantity, arrangement, and sometimes live to dead ratios. 

The Forest Plan, as amended, speaks directly to the fire and insect hazard in the forest. Fire 

hazard ratings for the Black Hills are based on ponderosa pine forest structural stages. The 

structural stage provides a description of the continuity of aerial fuels within a given stand. 

The denser the stand, the more likely a crown fire could be sustained. The Forest Plan, as 

amendment, correlates crown fire hazard with structural stages. As shown in Table 3-22. 

Table 3-22 Structural Stages and Fire Hazard Ratings

Structural Stage Fire Hazard Rating 

1 – Grass/Forb Low 

2 – Shrub/Seedling Moderate 

3A – Sapling-pole, <40% crown cover Moderate 

3B – Sapling-pole, 40-70% crown cover High 

3C – Sapling-pole, >70% crown cover Very High 

4A – Mature, >40% crown cover, >9” avg. diameter Moderate 

4A – Mature, >40% crown cover, <9” avg. diameter Very High 

4B – Mature, 40-70% crown cover, >9” avg. diameter High 

4B – Mature, 40-70% crown cover, <9” avg. diameter Very High 

4C – Mature, >70% crown cover, all diameters Very High 

5 – Late Successional Very High 

Using structural stage data from individual stands within the Pactola Project Area (NFS lands) 

fire hazard ratings correlate as follows: 

Table 3-23 Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area 

Fire Hazard Rating Acres 

Low 5,284 

Moderate 4,021 

High 9,376 

Very High 6,183 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 144

Figure 3-6 Fire Hazard Ratings for the Pactola Project Area

Wildland Urban Interface 

The Pactola Project Area has 231 identified address points and an additional 114 within one 

half mile of the project boundary. Private property accounts for 1,455 acres of the total 

project area. The community of Silver City, centrally located in the Pactola Project Area and 

at the confluence of several drainages on Rapid Creek, is listed on the National Registry of 

At Risk Communities (ARC)(Federal Register 2001). Though there are two directions for a 

potential evacuation, egress from the settlement could be a dangerous activity. Both 

directions require climbing out steep terrain with tight, windy roads. There are also several 

other concentrations of homes within the area including Edelweiss Mountain and Pactola 

Estates. Edelweiss Mountain, in particular, is located in a somewhat precarious position. 

Located in the upper third of a substantial drainage, structure protection and firefighting 

would be a dangerous proposition under high fire danger weather conditions. 

The Pennington and Lawrence County Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) (Pennington County 

2006, Lawrence County 2009) identifies three buffer distances: one half, one and one half, and 

three miles around private property. The three mile buffer guideline places the entire project 

area within the WUI. Both the CWPP’s state, “The goal of fuels reduction projects will be to 

reduce the risk from fire by lowering fire intensities and reducing crowning and torching 

activities that threaten values in the WUI.” In essence, the CWPPs call for lowering the fire 

hazard in and around the WUI allowing for a safer firefighting effort. 

Pactola concentrated public use area (CPUA) is within the project boundary and is an 

epicenter for summer time recreation. Up to 50,000 visitors use the Pactola CPUA during an 

average 110 day season (Ballard 2011). Two campgrounds, two picnic areas, boat ramps, 

and numerous trailheads exist. US Highway 385, the major north/south corridor through the 

Black Hills, provides the eastern boundary to the project area. 

Forest Plan direction pertaining to WUI include the following: 

• Goal 10 of the Forest Plan provides direction for management of vegetation in 

and around the wildland urban interface (WUI). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 145

• Objective 10-01: “Manage for 50 to 75 percent moderate-to-low fire hazard in 

the wildland-urban interface and reduce fire hazard within proximity of structures 

to current NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) standards...” 

• Objective 10-04: “Reduce or otherwise treat fuels commensurate with risks (fire 

occurrence), hazard (fuel flammability), and land and resource values common to 

the area, using the criteria in Forest-wide Guideline 4110”

Research Natural Areas 

The 589 acre Canyon City Research Natural Area (RNA) lies within the Pactola Project 

Area. The purpose of the RNA is to have a designated area for “non-manipulative 

research” and to maintain biological diversity. 

The Canyon City RNA is approximately three quarters of a mile from Silver City, a 

registered ARC. Forest Plan direction pertaining to RNA and ARC include the following: 

• Goal 10-03: “Within 5 years of a formal research natural area (RNA) designation, 

manage for a moderate-to-low fire hazard between RNAs and at-risk communities 

(ARCs) and other resources as needed where the topography, wind conditions, 

and fuels could create the potential for high-intensity crown-fire spread to the 

ARCs or resources.” 

Air Quality 

Air quality within the Black Hills National Forest is addressed in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 1997 Revised Forest Plan. Overall, air quality with the Black Hills 

National Forest is very good. Air quality is better than national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for all pollutants. 

The project area is within the vicinity of two Class I Airsheds within South Dakota: Wind 

Cave National Park (approximately 35 air miles south) and Badlands National Park 

(approximately 55 air miles east southeast). Class I Airsheds are considered pristine. Air 

quality in most parts of the country has to be at or slightly above NAAQS; Class I areas can 

tolerate little if any degradation in air quality – primarily from a visual standpoint. In 1997, 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued PM2.5 standards to protect health and the 

environment. PM2.5 standards are levels allowed in the outdoor air for particulate matter 2.5 

microns in diameter or smaller—a better measure of air quality degradation from forest fire 

emissions than the previous standard of PM10 (10 microns in diameter or smaller). EPA has 

issued two standards for PM2.5: and annual standard, at 15 micrograms per cubic meter; and a 

24 hour standard at 35 micrograms per cubic meter. 

The Clean Air Act requires state and local governments to take steps to reduce fine particle 

pollution in nonattainment areas. The term “nonattainment” means that an area violates the 

fine particle standard or that it contributes to violations of the standard in a nearby area. 

PM10 has been an issue in the Rapid City, SD area. The 1996 Forest Plan EIS notes that the 

Rapid City area had been classified as an area that is not attaining the NAAQS for PM10

particulates. In September 2005, the State of South Dakota, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources, petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting 

that the Rapid City area be re-designated from unclassifiable to attainment for the PM10
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 146

national ambient air quality standard. EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

on December 9, 2005, soliciting public comment on the proposal (70FR73183). On March 6, 

2006, the EPA published a final rule approving the request from the State of South Dakota 

(71FR11162). The approval was based on the State’s demonstration that the Rapid City area 

was in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS and commitment to continuation of fugitive dust 

controls. The Rapid City area was officially redesignated from unclassified to attainment for 

PM10 effective April5, 2006. The entire state of South Dakota is in attainment status; so far, 

there is no history of air quality violations from prescribed broadcast burning in the Black 

Hills or surrounding areas. 

A solid working relationship exists between the Black Hills National Forest and the South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. There have been few if any 

problems identified and communicated to the Black Hills National Forest regarding negative 

impacts to air quality relating to prescribed fire activity that has occurred on the Black Hills 

National Forest in the last ten years. The only case of known impacts was short term event 

that lasted less than two hours. 

“Smoke management” is an essential element of the prescribed broadcast burn planning 

process, and a legal requirement during the implementation phase. Prior to ignition, the 

“Burn Boss” must demonstrate through weather forecasts and test fire observations that the 

smoke emissions would be in full compliance of NAAQS. 

An Increasing Hazard

Over the entire project area, 63% of the NFS lands receive a high or very high fire hazard 

rating (see Figure 3-7). Continuous aerial fuels, combined with steep and broken terrain, 

create the environment for a potential fast moving stand replacing fire. Direct experience 

has shown that continuous stands of ponderosa pine can easily support sustained runs of 

crown fire, either day or night, given the correct weather conditions. High fire severity is 

a real danger to the existing forest resources but the real danger is to life safety. Rapidly 

moving fire can easily cut off escape routes for the public and emergency services.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 147

Figure 3-7 Fire Hazard Rating Map for the Pactola Project Area
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 148

Few studies have been done on MPB, ponderosa pine, tree mortality, and fire. 

Consequently, we do not have a firm research basis on which to draw conclusions, 

anecdotal evidence and field experience is currently the best way to draw conclusions. 

Insect Hazard closely correlates with Fire Hazard Ratings and structural stages previously 

mentioned. One year post infestation, a ponderosa pine’s needles will begin to fade and 

ultimately turn rust red by season’s end, (Hopkins 1905). A fading (dying) or “red top” 

(dead) ponderosa pine might more easily support the transition from a surface fire to the 

crowns due to the lack of foliar moisture present within the needles (given the correct 

weather conditions). The potential for crown fire may increase for this relatively short 

time while the needles are still attached to the tree. Needles fall from the dead tree in as 

little as six months or as long as two years depending on weather factors. The fire 

hazard, as defined by structural stage, would lower dramatically due to the lack of 

crowns. With less vegetative cover, sites would become dryer due to increased solar 

insulation and surface winds. Within five years, 70-95% of the dead trees would fall to 

the ground (Schmid et al. 2009). The fuel profile has now changed dramatically. The 

potential for crown fire would disappear in areas severely affected by the MPB. 

However, fuel continuity would remain albeit different. Surface fuel loadings would go 

from a typical fuel model 9 (needle cast) at approximately four tons per acre to fuel 

model 10 (heavy surface fuels) at approximately 15 tons per acre (Anderson 1982). A 

fire passing through this fuel model would be slower moving than a crown fire, but would 

be resistant to control due to higher fireline intensities, flame lengths exceeding four feet 

(flame lengths greater than four feet require mechanized equipment) and spotting from 

fire brands. Resulting damage to residual trees, regeneration, and soils would most likely 

be severe. Direct experience with prescribed fire in Fuel Model 10 has shown that even 

under moderate conditions, care must be taken to prevent tree torching (fire transitioning 

from the surface to the crowns of individual or small groups of trees) and crown scorch 

(crowns being damaged from convective heat release), both of which can result in 

mortality of young and mature trees. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, no vegetative management would take place. Change 

towards desired conditions as outlined in the Forest Plan would not occur. Objectives 

presented by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, National Fire Plan, and the Pennington 

County and Lawrence County Wildfire Protection Plans would not be met. 

Fire exclusion would continue, furthering the departure from historic fire return intervals. 

Currently, 15,559 acres or 63% of the total acreage within the Pactola Project Area are 

rated as high or very high. Fire risk would also increase with more people and resulting 

infrastructure moving in the WUI. As fire hazard and risk increase, the potential for a 

large stand replacing fire event would become more likely. Continuous stands of 

ponderosa pine would become denser and opportunity for human caused wildfires would 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 149

increase. Damage to forest resources would correspond with fire size, intensity, and 

severity. Values-at-Risk in the WUI would also be threatened to a higher degree. The 

threat to life safety of the public and emergency services would also become more of an 

issue. The ability to safely engage a fire during high fire danger would become more 

difficult as time passes. 

The continuing MPB epidemic would expand in the project area. Crown fire potential 

could increase in the short term with dry red needles versus green. A more likely 

scenario would be large areas of living trees transitioning to areas of significant down 

woody debris over a three to five year period. Though the fuel profile and composition 

would change, the condition class of FRCC3 would not. This material would add to an 

already existing available fuel bed. Severity from a fire in this type of fuel model can be 

very high. Residual trees, regeneration, and soils could be greatly impacted. 

Regenerating ponderosa pine would most likely be prolific. Areas with thick growth of pine 

regeneration would undergo yet another fuel type change. The areas of down woody debris, 

Fuel Model 10, could transition to areas that would burn more a like a shrub fuel model. 

When ponderosa pine regenerates itself in the Black Hills, it often grow like “dog hair” 

(overstocked with saplings) and can burn like a shrub (see Silviculturalist’s report). Fire 

intensity and rate of spread in this model are potentially very high and resistant to control. 

Air quality would not be directly affected by Alternative A. The potential for a large 

stand replacing fire is greater with this alternative. A large wildfire within the project 

area would likely create unhealthy levels of smoke into the surrounding communities, but 

natural events are exempt from National Air Quality Standards. 

The No Action Alternative would not be consistent with Forest Plan Goal 10, Objectives

10-1, 10-4, and 10-7. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative B, proposed activities would mechanically modify the fuel profile of 

13,141 acres across the project area. This would include commercial and noncommercial treatments breaking up the continuity of the stands. Approximately 71 acres 

of non-commercial fuel breaks along private property would also occur. Many primary 

ingress/egress routes would be treated, but only where they correspond with planned 

logging activities. Primarily, treatments are to be “whole tree skidded” as opposed to 

“lop and scatter.” Whole tree skidding reduces overall fuel loads by removing the entire 

tree versus just the bole of the tree and leaving the remaining slash on the ground. 

In addition to mechanical treatments, up to 5,037 acres would be treated with prescribed 

broadcast burning. Combining mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would reduce 

fuel loading and continuity across the landscape, therefore reducing the overall fire 

hazard. Treatments would also help bring the area back towards its historic fire regime 

reducing the threat of losing key ecosystem components and values. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 150

Alternative B treatments would have the following effect on fire hazard as defined by 

structural stage within the Pactola Project Area: 

Table 3-24 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage Data

Fire Hazard Rating Acres 

Low 10,986 

Moderate 6,969 

High 4,028 

Very High 2,880 

Figure 3-8 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage Data 

Alternative B would be consistent with Forest Plan Goal 10, Objectives 10-01, 10-04, 10-06, 

10-07, and Guideline 4110. Alternative B would also meet the recommendations of the 

Pennington and Lawrence CWPPs. Alternative B would reduce the high/very high fire 

hazard rating from 63% to 28% in the project area (see Figure 3-9). In addition to reducing 

fire hazard, Alternative B would lower risk from the MPB. By reducing the acreage at high 

risk to the MPB, potentially large areas of Fuel Model 10 would be avoided reducing fire 

severity and intensity, therefore fire fighting safety and effectiveness would increase. Areas 

not directly treated by mechanical thinning or prescribed broadcast burning would indirectly 

benefit as well. By breaking up continuity of ponderosa pine stands, the potential for a 

running crown fire is reduced. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 151

Figure 3-9 Alternative B Fire Hazard Rating Map for Pactola Project Area
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 152

Alternative B would also meet the intent of Standard 4103 and Guideline 4105 by allowing up 

to 5,037 acres of prescribed broad cast burning. A reduction of surface fuels would be the most

noticeable effect of broadcast burning. There is a direct relationship between surface fuel 

loading and high severity fire. Crown fire is initiated, and generally sustained, by energy 

released by fuels on the surface burning under extreme conditions. Another direct effect would 

be raising the canopy base height. Fire “prunes” ponderosa pine by scorching the lower 

branches, thus raising the height of the crowns or canopy. Reducing ponderosa pine seedling 

and sapling densities is also an expected outcome. All of these effects have a positive impact on 

potential fire severity. Less noticeable effects would include returned nutrients to the soil and 

improved wildlife habitat by stimulating herbaceous plants and browse for large game animals. 

Figure 3-10 Horse Nugget Prescribed Fire 

Alternative B would also allow for maintenance burning in the Horse Nugget, Snugget, and 

McVey prescribed burns. Approximately 3,600 acres of the total prescribed burning has 

previously been burned since 1988. Within these past burn projects, tree mortality occurred and 

by returning fire to these areas, the down trees would be consumed. With each repeated burn 

fewer trees would be expected to succumb to the fire. As many as seven treatments might be 

necessary to return an area to its’ historical range (Reinhardt et al. 2008). Prior to ignition, a 

“Burn Plan” would be written utilizing the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Guide (July 2008). This document, as it is stated in the title, is a 

comprehensive guide to planning and implementing prescribed fire and serves as a template for 

the burn planner to prepare and the burn boss to follow. The actual burn plan includes 21 critical 

Photo monitoring from the Horse Nugget prescribed fire. Notice the reduction in fuels and thinning of pine regeneration. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 153

elements that must be addressed, some of these include: objectives, prescriptions, organization 

and equipment, safety, ignition and holding plans. Tree mortality parameters (part of the

objectives and prescription) are written into individual Burn Plans by the District Silviculturalist. 

As the tree size class increases, the corresponding allowance for mortality decreases. A good 

example of a Silviculturalist’s prescription is from the Horse Nugget Prescribed Fire: 

Table 3-25 Example of Silviculturalist’s Prescription for Horse Nugget Prescribed Fire

Mature Pine

16”+ dbh 

Large Pine

9”-16” dbh

Pole Size Pine

5”- 9” dbh 

Sapling Pine

3”-5” 

Seedling Pine

0-3” 

<2% <5% <20% <30% <60% 

Percent of allowable tree mortality by size class in the Horse Nugget prescribed broadcast burn (“dbh”

equals diameter at breast height, four feet off the ground). 

Recent studies have concluded that following mechanical treatments with prescribed broadcast 

burning is the best way to ultimately reduce fire hazard and severity well into the future (Omi 

et al.,2007, Stephens et al. 2009). Allowing thinning without follow-up broadcast burning can 

actually increase wildfire severity. Experience on numerous broadcast burns on the Mystic 

District has shown that it is difficult to burn residual slash, even under moderate conditions, 

without resulting group tree torching or a high degree of crown scorch. The balance of acres 

not treated with prescribed fire should be whole tree skidded versus allowing lop and scatter. 

This would be critical in lowering surface fire hazard and severity. 

All prescribed fire acres for the Pactola Project are within Management Area 5.4, Big Game 

Winter Range Emphasis. Management is to emphasize a vegetative mosaic with natural and 

created openings. Stand diversity of age, density, and species with ample browse for large 

game are all aspects of the desired future condition (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Combining these mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would reduce fuel loading and 

continuity across the landscape, therefore reducing the overall fire hazard. Treatments would 

also steer the area back towards its historic fire regime, reducing the threat of losing key 

ecosystem components and values. 

Air Quality during prescribed burning would be affected. Pollutants released during prescribed 

burning primarily include: particulate matter (including PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, 

and volatile organic compounds that may impair human health, welfare, and visibility. The 

pollutant of greatest concern released during prescribed fire is PM2.5, most of the mass wildfire 

smoke falls into this classification (80-90%). During prescribed fire operations, pollutants are 

usually quick to dilute and are generally low in concentration, and therefore public health 

hazards are negligible. Due to the generally lower fire intensities during prescribed fire, fuel 

consumption would be expected to be lower compared to higher intensities of wildland fire. 

Weather prescriptions are defined in the approved burn plan and may include: mixing height, 

transport windspeed and direction, and smoke dispersion. Weather forecasts are produced by 

the National Weather Service and are generally requested the day prior to and the day of 

ignition. These forecasts are one of the primary factors included in the decision making 

process to proceed with ignition. Notification of the general public living in the area should be 

given a reasonable time prior to the day of ignition through a number of possible outlets 

including the Forest Public Information Officer. Night time hours are generally when smoke 

would have the greatest negative impacts. Residual smoke generally settles to the ground with 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 154

cooler temperatures and often flows down drainages potentially affecting “sensitive receptors.” 

The Mystic Ranger District generally tries to complete ignition operations as early in the day as 

possible to allow for more combustion time before night time temperature inversions set up. 

Prescribed fire generally occurs in the fall and spring in the Black Hills and surrounding areas. 

Certain weather conditions allow for prescribed broadcast burning to occur, and only a limited 

number of days are considered to be a “good weather window.” Both Alternatives B and C 

propose over 5,000 acres of prescribed fire to be conducted within the project boundary. This 

area would be broken into individual burn units of generally 100 to 500 acres in size and could 

take a multiple years to complete. The Mystic District accomplishes an average of 

approximately 1,000 to 3,000 acres of prescribed fire a year spread across the district over a 

potential seven month weather window. Coordination between Forest Districts and other

agencies helps mitigate negative impacts on air quality by preventing all units from burning 

simultaneously. No air quality violations have been recorded to date by the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, however, a growing concern about 

particulate concentrations have been noted (Schultz 2011). 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative C, proposed activities would mechanically modify the fuel profile of 

17,412 acres across the Pactola Project Area. Nominal acreage has been added to treatments 

as outlined in Alternative B. Prescribed fire and its’ effects on the same 5,037 acres are 

included as well. There are two primary additions to Alternative C: 1,269 acres of cable 

logging, 436 acres of roadside treatments, and the option of helicopter logging up to 500 

acres as a sanitation tool. 

Cable logging allows for steeper terrain to be treated as compared to traditional ground 

based logging methods used in the Black Hills. Slope can be a key factor in initiating and 

sustaining crown fire. Large fire events spread, to a great extent, by spotting; firebrands 

can be lofted into the air and land downwind often times from ridge top to ridge top. By 

treating steeper terrain, the ability for surface fire to transition to crown fire can be reduced, 

lowering the fire hazard as determined by structural stage. Residual slash from cable 

logging can be problematic for fire suppression under normal situations. Without this 

treatment, though, most of the mature trees on the steep slopes are likely to succumb to the 

MPB. The result would be steeper hillsides transitioning from the existing Fuel Model 9 to 

Fuel Model 10 with greater fire line intensities and flame lengths. Mechanically treating 

this steeper country would, over the long term, lower surface fire hazard by removing the 

boles of the trees, therefore reducing the potential tons per acre. 

Alternative C includes 436 acres of additional roadside treatments. These treatments are 

primarily commercial in nature, though non-commercial thinning would also be taking place 

within these ingress/egress routes. By treating additional roadway corridors, safety would 

increase for vehicles either leaving or entering the area in the event of a wildfire. These acres 

would more fully help meet guidelines set in the Pennington and Lawrence County CWPPs. 

Alternative C would reduce the high/very high fire hazard rating from 63% to 20% in the

project area (see Figure 3-12). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 155

Figure 3-11 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating Map for Pactola Project Area 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 156

Helicopter logging would be an additional option allowed in Alternative C for sanitation removal 

of MPB infested trees. Only the boles of the trees would be removed leaving the residual slash 

on the surface. These concentrations of slash would be nominal due to the selective use of the 

helicopter and would be less than if the entire tree were to fall to the ground. 

Effects resulting from prescribed fire, including air quality, would be the same as Alternative B. 

Alternative C would be consistent with Forest Plan Goal 10, Objectives 10-04, 10-06, 10-07, 

and Guideline 4110. This alternative would exceed Objective 10-1 in the short-term. 

Using structural stand stage data from the Silviculturalist’s Report, Alternative C treatments 

would have the following effect on fire hazard within the Pactola Project Area:

Table 3-26 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage Data

Fire Hazard Rating Acres 

Low 11,776 

Moderate 8,167 

High 2,650 

Very High 2,280 

Figure 3-12 Alternative C Fire Hazard Rating for Pactola Project Area Using Structural Stage Data 

Cumulative Effects

Fire Hazard would be expected to be reduced significantly with both Alternative B and C. A 

comparison of the Alternatives shows the potential positive results of timber management in 

the Pactola Project Area. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 157

Figure 3-13 Fire Hazard Comparison of Alternatives

However, conditions change rapidly in a Fire Regime I forest. Pine regeneration can be 

prolific, often exceeding 1,000 stems per acre in the Black Hills, favoring disturbed soils 

resulting from timber sales or fire (Battaglia et al. 2008). With this regeneration, Fire Hazard 

would begin to again increase (at a significantly lower level) than if no management were to 

take place. However, the fire hazard in 20 years would be expected to be lower in 

Alternatives B and C if no management were to take place. 

Figure 3-14 Fire Hazard Comparison of Alternatives Post Treatment and Treatment Plus 20 Years 

The caveat in using structural stage to describe fire hazard during this period of MPB epidemic 

is explained as follows: Fire hazard as defined by structural stage (crown density/closure), 

whether we manage or not, would go down. The resulting tree mortality due to the MPB 

would break up the continuity of the stands reducing the “fire hazard.” The difference would 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 158

be the shift from a dense, high fire hazard stand, potentially supporting a crown fire to a high 

fire hazard surface fuel load. Either option has potentially negative effects on public and 

firefighter safety. Fire suppression efforts would also be negatively impacted. The unknown is 

the potential magnitude and impact of the MPB on the Pactola Project Area. Without

treatment, large areas would likely be affected by the MPB (see Silviculturalist’s Report).

Fire risk (in terms of human-caused fire) would most likely increase within the Pactola Project 

Area in the next 20 years as more people move into the WUI. As more people move into the 

WUI, a corresponding amount of values-at-risk would appear, as well. Consequently, the cost 

and complexity of suppressing wildland fires would increase. Reducing Fire and MPB Hazard 

in the Pactola Project Area should have a positive impact on fire size, severity, and magnitude 

of inevitable wildland fire incidents. This should help offset increased complexity in the WUI. 

The potential impact to forest resources and private property should be reduced, as well. 

Air quality would affected due to prescribed fire operations included in both Alternatives B 

and C. Smoke impacts could contribute to local and regional pollutant loading. However, 

these effects would be short lived once firing operations are completed and the smoke quickly 

dissipates. Emissions from prescribed fire operations on other Districts and well as other 

agencies could potentially occur simultaneously. These separate projects would generally be 

separated by substantial geography and most likely would not impact the same areas. As a 

result, planned prescribed fire emissions are not expected have long term or significant impacts 

to National Air Quality Standards and should not have significant future impairments of 

visibility in Class 1 Airsheds. 

A substantial reduction in Fire Hazard from Alternatives B and C should have a positive effect 

on reducing fire severity and magnitude of subsequent wildfires. The possibility of losing key 

ecosystem components would be minimized and would provide for a safer environment for 

emergency services to engage wildland fires. A substantial reduction in fire hazard should also 

mitigate the potential for a large fire event to release massive amounts smoke into the air. 

Reducing possible fire severity should also protect forest resources by reducing tree mortality. 

However, it is critical to understand that a continuing commitment to fuels management within 

this project area is required to realize the benefits of this project into the future. 

RANGE 

Affected Environment 

The Pactola Project Area overlaps three cattle grazing allotments on the Mystic (MY) Ranger 

District and one on the Northern Hills (NH) Ranger District. The Silver City Allotment is 

essentially entirely within the area, while only portions of the other three allotments are 

affected. Permitted livestock grazing has been a recurring use in the project area since the 

time the U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905. Annual grazing use is authorized by a Bill 

for Collection for grazing fees. Livestock may not be placed on the allotment until grazing 

fees payment is accepted. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 159

Suitable rangelands are appropriate for grazing with consideration of environmental and 

economic consequences, and alternative uses. The majority of NFS lands within the project 

boundary are currently under management for cattle grazing; an area around Pactola 

Reservoir is managed for recreational uses. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for all 

resources affected by grazing are followed. 

There are 731 cow/calf pairs permitted to graze these allotments. Livestock numbers may 

vary if a permittee elects to take non-use or substitutes some yearlings for the cow/calf pairs. 

At any given time during the grazing season, there may be cattle within and confined by 

range improvements (fencing, cattleguards) to pastures in the project area. Pasture rotation 

schedules and instructions (including rest of some pastures) are revised on an annual basis 

during winter meetings with the term grazing permit holders. 

The fences on these allotments have been constructed to create pasture and allotment division 

boundaries, and thus control the movement of cattle from pasture to pasture. Often these 

boundaries are linked to topographic features such as steep forested slopes or rocky ridgelines. 

Fencing is also used along road right of ways and for exclosures to protect spring sources. 

Range improvements are designed to manage grazing in a manner that sustains the vegetative 

and watershed resources, provides for a variety of biologically diverse ecosystems, moves 

range conditions towards or maintain at a desired status, and provides for sustained 

commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. Improvements within the Pactola 

Project Area include structures such as exterior and interior pasture barbed wire fences, water 

developments (stock tanks, ponds, and dugouts), spring exclosures, corrals, and cattleguards. 

Range improvements such as fences and water developments are used with salting to control 

and gain distribution of cattle. Permittees are responsible for maintenance of designated 

improvements, cost share in construction or new or rebuilt structures. 

The timing of grazing use such as moving on to the forest, or to and from a pasture may 

vary from season to season. Additionally, livestock numbers and length of grazing season 

can be adjusted on an annual basis to adapt to availability of forage and drinking water.

Forage utilization monitoring is done periodically throughout the permitted grazing 

season to ensure Forest Plan standards and guidelines are met. Permittees are responsible 

for moving livestock when allowable proper use standards or riparian stubble heights will 

be exceeded. Additionally, some permittees have submitted monitoring data in written or 

verbal form on occasion. Study transects exist for some upland and riparian areas to 

improve monitoring efforts and track trends, and more are planned. 

Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) with environmental assessment work that fulfill 

direction from the 1995 Range Rescission Act are completed for three of the five 

allotments. The Bald Horse and Redfern Allotments are covered by the Mystic Range 

Project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) 

signed October 22, 2010. New AMPs are planned for these two allotments. 

The affected pastures within the Pactola Project boundary provide forage opportunities for 

cattle and use by a variety of wildlife including big game such as elk and whitetail deer. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 160

There are many meadows of varying sizes and shapes found in both uplands and valley 

bottoms. Most meadows are being invaded by small pine. In this project area, most 

meadows are confined to narrow drainages surrounded by ponderosa pine or in some 

instances spruce. Other woody vegetation such as aspen, birch, bur oak, and willows are 

generally linear-shaped stands and also show active pine or spruce encroachment. The 

hardwood stands also provide some forage for cattle; livestock interest this understory 

vegetation may vary depending on the time of use. 

These meadow areas are designated as primary range because they are accessible to cattle, 

produce good quality grass forage, and often have dependable water – either spring fed water 

tanks, flowing seeps in drainages, or catchment basins for run-off. In dry years, there are 

inconsistent water sources in some pastures within all allotments which can limit cattle grazing 

use and distribution. From the late 1990s through the mid 2000s, seven years of drought 

depleted forage plant root reserves and ground water storage. Abundant moisture in 2009 and 

2010 has restored much of the depleted ground water storage as evidenced by visible surface 

water flows. 

Water developments aid by increasing cattle distribution and providing more dependable 

watering sources for livestock and wildlife. These structures are constructed to maximize 

water use while reducing resource effects from excessive trailing, trampling of spring sources, 

and congregating actions by cattle. The goal is to provide cattle and wildlife with suitable 

drinking water in addition to and away from riparian areas such as creek channels and 

protected spring sources. Supplemental dispersed watering locations help to conserve riparian 

habitat from excessive cattle and wildlife use. 

Often existing water developments need renovation and new ones need to be constructed 

when natural vegetation barriers are altered thru vegetative management. The cattle respond 

by changing grazing patterns, and often travel into new places previously inaccessible prior 

to tree removal. 

During the drought, a lack of widespread, dependable watering sources in some pastures has 

increased cattle trailing to remaining water sources, and increased congregation of cattle in 

some upland and riparian areas. Length of use adjustments and resting of pastures has helped 

alleviate these effects, but continued vigilance is necessary to deal with drought. Term grazing 

permittees, in coordination with the Forest Service, responded to these effects with a variety of 

tactics including annual reductions of herd size, adjusting on/off dates, and developing or 

renovating existing water sources. 

Overall, upland rangelands within this project area are generally in stable, satisfactory condition 

with some locations appearing to show increasing numbers of plant species after previous 

vegetative treatments (Ursek and Severson 1998). There are some primary range areas where 

forage and soil conditions show heavier use; causal factors may include periods of drought, 

ineffective cattle distribution efforts by a permittee, pine encroachment reducing available 

grazing acreage, and the duration of permitted use. Moderate to heavy use of some riparian areas 

has occurred during the drought, and stream channels show the effects of such cattle use. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 161

In recent years, portions of range allotments within the Pactola Project area have been subject 

to timber sales. Generally these sales reduced mature pine stands down to a basal area (BA) of 

around 80 square feet/acre using commercial thins and overstory removals. These sales have 

reduced the density of ponderosa pine, creating some transitional (secondary) range grazing 

opportunities for cattle and use by big game (Sieg 1996) (Ursek and Severson 1989). This 

level of timber harvest does create additional short-duration forage opportunities but growth 

from residual trees rapidly shades out understory vegetation. These opportunities seem to last 

no more than ten to fifteen years based on local range personnel observations. 

Noxious weed and invasive species control is an on-going cooperative effort (see Noxious and 

Invasive Weeds report). Treatments after past timber harvests have been completed; these 

include chemical and biological tactics designed to control, reduce, or eliminate infestations. 

Light cattle use of these secondary areas has been observed by district staff and some 

permittees. Some forage within opened up forested areas tends to be less preferred by cattle. It 

has been observed and suggested that these grasses are less palatable to cattle when found in 

close proximity to residual pine trees and needle cast (Beckner 2007). Ursek and Severson 

(1988) found that total nutrients can be altered by reducing the forest overstory, but this result 

is from increased plant production, not from changes in forage quality. They reasoned that 

increased opportunities for ungulates to exercise selective feeding resulted from increased 

forage diversity and total plant production. 

Even with past timber harvests to 80 BA, there still are progressive, increasing reductions in 

forage production occurring from the development and encroachment of woody vegetation into 

primary rangelands. As the pine moves into the meadows, the net result is reduced forage 

available, and further confinement of cattle and big game competition into smaller areas. 

Natural vegetation barriers can be altered thru vegetative treatments, and additional fencing 

may be needed to keep cattle in the correct pasture. Treatments may include timber sales, 

POL (Products other than Logs) sales, thinning, and prescribed burning. These vegetative 

actions can be beneficial by creating new grazing opportunities, or detrimental if cattle move 

into the wrong pasture or allotment, or onto private property or roadways. 

Some exterior boundaries of pastures or allotments adjoin private lands. Construction, 

installation, and maintenance of private land line fences and cattleguards are the responsibility of 

the private landowner under existing federal laws. In the past, many of these private properties 

were owned by ranchers or private individuals with livestock, and they generally kept their 

fences maintained. The trend has been for these lands to be sold off, sometimes subdivided, and 

the new landowner(s) often have no interest in fence maintenance or cattleguards. 

Often private landowners do not understand the Forest Service’s position on boundary 

fences between private and NFS lands, and refuse to cooperate with the permittees, despite 

the District’s attempts to explain the US Government’s long-standing position and US

Supreme Court support for such laws. While permittees are encouraged to work with the 

private landowners on fence maintenance, they are under no legal obligation to do so. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 162

One positive aspect of the transition from adjacent private ranches to home sites is there are 

fewer incidents of privately owned livestock (not permitted and authorized) intruding onto the 

National Forest Lands. 

Currently, the lack of private land boundary fences or maintenance of said fences often hinders 

cattle management in some pastures of the Silver City Allotments. Cattle retention on NFS lands 

may be more difficult for permittees to achieve when private landline fencing is not properly 

maintained. One result is incomplete cattle grazing next to interface locations. This can result in 

increases in fine fuel accumulation and subsequent elevated fire hazard in these areas. 

Development of the transportation system for these past timber sales has improved the access 

of permittees to manage their cattle and maintain or construct range improvements such as 

fences or water developments. Where pasture fences cross roads or trails and no cattleguard 

exists, wire gates are used. These gates are used to move cattle from one pasture to another or 

perhaps on or off the NFS lands. Where heavy traffic exists from motorized vehicles, there is a 

tendency for wire gates to be left open. Open gates usually result in cattle entry into the wrong 

pasture, or an area previously grazed or not yet intended for use. Cattleguards are used in these 

locations to allow traffic to pass unimpeded, including logging equipment and haul trucks, 

while restricting cattle movement to specified pastures. 

Slight increases in water yield from reducing numbers of pine trees may occur with sale 

activity, but these gains are gradually reduced as remaining trees grow and regeneration of pine 

seedlings occurs. Changes in water yield are discussed in the hydrologist’s specialist report. 

Whole tree skid is much preferred by the permittees and Forest Service range managers as 

lop/scatter of slash residues impede cattle and wildlife access to range, forage, and browse. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Term permitted grazing use would continue as authorized. No new vegetative or prescribed 

fire treatments are planned except for those projects derived from previously approved 

environmental analysis. There would be no change in carrying capacity (Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs)) as from Alternative A’s implementation. Permittees would continue to be provided 

administrative access to conduct range management activities within closed areas per District 

Ranger approval. Range structures would be maintained and improved as necessary to 

continue cattle management at its current scope and intensity, subject to forest-wide standards 

and guidelines. Fence lines would need encroaching pine and brush cut back with chainsaws 

to remain open and accessible for repairs and maintenance. Current levels of fine fuel removal 

(grass) accomplished by cattle grazing will continue to reduce ground fire hazards. 

The current transportation system in Alternative A remains unchanged. Open and seasonally 

open motorized road miles remain unchanged. No roads are identified for decommissioning, and 

unauthorized routes remain in place. Permittees would continue to be provided administrative 

access to conduct range management activities within closed areas per District Ranger direction 

and approval. Past development of the transportation system for these old timber sales has 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 163

improved the access of permittees to manage their cattle and maintain or construct range 

improvements such as fences or water developments. 

New AMPs with approved Mystic Range FEIS/ROD (USDA Forest Service 2010b) work that 

fulfill requirements from the 1995 Range Rescission Act would be completed for the Bald 

Horse and Redfern Allotments. When completed, these two allotments would join in with the 

already approved analysis and AMPs for the other three allotments with updated range 

management direction for forage, browse vegetation, and watershed resources. 

Water yields for stock ponds and springs may decline as developing and encroaching woody 

vegetation draws ever-increasing amounts of surface and ground water for plant processes (see 

Watershed, Geology, and Soils section). Meadows and hardwood stands would continue to be 

subject to conifer encroachment, and their individual size and landscape spread reduced in 

acreage and location. These reductions would continue unless some type of mechanical 

treatment action or wildfire of sufficient magnitude occurred. 

Ponderosa pine trees would continue to be infected and die from the mountain pine beetle 

infestation. Most of these dead trees eventually break up or fall over the next five to ten years, 

often at accelerated rates with high winds (reference the Battle Creek Fire area 2002-2010). 

Such tree breakage and windthrow has historically been shown to impede cattle access to 

primary and secondary rangelands. Large areas are opened up to sunlight, and a variety of 

plants appear including forbs, grasses, and shrubs. Tree downfall has blocked cattle access and 

the increased amounts of fine fuel growth are not grazed by domestic livestock.

Where opportunities exist to improve existing range management, they will be identified 

and subject to scoping, a new environmental analysis and decision document may be 

necessary, and subsequent updates or changes to existing approved AMPs may be required.

Cumulative Effects 

There are no anticipated cumulative effects that would impair or unduly influence short-term 

range management of the allotments within the Pactola Project Area if Alternative A was 

selected. Both existing and future AMPs will indicate direction to be followed to improve or 

sustain desired range conditions and capacity. However, there are several emerging threats to 

sustainable cattle grazing: 1) diminished water yields may result from expanding and growing 

woody vegetation and may reduce watering supplies (this may be offset by the forecasted large 

scale die-off of ponderosa pine from the mountain pine beetle); 2) encroachment of woody 

vegetation on grazeable areas reduces available forage and potentially cuts back carrying 

capacity over time; 3) the risk of large-scale wildfire is increased with this alternative, and any 

ignition may disrupt grazing use for a period of time to allow for resource recovery; and 4) 

experience with large scale wildfires on the Black Hills have demonstrated that remaining 

black stems of trees that are not harvested will decay, fall over, and block access to vegetation 

by cattle and wildlife. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 164

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, term permitted grazing use would continue as authorized. There would 

be no change in carrying capacity (Animal Unit Months (AUMs)) as currently allocated since 

vegetative openings from treatments would increase available forage for livestock. Range 

structures would be maintained and improved as necessary to continue cattle management at its 

current scope and intensity, subject to forest-wide standards and guidelines. Fences would still 

need brushing to remain open and accessible for repairs and maintenance, but not to the level 

as in Alternative A since commercial and non-commercial treatments are planned with 

Alternative B which would clear fence lines to varying degrees. 

Additional construction of more barbed wire fences may be needed as natural barriers to cattle 

distribution are opened by new roads, mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning. 

Fencing and water developments do exist throughout the Pactola Project Area that would need 

protection from commercial and non-commercial treatment activities such as road construction, 

road closure, harvest machinery, and skidding. The same improvements will need protection 

from prescribed fire implementation. 

There are 13,141 acres of vegetative commercial and non-commercial treatments planned with 

this alternative as well as 5,037 acres of prescribed fire use. Alternative B’s treatments would 

effect and increase herbaceous and shrub production over Alternative A since they create 

canopy openings. Vegetation is either mechanically removed or in some cases consumed with 

prescribed fires, or in some cases both actions proposed sequentially. These treatments would 

allow more sunlight to reach the ground underneath the remaining ponderosa pine trees, and 

increase production of grasses and browse for cattle and wildlife use. The initial quantity of 

this vegetation usually increases distribution of cattle throughout the project area (Ursek and 

Severson 1988), into primary and secondary rangelands. 

Proposed vegetative treatments may congregate cattle near private land line fences in need of 

maintenance or reconstruction, aggravating working relationships with nearby neighbors. In 

contrast, there would be ample adjacent areas with enhanced forage (after thinning and tree 

removal) to draw cattle away from private property. 

There would be substantial reductions in conifer encroachment into meadows and hardwood 

stands (retention and restoration) as approximately 2,132 acres of these vegetative types are 

planned for treatment, in addition to about 3,770 acres of POL thinning and non-commercial 

work. These treatments would initially increase the amount of available forage and browse 

found within these vegetative types, based on past range personnel local observations. 

 

Current levels of fine fuel removal (grass) accomplished by cattle grazing would continue to 

reduce ground fuel hazards. The initial response of existing grass plants to a more open 

growing environment may produce higher levels of grass production than current permitted 

numbers of cattle can harvest each season. Follow-up prescribed fire after vegetative 

treatments have been demonstrated on the Black Hills NF to produce even higher levels of 

forage and browse production. This is also true with applied fire in areas where no vegetative 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 165

treatment has occurred, although plant response is generally not as great compared to 

commercial and non-commercial treated areas with follow-up fire application. 

By temporarily increasing the number of cattle or the number of days the permitted livestock are 

kept in a pasture where vegetative treatments, prescribed fire treatments, or both have occurred 

and stimulated higher levels of grass production, the increase in fine fuels (biomass) can be 

annually removed by grazing. This process may be annually repeated to effect an immediate 

change in fire behavior by reducing the rate of spread and fire intensity. The result would be to 

annually crop the new grass growth (fine fuels) to maintain conditions that support desirable fire 

behavior. This temporarily permitted activity has been accomplished on another allotment by 

following standards and guidelines to protect other resource values. Such permitted action may 

be useful in wildland/urban interface settings within the Pactola Project Area. 

Given the proposed size and scope of prescribed burning, it may be difficult to not displace

some permittees from their respective allotments for a period of time. Prescribed burning may 

have positive or negative effects on livestock operations, hence coordination is critical between 

the fuels management specialist and the range management specialist to: 1) plan the projected 

dates of the burn; 2) to relocate cattle within the allotment and allocate forage in advance to 

assist in prescribed fire execution and accomplishment of objectives; 3) adjust grazing seasons; 

and 4) relocate permittee’s cattle or administer non-use for resource protection during the 

planned ignition, if necessary. This may include construction of additional range 

improvements to defer or rest pastures after treatment in accordance with forest plan standards 

and guidelines. Advance warning needs to be given to term grazing permittee(s) to minimize, 

where possible, disruptions to their operation. 

A slight increase in water yield may occur with Alternative B, perhaps more so than 

experienced with Alternative A due to the landscape nature of MPB mortality acres, and all 

vegetative commercial, non-commercial, prescribed fire treatments. See Watershed, Geology, 

and Soils section for more information. 

The road system is adjusted in this alternative to meet existing and anticipated future 

transportation needs. Total forest road miles are minimally increased in this alternative 

compared to Alternative A. Permittees would continue to be provided administrative access to 

conduct range management activities within closed areas per District Ranger approval, but 

methods of access may vary from past approaches due to the new Travel Management Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). Any new miles added to the transportation system from 

Alternative B would further enhance the access of permittees to manage their cattle, and 

maintain or construct range improvements such as fences or water developments. 

The projected declines in water yields for stock ponds and springs from expanding woody 

vegetation’s demand on surface and ground water are anticipated to be slowed or slightly 

reversed by implementing Alternative B. See Watershed, Geology, and Soils section for more 

information. 

Tree breakage and windthrow has historically been shown to impede cattle access to primary and 

secondary rangelands. Under Alternative B, large areas are opened up to sunlight, and a variety 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 166

of plants generally appear including forbs, grasses, and shrubs. Cattle are more likely in 

Alternative B to access more area, and therefore reduce more fine fuels than in Alternative A. 

Where opportunities exist to improve existing range management, they would be identified and 

subject to scoping, a new environmental analysis and decision document may be necessary, 

and subsequent updates or changes to existing approved AMPs may be required. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no anticipated cumulative effects that would impair or unduly influence short-term 

range management of the allotments within the Pactola Project Area if Alternative B was 

selected. Increased forage production would promote wider distribution of livestock and may 

improve riparian conditions. Eventually, temporary increases in forage production would 

subside as confer regeneration and growth shades out understory vegetation. Both existing and 

future AMPs would indicate direction to be followed to improve or sustain range condition and 

capacity. However, there are still the emerging threats to sustainable cattle grazing such as the 

risk of large-scale wildfire. Any large acreage ignition may disrupt grazing use and damage or 

destroy range improvements. A large scale wildfire can also cause dead trees which would 

decay, fall over, and restrict access to vegetation by cattle and wildlife. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under this alternative, term permitted grazing use would continue as authorized. There 

would be no change in carrying capacity (Animal Unit Months (AUMs)) as currently 

allocated. Range structures would be maintained and improved as necessary to continue 

cattle management at its current scope and intensity, subject to forest-wide standards and 

guidelines. Fences would still need brushing to remain open and accessible for repairs and 

maintenance, but not to the level as in Alternative A. When compared to Alternative B, 

commercial and non-commercial treated acreages with Alternative C are slightly larger and 

may clear more fence lines to varying degrees. This means there may be slightly lower 

levels of repairs and maintenance needs with Alternative C when compared to Alternative B. 

Additional construction of more barbed wire fences may be needed as natural barriers to cattle 

distribution are opened by new roads, mechanical treatments and/or prescribed burning. 

Fencing and water developments do exist throughout the Pactola Project Area that would need 

protection from commercial and non-commercial treatment activities such as road construction, 

road closure, harvest machinery, and skidding. The same improvements would need protection 

from prescribed fire implementation. 

There are 17,412 acres of vegetative commercial and non-commercial treatments planned with 

this alternative, as well as 5,037 acres of prescribed fire use. Alternative C proposes treating 

more acres by commercial and non-commercial methods than Alternative B – primarily through 

helicopter and cable logging efforts. It is anticipated that slightly more fence construction may 

be needed since less natural barriers to cattle spread would be intact after harvest. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 167

Fencing and water developments do exist throughout the Pactola Project Area that would need 

protection from commercial and non-commercial treatment activities such as road construction, 

road closure, harvest machinery, and skidding. The same improvements would need protection 

from prescribed fire implementation. 

Alternative C’s treatments would have more affect on total herbaceous and shrub production 

than Alternative B since more acres are treated, and when also compared to Alternative A. 

Vegetation is again either mechanically removed or consumed with planned fire use, or in 

some cases both actions proposed sequentially. These treatments would increase production of 

grasses and browse for cattle and wildlife use. The initial quantity of this vegetation should 

increase distribution of cattle throughout the project area. 

There would be substantial reductions in conifer encroachment into meadows and around 

hardwood stands (restoration) as approximately 2,428 acres of these vegetative types are 

planned for treatment, in addition to about 4,540 acres of POL thinning and non-commercial 

thinning work. Alternative C’s increases in forage and browse would be larger than 

experienced with Alternative B since more acres are treated. 

Any improvements in water yield are anticipated with Alternative C are expected to be similar 

to those with Alternative B. See Watershed, Geology, and Soils section for more information. 

Current levels of fine fuel removal (grass) accomplished by cattle grazing would continue to 

reduce ground fuel hazards. Like Alternative B, the initial response of existing grass plants to 

a more open growing environment may produce higher levels of grass production than current 

permitted numbers of cattle can harvest each season. But this increased production would be 

more with Alternative C since more acres are treated than Alternative B. Vegetative responses 

(similar to Alternative B) are expected following prescribed fire use after vegetative 

treatments. Grazing (term or temporary permits) crops new grass growth and may maintain 

fine fuel conditions that support desirable fire behavior. 

As discussed in Alternative B, prescribed burning may have a positive and negative effect on 

cattle grazing based on the timing and location of the burning. Coordination between the fuels 

management specialist and the range management specialist is crucial, and needs are the same 

as expressed in Alternative B. 

The road system is adjusted in this alternative to meet existing and anticipated future 

transportation needs. Total forest road miles are increased in this alternative compared to 

Alternative B to accomplish cable logging. Four miles of new road construction is proposed, 

as well as another fifteen miles of road for cable logging. Roads constructed for cable logging 

are proposed for closure to the public after use. Permittees would continue to be provided 

administrative access to conduct range management activities within closed areas per District 

Ranger approval, but methods of access may vary from past approaches due to the new Travel 

Management Plan. Any new miles added to the transportation system from Alternative B 

would further enhance the access of permittees to manage their cattle, and maintain or 

construct range improvements such as fences or water developments. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 168

The projected declines in water yields for stock ponds and springs from expanding woody 

vegetation’s demand on surface and ground water are anticipated to be slowed or slightly 

reversed by implementing Alternative C. This would be similar to Alternative B’s anticipated 

results. See Watershed, Geology, and Soils section for more information. 

Under Alternative C, large areas are opened up to sunlight, and a variety of plants appear 

including forbs, grasses, and shrubs. Cattle are more likely in Alternative C to reduce more 

fine fuels than in Alternative B since more acres are treated with Alternative C. 

Where opportunities exist to improve existing range management, they would be identified and 

subject to scoping, a new environmental analysis and decision document may be necessary, 

and subsequent updates or changes to existing approved AMPs may be required. 

Cumulative Effects 

The anticipated cumulative effects are the same as shown in Alternative B’s narrative. 

NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS 

Affected Environment 

Known noxious weed and invasive plant sites (known collectively as “noxious weeds” for this 

section) within the perimeter of the Pactola Project Area are found over approximately 472 

acres. National Forest System lands (NFS) and private property within and adjacent to the 

project area have established noxious weed populations including, but not limited to: Canada 

thistle, leafy spurge, houndstongue, yellow toadflax, musk thistle, bull thistle, scotch thistle, 

whitetop, chicory, St. johnswort, common tansy, burdock, common mullein, spotted knapweed, 

and perennial sow thistle. Past treatments within this area have been done on a yearly basis in 

some locations due to the Canada thistle and leafy spurge infestations. 

Noxious weeds may be spread by a variety of agents. Tires on mechanized vehicles may trap 

weed seed or plant parts within treads. Logging equipment and service vehicles may contain 

viable seed within their machinery, only to have the material loosen and fall out in a new 

location. Forest visitors may entrap weed seed within their clothing, gear, or shoes and 

similarly loose the seeds in other locations. Use of uncertified noxious weed free hay and 

feed may also bring in new seed stock. Livestock, big game, and birds may disperse seed 

after ingestion. The list of agents is vast and only limited by lack of weed seed within an 

area and its availability for dispersal. 

In the past five years, about 600 acres of noxious and invasive weeds have been treated in 

the project area. These treatments were completed using a variety of chemical and 

biological methods. Actions taken were approved integrated weed management practices 

(USDA Forest Service 2003a). 

Biological control sites were established on five new sites in 2009 within the project area 

with Aphthona flea beetles for Leafy spurge control and Canada thistle Urophora gall flies. 

Aggressive biological control methods help establish insect colonies to control the spread of 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 169

leafy spurge and Canada thistle. Monitoring of sites occurs and depleted insect colonies may 

be re-stocked. 

Field evaluations are conducted in the project area to assess effectiveness of chemical and 

biological control measures, determine and document losses of productive vegetation, and locate 

areas of new infestations of noxious and invasive weeds. Established noxious weed populations

within the project area have been mapped using GPS units. County and private lands within and 

adjacent of the project area have established noxious weed populations that have been identified 

through mapping and coordination with the Pennington County Weed and Pest Supervisor. 

Almost all efforts are being recorded with GPS units to monitor for new weed invasions. NFS 

roads and trails, and county roads within the project perimeter have been GPS’d to facilitate 

monitoring of noxious weed spread into and within the project area. Projected rate of spread per 

year for noxious weeds could be as high as 10 to 20 percent of the known acres with any ground 

disturbance. New weed areas are likely to be established with any additional ground disturbance 

because of the viability and distribution of weed seed in the project area. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under existing conditions, continued designated motorized route travel may increase the 

spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants. Even with normal road/trail use and maintenance 

of NFS and county roads within the project area, the projected rate of the spread of noxious 

weeds under no action may be as high as 10 percent per year, with the 472 acres of known 

noxious weed sites potentially serving as seed sources. Any activity off designated routes may 

also increase the percentage of noxious weed infestations and the possibility of new exotics 

being introduced into previously un-infested locations. The noxious weed infestations 

generally increase with the event of a wildfire, based on experience from Jasper (2000) and 

Battle Creek (2002) fires. It is believed this occurs due to the abundance of weed seed 

throughout the Black Hills area. The new Travel Management Plan would continue recreation 

activities in the project area because of the routes designated open for road and trail use by the 

public, and the Black Hills in general being a destination area for Forest visitors with 

motorized vehicles (USDA Forest Service 2010). Additionally, the project area would still 

need to be monitored for new species and new infestations in areas of previous soil disturbance 

from past timber sales (e.g., Bullock Timber Sale). Noxious weeds may have a high spread 

rate even when left alone without any treatment. For example, noxious weeds such as leafy 

spurge can increase in area by typical seed spread methods and by rhizomes; seeds may be 

expelled up to 15 feet in any direction. Past experience with wildfires indicates noxious weed 

infestations have the potential to increase at similar rates found with logging activities. A 

wildfire area generally shows increases in noxious weeds if left alone without an integrated 

weed management treatment approach. Known noxious weed sites and new infestations would 

be managed as funds become available. 

Cumulative Effects 

Since weed seed appears to be present in many areas throughout the Black Hills, any ground 

disturbance may create a favorable seedbed for noxious weed establishment, especially around 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 170

areas of high use. Such areas may include NFS roads, county roads, NFS trails, locations 

where livestock or big game congregate, large events on the Forest under special use permit, 

plus wildfire impacts and prescribed fire activities. Up to an estimated 10-20 percent of each 

ground disturbance may be added to the known 472 acres of noxious weeds and would need 

prompt treatment to avoid yearly increases in infested acres. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With the addition of 13,141 acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment, the associated 

ground disturbance would potentially increase the presence of noxious weeds to a greater degree 

than Alternative A. This is because there are more acres of ground disturbance from logging 

activities. Mitigation efforts generally reduce the amount and rate of increase of noxious weeds. 

In addition, 27 miles of road reconstruction (655 acres), 69 miles of pre-use maintenance (1,673 

acres) and three miles of new construction (73 acres) would have to be monitored and possibly 

treated for noxious weeds. Additionally, roads going into and out of the project area would have 

to be monitoring and probably treated for noxious weeds dispersed by hauling traffic. 

Noxious weed seed stock is in all areas of the Forest, and most weeds have a seed viability rate 

much more than a native plant. For example, Canada thistle seeds may be viable as long as 30 

years. Most other noxious weeds are viable from seven to ten years. Any ground disturbance 

creates a favorable seedbed to establish noxious weed populations, especially in and around 

skidder areas. Noxious weeds would establish quickly in these areas since they are geared to 

rapid growth in vacant sites. Native vegetation may take longer to re-establish in comparison 

to noxious weeds. Weeds take rapid advantage of the available local resources (soil nutrients 

and soil moisture), since little vegetative competition is present or newly established. 

During the timber harvest efforts, vehicles and heavy equipment would move throughout the 

sale area(s) and through the weed infested lands. Many vehicles and heavy equipment used in 

and around the sale area have the potential to carry noxious weed seeds and increase the 

potential for noxious weed infestations. This potential is estimated at 10-20 percent of the 

known 472 acres with ground disturbance. 

Logging trucks are hauling the logs out using existing or newly built roads. Some of these 

roads are to be closed after the sale has ended. These roads would also need to be treated for 

noxious weeds due to disturbed ground and debris coming off the equipment and logs. 

Avoidance of noxious weed areas is almost impossible during a timber sale since almost all 

areas in the Forest have an established noxious weed seed stock. Ground disturbance from 

skidder trails and operations on landings created during the timber harvesting efforts are 

expected to further increase noxious and invasive weed infestations. 

Use of NFS roads, county roads and the NFS trails are expected to continue to contribute to the 

spread of noxious weeds. 

Wildfires would also increase the spread of noxious weeds. Potential for large wildfires would 

be less than No Action since fuels are treated by harvest activity (see Fire and Fuels Section). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 171

Wildfire areas may need to be managed for noxious weed infestation since disturbed soils from 

fire line activities and/or high intensity burn areas may create suitable seedbeds. 

The 5,037 acres of prescribed fire may also increase the chances of noxious weed spread on 

up to 20% of burned acres. This estimate is based on past experiences with prescribed 

burning on the Mystic Ranger District. These prescribed fire acres need to be monitored, and 

treated if necessary as soon as the weather permits and funding becomes available. 

Cumulative Effects 

The addition of 13,141 acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment with ground 

disturbance would potentially increase the presence of noxious weeds. In addition 27 miles of 

road reconstruction (655 acres), 69 miles of pre-use maintenance (1,673 acres), and three miles 

of new construction (73 acres) would have to be added for treatment of noxious weed control. 

Since weed seed appears to be present in many areas throughout the Black Hills, any ground 

disturbance would create a favorable seedbed for noxious weed establishment, especially in 

and around skidder areas. Up to an estimated 10-20% of ground disturbance would be added 

to the known 472 acres of noxious weeds and would need prompt treatment to avoid yearly 

increases in infested acres. Past experience with wildfires and prescribed fires indicates 

noxious weed infestations from these two disturbances have the potential to increase at similar 

rates found with logging activities. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

With the addition of 17,417 acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment, the ground 

disturbance would potentially increase the presence of noxious weeds to a greater degree than 

Alternative B. In addition 29 miles of road reconstruction (696 acres), 72 miles of pre-use 

maintenance (1,745 acres), and 19 miles of new road construction (461 acres) would have to 

would have to be monitored and possibly treated for noxious weeds. Additionally, roads going 

into and out of the project area would have to be monitoring and probably treated for noxious 

weeds dispersed by hauling traffic. 

All other direct and indirect impacts are similar to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

The addition of 16,908 acres of commercial and non-commercial treatment with ground 

disturbance would potentially increase the presence of noxious weeds. In addition 29 miles of 

road reconstruction (696 acres) and 72 miles of pre-use maintenance (1,745 acres), and 19 

miles of new road construction (461 acres) would have to be added for treatment of noxious 

weed control. Since weed seed appears to be present in many areas throughout the Black Hills, 

any ground disturbance would create a favorable seedbed for noxious weed establishment, 

especially in and around skidder areas. Up to an estimated 10-20% of ground disturbance 

would be added to the known 472 acres of noxious weeds and would need prompt treatment to 

avoid yearly increases in infested acres. Past experience with wildfires and prescribed fires 

indicates noxious weed infestations from these two disturbances have the potential to increase 

at similar rates found with logging activities. These cumulative effects are similar to 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 172

Alternative B, and perhaps slightly more extensive due to additional acres proposed for 

treatment with this alternative. 

WILDLIFE 

This section documents what is currently known regarding wildlife and habitat resources in the 

Pactola Project Area on Mystic Ranger District and analyzes the potential effects of three 

alternatives to Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Species of Local Concern (SOLC). 

Data were collected and compiled from field surveys (2009-2010), District wildlife observation 

data, South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

Department 2011a), literature reviews, communication with District personnel, and the 

Wildlife Report completed for the Phase II Amendment to the Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

The goals and objectives for the Pactola Project Area for the wildlife resource are to protect 

basic soil, air, water, and cave resources and provide flora variety of life through the 

management of a biologically diverse landscape. These goals and objectives, along with the 

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter Forest Plan) and 

Standards and Guidelines as amended by Phase II, would provide and maintain an appropriate

mix and balance of habitats over the long term. This diversity would provide habitats to 

maintain populations of all vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife and plant species in the area, 

and would not result in any individual species trending toward or becoming listed as threatened 

or endangered. The area would provide for a variety of wildlife recreational opportunities, 

ranging from consumptive to non-consumptive activities (e.g., hunting to wildlife viewing). 

This section tiers directly to the revised Forest Plan and the Phase II Forest Plan Amendment 

EIS and the associated Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluations (BA/BE)(USDA Forest 

Service 1996, 2005a, Appendices H and C respectively). The Forest Plan, as amended, 

provides direction on how the area should be managed to comply with laws, regulations, and 

policy. The actions proposed would ensure that vegetative management and associated 

activities are in compliance with Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines, and 

any other applicable laws, regulations and policies. 

Existing Condition 

Area Description 

The Pactola Project Area supports a diversity of plant community types because of the range of 

elevation in the project area and variations in geology. The Ponderosa Pine/Bearberry 

Woodland, Ponderosa Pine/Sedge Woodland, and Ponderosa Pine/Common Juniper Woodland 

communities comprise the majority of the area. Smaller communities such as 

Spruce/Twinflower Forest, Aspen/Shiny-leaf Spiraea Forest, and Ponderosa Pine/Little 

Bluestem Woodland, can also be found in the uplands. Riparian communities are mostly 

White Spruce Alluvial Black Hills Forest, Water Birch/Red-osier Dogwood Shrubland, 

Western Herbaceous Vegetation, and Beaked Willow Scrubland. Refer to the Black Hills 

Community Inventory (Marriott et al. 1999) for a more detailed discussion of plant 

communities. Ponderosa pine and white spruce are encroaching into many of the hardwood 

and meadow community types because of suppression of the natural fire regime. Riparian 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 173

community types occur along perennial streams such as Rapid, Jenny, Kelly, Jim, Nugget, 

Bear, and Empress Creeks. There are also numerous intermittent streams with varying 

amounts of available water and associated riparian vegetation. A majority of the streams flow 

into Pactola Reservoir. Due to the steepness of slopes in the area, many of the roads are in 

drainages with some close to stream courses. Developed recreation facilities are predominately 

adjacent to Pactola Reservoir, but several trails are found in the area (e.g., Deerfield, 

Centennial) and a walk-in fishery is west of Silver City. 

Historical Perspective Resulting In Current Existing Condition

A majority of the land within the Pactola Project Area has been altered to some extent, some 

areas more than others. Primary land uses include timber production, mining, livestock 

grazing, human habitation, and recreation. Additionally, fire suppression has greatly altered 

the forest ecosystem. 

Wildfire and Reforestation

Wildfires have affected portions of the Pactola Project Area. In 1939, the McVey Wildfire 

(3,034 acres) was a high intensity, high severity fire. This type of fire not only consumes 

vegetation but also creates hydrophilic soil conditions. A couple of large rainfall events 

following the fire occurred. The results were narrow soil profiles with very little duff/litter on 

intensively burn areas, that limit forage production. After the McVey Wildfire, pine seedlings 

were planted in an effort to reforest the area. Most of these pine seedlings were of inferior 

stock, resulting in short, branchy trees that are infected with gall rust. These trees for the most 

part are considered low commercial value, therefore limited vegetation treatments have 

occurred in the McVey Wildfire area. Due to their growth patterns, forested areas in the 

McVey Wildfire area have become closed canopied, limiting forage production. On dryer 

sites, pine was not planted, leaving scattered grass dominated openings, especially on southfacing slopes. However, through time, these openings are slowly becoming smaller and more 

isolated due to pine encroachment. Following the McVey Fire, the amount of forage and aspen 

increased. Coupled with low snow accumulation, the area became a big game winter range. 

Several prescribed burns have been completed in the past 20 years in the McVey area to reduce 

pine regeneration, increase aspen suckering, and improve forage for wintering big game. 

Smaller wildfires have occurred but are not considered stand-replacing events. 

Fire Suppression and Insect/Disease Processes 

The ponderosa pine ecosystem in the Black Hills evolved in dynamic equilibrium with 

recurrent disturbances, especially fire, insects, and short-term and long-term climatic cycles 

(Parrish et al., 1996). A century of fire suppression has caused widespread alteration and 

degradation of wildlife habitat in the Black Hills (Brown and Cook 2006, SAIC 2003). 

Frequent recurring disturbances like fire and forest insect epidemics maintained a generally 

open, mature pine forest with a productive and diverse understory by thinning pine stands and 

creating open stands with abundant grasses, forbs, and shrubs in the understory (Sieg and 

Severson 1996). In the absence of frequent low-intensity fires, the increase in the density and 

canopy cover of pine stands has resulted in large, contiguous expanses of higher density trees 

with abundant pine regeneration with sparse understory (Parrish et al. 1996). Such stands are 

more susceptible to large-scale insect epidemics and wildfires. These shifts have increased 

habitat for species that prefer dense, mid-aged forest while decreasing habitat for wildlife 

species associated with more open forest conditions. Historically, frequent fires created many 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 174

different age classes of ponderosa pine and provided forage in the understory, thus enhancing 

diversity across the landscape (Uresk and Severson 1998). Fire suppression has also resulted 

in the conversion of hardwood stands such as aspen and bur oak to pine or spruce, which has 

reduced diversity (Uresk and Severson 1998). Encroachment of pine into meadows and 

riparian areas has reduced grass, forb, and shrub abundance. The increased biomass of pine 

has altered hydrologic conditions by decreasing available water within the watersheds. Fire 

suppression, for the most part, has had negative effects on wildlife habitats for some species in 

the Black Hills, including the Pactola Project Area (Parrish et al. 1996). 

Mountain pine beetle outbreaks are a natural disturbance process in the Black Hills, attributed 

to being an important mortality agent in unmanaged and managed stands. Mountain pine 

beetle epidemics have periodically occurred every 20 years in the Black Hills (Negron et al., 

2008; Schmid et al., 2007; Parrish et al., 1996). Since 1997, there has been an ongoing outbreak of mountain pine beetle on the Forest that is predicted to continue for the next 3-5 years. 

MPB can cause extensive tree mortality on ponderosa pine (USDA Forest Service 2010d). In 

the Black Hills, stands with higher ponderosa pine basal area in stands with >9”DBH and stand 

density index are more likely to be attacked by MPB (Negron et al. 2008, Fettig et al. 2007, 

Schmid et al. 2007). Currently, there are some very large and active pockets of current beetle 

caused mortality in the Pactola Project Area (USDA Forest Service 2010e). Beetle activity is 

found to some degree across almost the entire project area. This mortality has created 

continuous areas of heavy fuel hazards increasing the potential for creating large standreplacing wildfires. Population levels of MPB have not yet peaked Forest-wide, where pine 

mortality would continue to increase in the next five years (USDA Forest Service 2010d). 

Vegetative Treatment 

Most of the Pactola Project Area has undergone vegetative treatment activities, mostly 

commercial and non-commercial treatments for wood production and fuel reduction, over the 

last 130 years. More recently, a portion of the project area was treated under the Lakes EA 

with some fuel hazard reduction projects ongoing. Some vegetative treatments that improve 

and maintain hardwoods, maintain meadows and grasslands have also occurred. Even-aged 

silviculture treatment of pine stands have resulted in single story and two-story stands ranging 

from seedling/saplings to mature trees of various canopy closure. The number and size of 

multi-level pine stands have been reduced and are scattered across the landscape. For the most 

part, slopes greater than 40% have not been treated, although portions of the Rapid Creek 

watershed have been treated using cable logging systems (Snugget and Banner Timber Sales). 

For cable logging to occur, most roads parallel the ridge-tops and are numerous. Some of the 

past cable logging roads in the Pactola Project Area has been closed to motorized vehicles 

(e.g., closure gates) until recently. The Forest Travel Management Plan decision would now 

allow motorized recreation in a portion of the old Banner Timber Sale Area. 

Meadows, grasslands, and ephemeral drainages have shown disturbance due to placement of

landings and mechanical harvesting equipment. Reduction in pine overstory increases forage for 

both livestock and wildlife and may increase water availability in treated areas. However, these 

benefits decrease as pine overstory increases in size and canopy closure. Conifer removal from 

hardwood stands and pine removal from grasslands maintain these seral plant communities. 

Mixed pine-hardwood stands have also developed as bur oak and aspen have proliferated after

the mature pine canopy is removed. To facilitate vegetative treatments, road densities have 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 175

increased. Road locations and the number of roads create barriers to water flow, increase 

sediments into stream channels, increase invasive species spread that reduces habitat. Roads and 

their use have been identified as barriers to dispersal and corridors for predators which can be 

detrimental for some wildlife species (Smith and Keinath 2007, Smith and Stephens 2003). 

Roads create corridors for livestock to access areas that normally would not be available to 

livestock, especially on steep terrain and dense conifer understory. Noxious weeds have also 

proliferated in treated areas as a result of ground disturbance and increased access. 

Grazing, Mining, and Residential Development 

Historically, grazing by native mammals occurred in most of the northern Great Plains and the 

Black Hills. Prior to European settlement elk, deer, bighorn sheep (Audubon), and bison were 

the dominate grazers. Bison with population estimates ranging from 40-60 million, influenced 

plant communities (diversity) and their distribution in North American grassland ecosystems. 

Most native grasslands evolved under the influence of grazing. Large herds of bison and elk 

created intensive disturbance for shorter periods of time in areas, then moved on to higher quality 

forage areas, thus creating a mosaic of heavily grazed areas and un-grazed areas across the 

landscape. In the late 1800’s and during European settlement, many wildlife species were 

slaughtered for food by settlers, miners, and loggers. When game became scarce, livestock was 

introduced to the Black Hills. Grazing by domestic livestock has continued over the last 130 

years in the Black Hills. Currently, livestock grazing occurs from approximately June to October 

on all allotments in or adjacent to the Pactola Project Area and often times yearlong on 

undeveloped private land. Allotment management has added fences, cattle guards, watering 

areas, and developed spring structures to the landscape to distribute livestock, reducing the 

effects of free-ranging livestock. 

Wildlife grazing and browsing has periodically impacted vegetation as well. Around 1900 there 

were very few deer left and Manitoban elk had been extirpated in the Black Hills. From 1945-

1955 deer numbers were at an all-time high, and numbers were believed to have exceeded those 

reported by the Custer Expedition of 1874. Rocky Mountain elk were reintroduced starting in 

1912, and the population has slowly increased. These ungulate species have impacted vegetation 

and riparian conditions, particularly browse species (e.g., shrubs) when their populations are 

high. Current domestic livestock forage allocation and big game forage allocation are 

determined on the amount of forage available forest-wide, along with the South Dakota 

Department Game, Fish and Parks big game population objectives (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Mining towns, homesteads, and mining claims were established primarily in open valley bottoms 

and drainages adjacent to streams which provided a water source, thus altering riparian habitat 

within the Black Hills. Mining and homesteading began around 1875, with the first post-office 

in Pennington County in the Pactola Valley. Along with tri-weekly stage service and the 

discovery of gold and silver, many that came to seek their fortunes settled the area, especially 

around Silver City, Canyon City, and the now underwater town of Pactola. The crouch line 

followed Rapid Creek from Rapid City to Mystic which required many bridges. Flooding caused 

tracks and bridges to be lost. In an effort to maintain the railway, Rapid Creek was re-directed to 

reduce the amount of bridges. Since 1907, numerous camps were located in the area including a

CCC camp. In 1956, the Pactola Reservoir was built flooding the valley up to 4,621feet 

elevation (Silver City area). To facilitate mining operations, hay production and grazing 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 176

opportunities for domestic livestock, homesteaders destroyed beaver dam complexes, drained 

wetlands, impounded water, removed riparian shrubs, and introduced exotic grasses and weeds. 

The results displaced wildlife and altered the hydrologic function of most streams, also affecting 

riparian habitat. The old mining towns (e.g., Canyon City, Pactola), lumber mills, and 

homesteads are mostly gone. However, a resurgence of residential development in the last 40 

years on private land adjacent to or within the Pactola Project Area has occurred, with the most 

growth in the last 20 years. This growth and development of private lands has replaced native 

grassland, wet meadows, and riparian areas with houses and businesses that put more pressure on 

forest lands to provide habitat for resident wildlife species. Permanent private residences are 

abundant and scattered throughout the area, with concentrations of development along US Hwy. 

385 and Rochford Road, Jenny Gulch, Bear Gulch, and in the Silver City areas. Private land 

within the project area is mostly developed communities with some areas still used for 

agricultural purposes (e.g., livestock pastures). Private land development is still occurring, and 

the trend is expected to continue into the future that would limit habitat for many wildlife 

species. Open road densities have also increased with development, to provide access to 

residential communities and isolated tracts of private land. Arterial and collector roads are being 

improved to allow for higher speeds and low clearance vehicles. 

Hunting, Trapping, and Recreation

Hunting and trapping have affected wildlife species in the Pactola Project Area and the entire 

Black Hills over time. Some species, such as black bear, wolves, Manitoban elk, and 

Audubon’s bighorn sheep have disappeared. Other species, such as beaver and their influence

on the environment, have been greatly reduced in numbers. Species such as white-tailed deer 

and mule deer have gone through wide population fluctuations, from being nearly extinct at the 

beginning of the 20th century, to being severely overpopulated in the 1950s. Other wildlife 

species have been introduced to the Black Hills, such as Rocky Mountain elk, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, mountain goat, American marten, Merriam’s turkey, and several species of 

trout. Currently, hunting and trapping is regulated by the South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks (SD Game, Fish, and Parks Department 2010b). 

Concentrated recreation areas and dispersed camping occurs throughout the Black Hills, 

primarily during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Recreation use on the forest continues to 

increase yearly, which impacts wildlife directly through mortality (hunting, vehicle collisions) 

and changes wildlife use and distribution through disturbance. Recreation development (e.g., 

trails, picnic areas) are increasing, especially along major travel routes and near Pactola 

Reservoir. In the Pactola Reservoir area, developed recreation areas include campgrounds, day 

use areas, trails, and fishing/boating facilities. These concentrated use areas draw recreation uses 

to adjacent areas. Motorized vehicle use of forest roads and OHV use has increased significantly 

in the past 20 years. Increased vehicle use has negatively impacted the forest, especially those 

areas close to residential subdivisions and towns. Un-regulated OHV use has created numerous 

un-maintained trails, causing fence line destruction and resource damage to roads, vegetation, 

slopes, stream courses, and riparian areas. This use has affected wildlife use in key foraging 

areas (e.g., big game winter range) through increased disturbance, increased erosion, and 

sedimentation, especially in riparian areas. Negative effects increase when conditions are wet or 

in cases where streams are crossed. In addition, increased recreation use and disturbance has 

allowed noxious weeds and invasive species to spread, affecting native plant communities and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 177

the species these support. In 2010, a Forest-wide travel management plan was approved where 

limited motorized use is limited to designated trails/roads which would drastically reduce the 

effects to wildlife. However, those areas where designated travel routes are identified, the 

effects of motorized use would continue to affect wildlife and their habitats. 

Environmental Consequences 

The analysis of direct and indirect effects for wildlife species focuses on Management 

Indicator Species (MIS), Species of Local Concern (SOLC) and R2 Sensitive species (See 

Pactola Project Wildlife/Fish Biological Evaluation), their habitat needs and their prey species 

availability as it relates to mountain pine beetle activity, vegetative treatment (e.g., 

commercial/non-commercial harvest and prescribed burning) and associated activities (e.g., 

road construction and noxious weed treatment). 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 best available science for each species was taken in to account, 

which may include additional information and referencing (e.g., conservation assessments). 

The cumulative effects analysis includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that 

have had or are expected to have impacts to the Pactola Project Area (See Cumulative Effects 

Section below). The cumulative effect section will also discuss how the project would affect 

Forest-wide conditions as they pertain to meeting Forest Plan direction for wildlife and their 

habitat. The cumulative effects analysis area for wildlife species is geographically bounded by 

8th order watersheds within the project boundary and those immediately adjacent to the

boundary including private land. This was chosen because it is significantly larger than the 

home ranges of most wildlife residing in the Pactola Project Area, excluding migrations that 

occur outside of the Black Hills. For deer, bighorn sheep, and elk, geographic bounding 

includes migratory routes and winter ranges that occur in the project area boundary. The 

temporal bounding of cumulative effects evaluated varies among activities, but for the 

purposes of this section the temporal bounding is from 1997 and up to 15-20 years future. This 

range accommodates the period from the planning period (1996) to a time in which actions are 

reasonably foreseeable. Past activities that have affected the project area is discussed in the 

historical perspectives as it relates to the existing condition section in this report. Present and 

reasonable future activities evaluated are those most relevant to the area and to the species, and 

include insect and disease processes, fire suppression, fire occurrence, vegetative treatment 

(e.g., timber harvest, thinning, and fuel treatments), livestock grazing, prescribed burning, land 

development, roads, and recreation use. With the notable exception of land development, all of

the activities occur on both public and private lands. The wildlife analysis is dependent on 

and/or complimentary to other specialist reports (e.g., hydrology, silviculture) for the Pactola 

Project EIS. The 1997 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996) and the Phase II FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a) addresses cumulative effects of Forest management at the ecoregional (Black Hills) scale; please see these documents for effects appropriate to that scale. 

Determinations and conclusion discussions for MIS, R2 Sensitive, and SOLC species includes 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 178

Habitat Communities and Habitat Features 

Ponderosa Pine 

Many wildlife species occur in ponderosa pine communities. Most emphasis species are 

primarily associated with conditions favoring a deciduous understory (e.g., broad-winged 

hawk, Lewis’s woodpecker) or late-successional conditions (e.g., brown creeper, pygmy 

nuthatch). However, some species (e.g., northern goshawk, white-tailed deer) utilize various 

seral stages of pine (e.g., structural stages) throughout the year (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

The effects to wildlife species due to epidemic levels of MPB in ponderosa pine are not well 

understood. The major change arising from MPB infestation is death of most if not all mature 

pine in a stand, and thus the loss of the dominant tree canopy cover. Because MPB is a natural 

element of pine forests, wildlife species have adapted to periodic outbreaks and epidemics. 

Outbreaks may affect mature pine trees in a stand but do not usually kill all of the pine. The 

death of pine promotes growth of other vegetation including shrubs, hardwoods, and ponderosa 

pine seedlings. Shrubs and forbs may flourish providing a benefit to wildlife that uses this 

component (Uresk and Severson 1998). Forest structural stage changes due to MPB epidemic 

levels would likely affect species or functional groups of wildlife differently, effects having 

both short-term and long-term consequences. 

Open forest conditions are more likely to benefit herbivores (e.g., bighorn sheep, elk, and deer) 

and species that are dependent on shrubs and hardwoods. Cavity nesting birds often increase 

in abundance following stand replacing events but decline to pre-disturbance levels rapidly as 

foraging resources diminish. However, Lewis’s woodpecker appears to benefit from prolonged 

open condition created by insect attack where large snags are available (Bull and Wales 2001, 

Abele et al. 2004). 

Negative impacts, both short-term and long-term, are to species that are heavily dependent on 

mature pine, especially those that depend on pine seed, large diameter pine and dense stand 

conditions for foraging, nesting and cover (Klenner and Arsenault 2009, Ritchie 2008). For 

these species, the loss of mature forest may take a half-century or more to replace (USDA 

Forest Service 2010e). The greatest impact would occur in mature, monotypic stands of 

ponderosa pine where high mortality leads to the loss of almost all mature trees. Once snags 

fall, very open early seral conditions would prevail until understory recruitment is obtained. 

The more wide-spread the insect caused mortality, the more likely that the affected area would 

lose heterogeneity (Schmid et al. 2007, Fettig et al. 2007, Klenner and Arsenault 2009), thus 

affecting wildlife habitat availability long-term. Therefore, a long-term management objective 

for extensive areas severely affected by bark beetles is to provide habitat for a wide range of 

species through the maintenance of heterogeneity within and between stands (Klenner and 

Arsenault 2009). Vegetative treatments and prescribed fire along with natural disturbances that 

facilitate the rapid replacement of habitat features have proven to be effective to reduce the 

effects of MPB infestations and increase heterogeneity (Klenner and Arsenault 2009, Negron 

et. al. 2008, Fettig et al. 2007, Schmid et al. 2007). 

The Forest Plan sets objectives for various MAs within the Pactola Project Area (5.1-204, 5.4-

206) to manage for percentage of structural stages in ponderosa pine across these management 

areas that provide for emphasis species habitat. Forest Plan objectives 10-01, 10-04, 10-06, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 179

and 10-07 would affect meeting these pine structural stages at the project scale. There is no 

Forest Plan objective for pine in MAs 2.2, 3.7, and 8.2, but these MAs do contribute to 

emphasis species habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005a). However, analysis and discussion of 

meeting Forest Plan objectives for ponderosa pine structural stages as they relate to wildlife 

habitat is tied directly to the discussion on ponderosa pine structural stages more specifically 

discussed in the Silviculture Report for the Pactola Project Area. Table 3-27 displays the 

existing acres of pine structural stages by management area in the Pactola Project. 

Table 3-27 Existing Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages in the Pactola Project Area by Management Area 

Structural 

Stage 

MA 2.2 

(acres) 

MA 3.7 

(acres) 

MA 5.1 

(acres) 

MA 5.4 

(acres) 

MA 8.2 

(acres) 

1 0 0 0 106 0 

2 0 0 0 221 4 

3A 0 0 317 1,233 0 

3B 0 29 645 1,201 204 

3C 0 156 340 738 53 

4A 0 39 1,101 2,641 397 

4B 114 613 2,185 4,231 2,565 

4C 433 281 739 973 758 

5 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 547 1,118 5,327 11,344 3,981 

Table 3-28 summarizes the expected changes by percent in pine structural stages in the Pactola 

Project Area (all MAs) by alternative. 

Table 3-28 Percent of Ponderosa Pine Structural Stages of All Management Areas Combined 

Pine Structural 

Stages 

Existing 

(%) 

Alt. A 

(%) 

Alt. B 

(%) 

Alt. C 

(%) 

1 0 0 0 0 

2 1 17 13 12 

3A 7 37 28 28 

3B 9 5 2 1 

3C 6 3 1 1 

4A 19 24 45 48 

4B 44 14 10 9 

4C 14 0 0 0 

5 0 0 1 1 

Numbers taken from Silviculture Report 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 180

According to the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report (FPMER), forest-wide MA 5.1 

structural stages (SS) 1 and 4 are abundant, whereas SS 2, 3, and 5 are deficient. Forest-wide 

MA 5.4 SS 1 and 4 are abundant, whereas SS 2, 3, 4A, and 5 are deficient. To move a timber 

stand from one structural stage category to another, and thus move toward Forest Plan 

objectives, may require growth or several vegetation treatments spanning decades (USDA 

Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project Area, approximately 22,317 acres (89.8%) is a ponderosa pine plant 

community, of which 16,671 acres are in MAs 5.1 and 5.4. Existing pine structural stages 

indicate SS 1, 4A, 4B, and 4C are abundant, whereas the remaining structural stages (SS 2, 3, 

and 5) are deficient when compared to Forest MA objectives. Approximately 64% of the area 

is currently rated at high MPB hazard and 28% in moderate MPB hazard. In the Pactola 

Project Area, there is a high level of hazard (stand conditions) and a high level of risk (current 

beetle activity). Stands that have a high MPB hazard would be the most susceptible followed 

by moderate MPB hazard rating (USDA Forest Service 2010d, 2010e). Therefore, the more 

mature and/or dense structural stages are changing quickly to younger, more open pine stands 

due to mortality caused by mountain pine beetle (USDA Forest Service 2010d). Further

analysis in this section will focus on MA 5.1 and 5.4 objectives for ponderosa pine that are 

affected by the Pactola Project Area. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Ponderosa Pine 

Alternative A would have no direct effect to pine structural stages. Shifts in pine structural 

stages within the area would occur due to MPB mortality in the next three to five years (USDA 

Forest Service 2010e), reducing structural stages that are currently in the moderate to high 

insect hazard condition. Based on mortality estimates, structural stages 3C, 4C, and 5 would 

no longer be available (3%). Structural stages 3B and 4B would be reduced by >60%. These 

stands would move toward early seral structural stages and open canopies (1, 2, 3A, and 4A). 

These changes could result in a landscape wide loss of structural diversity, juxtaposition of 

habitats, and habitat components typically associated with mature or late seral habitats. Effects 

from MPB may be more severe and long-term depending on the intensity and longevity of the 

infestation in the area. This alternative has a greater potential for stand-replacing wildfire, 

compared to the action alternatives due to subsequent fuel loadings. A stand replacing fire 

(depending on intensity and severity) would exacerbate the loss of mature pine recruitment for 

a longer period of time, moving the area affected to SS 1, 2, and 3A. Loss of mature age 

classes would favor species that prefer open grass forb dominated areas and young pine stands, 

but would reduce habitat for species that require mature pine long-term. 

Estimated MPB mortality in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 in Pactola Project Area would move the project 

area away from structural stage objectives for 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5, but would have little effect 

on Forest-wide conditions for these MAs (1% or less). Movement from mature and dense 

structural stages caused by the MPB epidemic conditions would further increase structural stages 

2, 3A, and 4A in the Pactola Project Area, but would have only slight changes (1% or less) in 

Forest-wide structural stage objectives. However, this alternative maintains more of a structural 

stage mix, especially in structural stages 3B, 3C, and 4B compared to the action alternatives. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 181

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Ponderosa Pine

In addition to MPB mortality, Alternative B in general would shift structural stages in treated 

stands to early seral stages and open canopies. In an effort to contribute to Forest MA 

objectives, treatments are focused to reducing susceptibility of stands to MPB attack (decrease 

hazard), reduce fire hazard, and decrease the potential for MPB to spread to un-infested stands. 

Stand structure generally would be even-aged with the majority of the stand having an age 

within a range of 20 years from another. Treatments would greatly reduce structural stages 3B, 

3C, 4B, and 4C, but would maintain or increase structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A. Structural 

stage 5 (late-succession) stands would be designated with limited treatment (sanitation). 

However, based on mortality rates (USDA Forest Service 2010e), the persistence of SS 3C, 

4C, and 5 would not occur (<2%). Stands that are not treated are likely to succumb to MPB 

effects, moving these stands to early seral pine stages in the next five to ten years. Prescribed 

burning and fuel treatments would reduce fire hazard in those treated areas, increasing sunlight 

to the forest floor. However, treatments would reduce the potential for decay processes 

normally associated with mature and dense structural stages. 

Changes in structural stage distribution as a result of MPB mortality and treatments are more 

drastic than compared to Alternative A, but less so compared to Alternative C. MPB mortality 

and subsequent treatment in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 would move away from structural stage 

objectives for 3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5, but would have little effect on Forest wide conditions for 

these MAs (1% or less). Increases in structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A in the Pactola Project 

Area would have slight changes (1% or less) in these Forest-wide structural stage objectives. 

Species that prefer more open pine canopies and younger pine stands would benefit at the 

expense of species that require more mature pine stands short-term. However, treatments 

would increase the potential for long-term maintenance of structural stages 4 in the area (52%) 

compared to Alternative A (35%) that would increase the potential to maintain older mature 

habitat in the area long-term. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Ponderosa Pine 

Mountain pine beetle effects and treatments in this alternative are similar to Alternative B, but 

this alternative would treat additional acres using cable and helicopter logging systems on 

stands that are not accessible using conventional ground-based systems. Stand structure 

generally would be even-aged with the majority of the stands having an age within a range of 

20 years from another. Treatments would greatly reduce structural stages 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C 

while increasing structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A more so than Alternative B. Structural stage 5 

stands would be designated, with some treatment to reduce MPB infestation/hazard. Stands 

that are not treated are likely to succumb to MPB effects, moving these stands to early seral 

pine stages in the next five to ten years. Treatments would reduce fire hazard in those treated 

areas, increasing sunlight to the forest floor but reduce the potential for decay processes 

normally associated with mature and dense structural stages. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 182

Changes in structural stage distribution as a result of MPB mortality and treatments are more 

drastic than compared to Alternative A and Alternative B. MPB mortality and subsequent 

treatment in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 in the area would move away from structural stage objectives for 

3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5, but would have little effect on Forest-wide conditions for these MAs 

(1% or less). Movement from mature and dense structural stages caused by MPB and 

treatment would further increase structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A in the Pactola Project Area, 

but would have only slight changes (1% or less) in Forest-wide structural stage objectives. 

Species that prefer more open pine canopies and younger pine stands would benefit at the 

expense of species that require more mature pine stands short-term. Alternative C would 

maintain more structural stage 4 (55%) compared to 52% in Alternative B and 35% in 

Alternative A. Therefore, treatments would increase the potential for long-term maintenance 

of structural stages 4 increasing the potential to maintain older mature habitat long-term. 

All alternatives would move away from denser stand conditions, especially mature stands at 

the project scale by varying degrees. The Pactola Project Silviculture Report (held in the 

project file) shows that, by-and-large, all alternatives would not change Forest-wide MA 

structural stages by more than 1%. Therefore, all alternatives would meet the intent of 

Objectives 5.1-204 and 5.4-206 in providing habitat for wildlife species. 

Snags 

Snag densities and occurrence may vary by structural stage, fire history, insect mortality, and 

several other factors. Dead trees are an important element for species-specific management for 

many emphasis species that depend on snags in ponderosa pine communities for foraging and 

nesting/roosting cavities. 

The Forest objectives that most closely apply to snags in Pactola Project Area are 211, 2.2-401, 

3.7-201, 5.1-204, 5.4-206, and 8.2-202, which relate to snags and snag recruitment provided by 

various stand structure and pine structural stages. An average of three snags per acre would be 

provided by following the MA pine structural stage objectives (USDA Forest Service 2005d). 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2301, 2304, and 2305, 8.2-3202 would maintain snag 

component on the Forest and in the Pactola Project Area. In addition, MA 2.2, 3.7, and 8.2 

would provide for higher densities of dead trees. However, Forest Objectives 10-7 and 11-03 

allow the Forest to reduce the spread of MPB and reduce fire hazard that may affect snag 

densities long-term. 

Under normal conditions, the median age for snags in the Black Hills is 15 years (Lentile et al. 

2000). Natural processes such as fire and insect outbreaks, especially where they create large 

snags (>14” DBH) at higher densities contribute to providing crucial habitat for many 

emphasis species (Saab et al. 2007, Negron et al. 2007). However, the benefits to cavity

dependent species would be short-lived (three to five years) due to the rapid deterioration and 

high fall rates of snags created by MPB. Schmid and others (2009a) determined in structural 

stage 4C, an average 56% of the MPB killed trees broke below 25 ft. height as required by

Forest Plan Objective 211, where over 45% of the trees fell below 0-15 ft., with most of those 

being < 0-2 ft. in height. In their study, hard snags vs. soft snags were not classified because 

the MPB created snags exhibited characteristics of both categories during the five years. Bark 

sloughing was not evident (hard snag) on nearly all of the MPB snags after five years but the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 183

bole breakage indicates some decay (soft snag). Based on these estimates, MPB could at best 

be classified as hard snags during the first two to three years and soft snags thereafter. 

Although their study area was on a small area of the Black Hills, their findings suggest that 

MPB created snags should not be used to meet Forest Plan Objective 211 of maintaining hard 

snags across the forest. Therefore, it becomes important to maintain hard snag recruitment 

over a period of time that would provide habitat for primary cavity nesters long-term. 

Prescribed burning may reduce snag densities, but may also increase snag densities, especially 

where MPB are present (Breece et al. 2008). 

According to 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). 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. Currently, snag densities in 

Pactola Project Area are well above Objective 211. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Snags 

Harvesting and clearing of dead trees (snags) is not part of this alternative. However, snags 

may be cut because they pose a safety hazard to the public or to protect communities, all of 

which are consistent with Forest Plan direction. In Alternative A, short-term snag densities 

would be the highest of any alternative in the next five to ten years due to high levels of MPB 

mortality (USDA Forest Service 2010e). However, after ten years, the snag density would 

sharply decline. Long-term, snag densities would likely decline due a limited amount of large 

trees available post MPB infestation. In the short-term large areas of dead trees would attract 

irruptive species such as the black-backed woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and redheaded 

woodpecker. Long-term, the loss of adequate size and density of snags may preclude the area 

in providing habitat for most cavity dependent species. Coincidently, this alternative would 

also amplify the wildfire hazard due to the increased fuel load when dead trees fall. Therefore, 

a stand replacing fire could exacerbate low snag densities long-term. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Snags 

Harvesting and clearing of dead trees (snags) is not part of the proposed action. However, in 

the action alternatives snags may be cut because they pose a safety hazard to the public or to 

protect communities which are consistent with Forest Plan direction. This could include dead 

trees being removed to provide safe public egress in the event of a wildfire, removal of dead 

trees within close proximity of a high use recreation sites and in fuel breaks, especially within 

200 feet of private land. However, the removal of snags would not likely affect overall snag 

densities in the Pactola Project Area. Vegetative treatment operations and prescribed fire may 

reduce snag densities. MPB mortality would continue to affect both treated and untreated 

snags so snag densities would still be very high in the next five to ten years. Treatments would 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 184

reduce the susceptibility of MPB attack in mature pine stands retaining large trees on the 

landscape. Therefore, there is a greater potential for hard snag densities to persist long term in 

the Pactola Project Area compared to Alternative A, but to a lesser extent compared to 

Alternative C. Fire hazard ratings are lower in this alternative reducing the potential for stand 

replacing fire, potentially maintaining hard snag densities long-term. Prescribed burning may 

create additional snags, depending on site specific conditions. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Snags 

Harvesting and clearing of dead trees (snags) is not part of this alternative. Direct and indirect 

effects of this alternative are similar to those discussed in Alternative B. This alternative would 

treat more area, therefore there the effects would be greater. Additional road side treatments 

(436 acres) are proposed that would provide safe public egress in the event of a wildfire reducing 

snags in those areas. However, the removal of snags would not likely affect overall snag 

densities in the Pactola Project Area. Treatments would reduce the susceptibility of MPB attack 

in mature pine increasing the potential for large trees available for snag recruitment long-term. 

There is a greater potential for hard snag densities to persist long term in the Pactola Project Area 

compared to Alternative B and to a greater extent compared to Alternative A. 

The potential decrease in snags short-term from the action alternatives are expected to be low 

and inconsequential to snag densities at both the project and Forest-wide scales. Long-term 

effects to snag size and density and future availability are tied to the extent and length of the 

current MPB outbreak forest-wide. However, the action alternatives are more likely to provide 

for large trees in the future, therefore potentially increasing snag availability long-term. All 

alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2301, 2304, 2305, and 

8.2-3202. Therefore, all alternatives contribute to meeting Forest Plan Objective 211. 

Very Large Trees 

Studies on the Forest suggest that density of large diameter snags (>16”DBH) were low 

(Spierling and Knight 2005, Lentile et al. 2000). Maintaining adequate numbers of large 

diameter snags are important especially when several snag dependent species require large 

snags for nesting and communal roosts (e.g., Lewis’s woodpecker, northern flying squirrel, 

pygmy nuthatch, and bats). 

Forest-wide, MA objectives specify that at least 10% of pine structural stage 4 (5.1-204 and 5.4-

206) should be in the “very large” tree size category. This “very large” tree component is crucial 

for maintaining large diameter trees available for snag recruitment across the Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). This habitat feature is achieved when the average of a stand’s basal area 

is >16” DBH. Objectives for SS4 would maintain this component across the Forest long-term. 

However, stand replacing events, such as wildfire and insect outbreaks, can severely limit the 

number of large diameter trees remaining on the landscape. Several studies examined the size 

of trees killed by MPB, indicating that as tree diameters increase the greater probability of 

attack especially in higher stand densities (Negron et al., 2008; Schmid et al., 2007; Klenner 

and Arsenault, 2009). Under MPB epidemics, the loss of very large tree component is likely in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 185

SS4. In addition, MPB caused mortality of pine structural stage classes between 7 inch and 16 

inch DBH would severely restrict recruitment from smaller sized classes. Therefore, MPB 

effects may have long-term consequences on maintaining this habitat component. In addition, 

loss of very large trees could affect large diameter snag recruitment in the future. Negron and 

others (2008) suggest that retention of larger diameter trees in the face of MPB infestations can 

be achieved by regulating stocking levels with particular attention to the basal area in trees >9” 

DBH. Although this treatment may move stand structures to more open stands, the likelihood 

of maintaining large green trees improves substantially. 

According to FPMER, the Forest-wide tree size objectives (e.g., >10%) are being met in MA 

5.1 (13%), but are below objectives for MA 5.4 (9%)(USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

According to the Pactola Project Silviculture Report, approximately 90 acres of “very large” 

category currently exists in the Pactola Project Area. These acres represent 2% of existing 

structural stage 4 in Pactola Project Area. Large diameter trees can also be found in MAs 2.2, 

3.7, and 8.2 along with isolated trees in other structural stages that also contribute to providing 

this habitat for wildlife species. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Very Large Trees 

Alternative A could have an indirect effect on the Pactola Project Area contributing to Forestwide percentages. Based on estimated mortality rates, this alternative would maintain 

approximately 35% of these MAs in structural stage 4 (mature). Alternative A would increase 

the average percentages of very large tree to 3% in Pactola Project Area. However, due the 

amount of moderate to high insect hazard stands in the Pactola Project Area (92%), it is likely 

that most if not all of the large-diameter trees would succumb to MPB infestation, especially in 

3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5 structural stages. The loss of this habitat component is heavily tied to the

extent and length of the current MPB outbreak. This alternative also has a higher risk of stand 

replacing fire to occur, which could further reduce this habitat component. This alternative could 

result in a loss of very large tree component and their availability in large portions of Pactola 

Project Area both short-term and long-term. In the absence of fire, wildlife species that rely on 

this habitat component would be most affected long-term by this alternative. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Very Large Trees 

Alternative B would reduce the number of very large trees short-term in an effort to reduce 

MPB hazard and reduce the risk of stand replacing fire. Long-term, treatments planned in 

Alternative B have a greater potential to maintain very large trees and mature pine stages 

compared to Alternative A, by reducing susceptibility of remaining mature pine to MPB attack 

and reducing the amount of fuel hazard in the area. Alternative B would maintain 

approximately 52% of these MAs in structural stage 4, increasing the average percentages of 

very large tree to 5% in area. This increase would only slightly increase Forest-wide levels in 

MAs 5.1 and 5.4. However, MPB mortality would continue to affect both treated and 

untreated stand that could further reduce this percentage. In the absence of fire, wildlife 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 186

species that rely on this habitat component would be less affected long-term by this alternative, 

but to a lesser degree compared to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Very Large Trees 

The direct and indirect effects are similar to Alternative B, but more acres would be treated 

in this alternative. Alternative C would maintain approximately 55% of MA 5.1 and 5.4 in 

structural stages 4, increasing average percentages of very large tree to 4% in Pactola 

Project Area. This increase would only slightly increase Forest-wide levels in MAs 5.1 and 

5.4. However, MPB mortality would continue to affect both treated and untreated stand 

that could further reduce this percentage. In the absence of fire, wildlife species that rely 

on this habitat component would be less affected long-term by this alternative compared to 

Alternatives A and B. 

All alternatives would increase this habitat component for wildlife species by varying 

degrees. Therefore all alternatives would move towards meeting Objectives 5.1-204, and 

5.4-206 Forest-wide. 

Spruce 

White spruce is shade tolerant, enabling regeneration and growth under closed forest 

canopies and may be a climax species on cool mesic sites. These cool, moist environments 

provide habitat for several emphasis species such as American marten, golden-crowned 

kinglet, northern three-toed woodpecker, and brown creeper. Higher densities of birds were 

found in spruce habitat than any other habitats. In the absence of stand replacing events (e.g., 

fire, insects) and vegetative treatment, there is a potential for spruce communities to increase. 

However, due to its thin bark and low branches, it is susceptible to fire mortality (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Spruce is not usually affected by MPB unless their population levels are high enough where the 

beetles attack indiscriminately (Pers. Comm. B. Schaupp 2011). Dense mixed conifer stands 

would likely lose the ponderosa pine component to MPB, where small openings appear then 

close with spruce regeneration. Loss of pine could affect the structure of spruce stands by 

increasing wind throw, coarse woody debris (CWD) and subsequent ladder fuels. Larger 

openings in mixed conifer stands that have a hardwood component stimulate hardwood growth 

short-term. This would create within stand heterogeneity that is optimum habitat for many 

wildlife species. An increase in CWD would provide prey species habitat, subnivean access, 

denning and resting sites until CWD would decay long-term (Klenner and Asenault 2009, 

Richie 2008, Buskirk and Ruggiero. 1994). However, loss of pine in mixed stands could 

reduce heterogeneity (move to pure spruce) long-term, especially in fire controlled systems. 

Large amounts of CWD could increase the probability of stand loss due to fire especially if 

adjacent stands have high fire hazard ratings and when conditions are dry. 

The Forest Plan sets an objective (239-LVD) to provide 20,000 acres of spruce across the 

Forest. Spruce may be treated to achieve multiple-use objectives such as hardwood restoration, 

reduce fire hazard, and for management for emphasis species. According to FPMER, there is 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 187

approximately 25,749 acres of spruce cover type Forest-wide, which is above Forest objectives 

(USDA Forest Service 2010c). According to the Silviculture Report, approximately 253 acres 

of spruce cover type are classified in Pactola Project Area. Not reflected in the database, are 

spruce components found in other cover types (mixed conifer/hardwoods), which contribute to 

species habitat. Much of the spruce habitat in the project area is located along shaded 

drainages and north facing slopes west of Pactola Lake. Spruce communities are within the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Spruce 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on spruce communities in Pactola Project Area. 

Indirectly, spruce may increase in suitable habitat in the area in time due to dense canopy 

conditions (stands not affected by MPB) and fire suppression. MPB would affect mixed 

conifer stands through pine mortality, which could reduce within stand heterogeneity longterm. CWD in spruce communities would likely increase, especially when falling pine causes 

a domino effect on adjacent spruce trees. Depending on the amount of pine mortality and 

spruce deadfall, openings could increase providing more sunlight that would stimulate early 

seral understory communities (hardwoods/shrubs/grasses) short-term. However, as this shadetolerant species increases, the size, and amount of openings would decrease long-term. 

Mortality estimates (USDA Forest Service 2010e) suggest that surrounding areas of mature 

pine would likely succumb to MPB infestation providing wildlife habitat, but increase the 

potential for a large stand replacing fire. Depending on the intensity and severity of the fire, 

spruce habitat availability in the Pactola Project Area may be affected long-term. In the 

absence of fire, wildlife species that rely on this habitat component would not be affected longterm by this alternative. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Spruce 

Alternative B would treat 18 acres (<1%) of spruce to meet Forest-wide hardwood and fuel 

hazard reduction objectives. The majority of the spruce communities would remain untreated 

and the effects would be the same as described in Alternative A. There is less probability of a 

stand replacing fire that could negatively affect spruce communities. However, treatments, 

including meadow enhancement and prescribed fire would open pine crown densities, reducing 

the potential expansion of spruce communities. In addition treatments would reduce spruce 

components in other cover types and CWD, especially adjacent to egress routes which could 

impact some species, especially if used as a dispersal corridor. Although treatments in spruce 

cover types are limited, treatments in mixed stands would reduce habitat for spruce dependent 

wildlife species compared to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree compared to Alternative C. 

In the absence of fire, long-term effects to spruce communities are likely greater compared to 

Alternative A, but to lesser degree compared to Alternative C. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 188

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Spruce 

The effects to spruce habitat would be slightly greater in Alternative C in that more acres are 

converted from spruce component (37 acres) to meet Forest objectives. The indirect effects to 

spruce communities are similar to those discussed in Alternative B. The majority of the spruce 

communities would remain untreated. Therefore, the indirect effects to untreated spruce 

communities would be the same as described in Alternative A. The additional acres for road 

side treatments, especially in mixed spruce stands would greatly reduce the habitat components 

that are usually provided by spruce communities (e.g., CWD, stand structure) that are 

important for many wildlife species. It would also reduce the effectiveness of this habitat to 

provide dispersal corridors for such species as American marten. Although treatments in 

spruce cover types are limited, treatments in mixed stands would reduce spruce component 

more when compared to Alternatives A and B. In the absence of fire, long-term effects to 

spruce communities are likely greater compared to Alternative B. 

All alternatives would maintain spruce communities in the project area by varying degrees. 

Therefore, all alternatives maintain compliance of objectives LVD-239 Forest-wide. 

Hardwoods 

Hardwoods are considered early seral species that requires significant sunlight. Historically, 

natural stand replacing events, especially recurrent fire helped perpetuate hardwood 

communities. Fire stimulates new growth by reducing litter layers, opening the crown 

canopies and stimulates root/trunk suckering. Fire reduces the amount of conifers in these 

stands that eventually out-compete hardwoods for valuable sunlight. Forest management and 

fire suppression during the past century has affected hardwoods by limiting new growth and 

increasing conifer competition. Hardwood communities, with their diverse understory shrub 

components are an important source of forage, cover, and nesting habitat for many wildlife 

species such as ruffed grouse, beaver, and white-tailed deer. These communities have higher 

densities of bird species than pine habitats (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Forest Plan Objective 201 encourages a Forest-wide increase in aspen to 92,000 acres and 

16,000 acres of bur oak. Objective 204 conserves and manages for birch. According to 

FPMER, 45,805 acres of aspen, 13,556 acres of bur oak and 3,396 acres of birch currently exist 

Forest-wide. Currently, the Forest is below Objective 201 for aspen (50%), oak (21%), and 

slightly below Objective 204 (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Forest land management 

treatments and natural disturbances would create more acres of hardwoods. Additional time is 

needed to meet Objectives 201 and 204. 

In Pactola Project Area, aspen is the only hardwood abundant enough to be recognized as a 

distinct cover type in the vegetation database. Birch is present in the area, but as a component 

of aspen communities. Oak and boxelder may be found, but usually in the understory or along 

riparian areas. Currently, 938 acres (4%) are typed as aspen in the Pactola Project Area. Small 

inclusions of hardwoods (<10 acres in size) are present in other typed stands. Although these 

inclusions are not currently identified as hardwood in the database, they could be converted if 

enough conifers are removed. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 2202, 2204, 2205, and 

3104 would provide hardwood habitat for wildlife species. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 189

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Hardwoods 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on hardwood communities in Pactola Project Area. 

Indirectly, conifer encroachment would naturally continue in aspen stands and in hardwood 

inclusions, decreasing this community in the project area long-term. However, pine stands that 

succumb to MPB infestation would experience reduced canopy closure, allowing hardwood 

inclusions to thrive and expand until pine regeneration starts to outcompete hardwoods. In 

addition, there is a higher potential for stand replacing fire, which increases the expansion of 

aspen clones. Even in the absence of fire, Alternative A has the potential to contribute directly 

to meeting Objective 201 long-term. Wildlife that utilizes hardwoods, especially aspen would 

benefit most by this alternative. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Hardwoods 

Alternative B would result in conifer removal within and adjacent to aspen stands (1,150 

acres)(hardwood retention/restoration) which would enhance aspen communities. In 

addition, 477 acres of mixed conifer/aspen stands that are currently classified as conifer 

cover type would be reclassified to aspen after treatment. Treatments in conifer stands would 

open up areas around approximately 120 acres of aspen inclusions. Total treatment to restore 

and maintain hardwoods would increase hardwood acres 1,756 acres (7%), which directly

contributes to Forest Objective 201 (>1%). Although treatments would enhance hardwood 

communities, most treated areas would maintain pine overstory and reduce the potential for 

stand replacing fire. This could limit the expansion and growth of aspen understory longterm. Wildlife that utilizes hardwoods, especially aspen would benefit from this alternative, 

but to a lesser degree compared to Alternatives A and C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Hardwoods 

Alternative C would result in conifer removal within and adjacent to aspen stands (1,150 

acres)(hardwood retention/restoration) which would enhance aspen communities. In addition, 

681 acres of mixed conifer/aspen stands that are currently classified as conifer cover type 

would be reclassified to aspen after treatment. Treatments in conifer stands would also open 

up areas around approximately 120 acres of aspen inclusions. Total treatment to restore and 

maintain aspen would increase hardwood to 1,959 acres (8%), which directly contributes to 

Forest Objective 201 (1%). Although treatments would enhance hardwood communities, they

would maintain pine overstory and reduce the potential for stand replacing fire. This could 

limit the expansion and growth of aspen understory long-term. In the absence of fire, wildlife 

that utilizes hardwoods, especially aspen would benefit from this alternative to a greater degree 

compared to Alternative B but to a lesser degree compared to Alternative A.

All alternatives would maintain and enhance hardwood habitat for wildlife species by varying 

degrees. Therefore, all alternatives would move toward Forest Plan Objective 201 Forest-wide. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 190

Grasslands and Meadow 

Grasslands and meadows are defined as upland plant communities dominated by herbaceous 

vegetation with less than 10% tree cover. Prairie grasslands generally occur on the outer 

perimeter of the Black Hills, transitioning between true prairie ecosystems and forest 

ecosystems. Interior grasslands occur within the forest perimeter and can include large areas 

dominated by plant species typically associated with prairie ecosystems. After a century of fire 

suppression and forest management, acreage of interior prairies and meadows has been reduced 

from historic conditions (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Forest Plan Objective 205 encourages the Forest to manage for 122,000 acres of grassland and 

3,600 acres of meadows. Forest Plan standards and guidelines 2107, 3125, and 4111 maintain 

these habitats for wildlife such as the grasshopper sparrow, big game, and butterflies. According 

to FPMER, there are approximately 107,464 acres of grassland and 6,958 meadow communities

Forest-wide. The Forest is approximately 14,536 acres short of the grassland objective. The 

Forest has 3,358 acres more than the objective acres for meadow. However, there has been a 3% 

increase in grassland habitat since 1997 estimates. This increase may reflect projects across the 

Forest that has emphasized grassland restoration and/or a refinement of mapping and reporting 

methods where conditions have not changed on the ground (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

There is approximately 394 acres (1.6%) of grassland habitat in the project area. There are no 

large prairie grasslands in Pactola Project Area. Additional acres of grassland probably exist, 

especially on soils that have formed under grass. Smaller openings that exhibit grassland plant 

communities in other cover types, could provide species habitat if conifer is removed. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Grasslands and Meadows 

Alternative A would not treat meadows to reduce conifer encroachment. In the absence of 

natural fire regime, conifer encroachment into grassland communities would likely decrease 

the productivity of these communities long-term. An increase in grassland habitat could occur 

as a result of pine mortality caused by MPB infestation. This increase is dependent upon soil 

types, community types and the length and duration of the insect infestation. Over time, 

conifer encroachment would decrease the productivity of this habitat. There would be no 

disturbance associated with treatment activities (e.g., skidding, landings, equipment use) that 

would increase invasive species. Alternative A has a greater potential for large stand replacing 

fire, greatly increasing the amount of grassland depending on the intensity and severity of that 

fire. A wildfire could change plant species composition of grasslands if duff layer and soils are 

severely affected, especially if invasive species spread. In the absence of fire, Alternative A 

has the potential to indirectly contribute to meeting Objective 205 long-term. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Grasslands and Meadows 

Meadow/grassland restoration treatments in this alternative would maintain and expand 

grassland communities in the project area. Conifer would be removed in small openings that 

occur within conifer-dominated forests, adjacent to existing grasslands (33 feet) and based on 

historic boundaries and soil type. Prescribed fire would likely reduce conifer encroachment 

and increase the size of grassland inclusions in those areas burned. Treatments would reduce 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 191

the potential for stand replacing fire, reducing the potential for expansion of grassland habitat. 

Alternative B would slightly increase grassland habitat but would maintain pine overstory. 

Disturbance and increased vehicle use (vectors for dispersal) associated with treatment 

activities (e.g., skidding, landings, equipment use) would increase the potential for the spread 

of invasive species that may affect plant composition of native grassland. In the absence of 

fire, Alternative B would meet the intent of Objective 205 long-term by maintaining/enhancing 

grassland habitat in the area. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Grasslands and Meadows 

Meadow/grassland restoration and prescribed fire treatments are the same as in Alternative B. 

Direct and indirect effects to grassland habitat are similar to those discussed in Alternative B. 

However, in this alternative more acres would be treated, which would increase the potential 

negative effects to grassland communities associated with treatments (e.g., invasive species 

spread). In the absence of fire, Alternative C would meet the intent of Objective 205 long-term 

by maintaining/enhancing grassland habitat in the area. 

None of the alternatives would take action to decrease the amount of grassland 

(meadows) habitat. Therefore, all alternatives would move toward achieving Objective 

205 by varying degrees. 

Riparian Habitat 

Riparian communities are typically found along perennial and intermittent streams, springs, 

and seeps. These communities are some of the most productive and biologically diverse lands, 

providing water and habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Riparian habitats are typically 

fire resistant due to their moist microclimate. Riparian dependent plant species include water 

birch, willows, sedges, and rushes, all of which provide forage, stream cover, and structural 

diversity. These communities provide water and habitat to many species such as beaver, song 

sparrow, American dipper, and the meadow jumping mouse (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Riparian areas also act as buffers and filters during high rainfall events by decreasing water 

velocity, reducing erosion, and sediment movement. Wildfire, along with vegetative 

treatments, fuel reductions, and prescribed burns can potentially affect riparian and wetland 

ecosystems through changes in sediment loads to creeks and introduction of spread of noxious 

weeds. Roads have been attributed to increasing sediment into streams. The larger the amount 

of ground disturbance and/or the closer proximity to wetland and riparian areas, the greater the 

indirect affect to these areas (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

The Forest Plan Objectives 104-107 and 213 apply to riparian habitats in Pactola Project Area, 

which encourages management to maintain riparian area diversity, physical structure, and size. 

Forest Plan standards 1301 through 1306 and 3106 along with guidelines 3210 through 3212 

and 9107 and 9201 encourage maintenance and enhancement of riparian habitats for wildlife 

and fish species Forest-wide. According to FPMER, multiple resource programs influence 

riparian condition and trend. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

Best Management Practices contribute to maintaining or enhancing riparian habitat Forestwide. Watershed health (e.g., stream health, water quality) is an integral part of riparian 

condition (USDA Forest Service 2010c). An analysis of watershed health and alternative 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 192

effects could be found in the Watershed, Geology, and Soils Section of this EIS and in the

Pactola Project Hydrology Report (held in the project file). 

In the Pactola Project Area, riparian habitats are typically very narrow, and are not well 

represented during the Forest’s vegetation inventory process. These communities are 

commonly typed as conifer, hardwoods, shrub lands, or meadows. Consequently, the Forest 

and the Pactola Project Area vegetation database contain no acres typed as riparian. The 

project area encompasses the Rapid Creek watershed, which includes side tributaries such as 

Gimlet, Nugget, Jenny Gulch, Empress, Deer, and Kelly Gulch Creeks. In addition, there are 

numerous springs/seeps and several fen ecosystems occurring in the area. Due to the steep 

terrain, many travel routes are adjacent to stream and in some areas, the road crosses the stream 

numerous times (e.g., Kelly Gulch). Crossings may create barriers for dispersal for aquatic 

species, increase water temperature, and decrease water quality which is detrimental for 

riparian dependent wildlife. Close proximity of the road and stream also increase potential 

conflicts with maintaining beaver colonies on those streams. 

Very little is known regarding the effects of epidemic levels of MPB on riparian communities 

in the Black Hills. Loss of mature pine could increase water availability (short-term), increase 

water temperature (loss of shade), and provide higher levels of CWD within riparian corridors. 

Pine mortality caused by MPB could increase water temperature if overstory shading is 

removed. MPB infestations would not have much effect on riparian communities that lacked 

pine. Loss of overstory pine in surrounding areas would increase understory development of 

hardwoods, shrubs, grasses short-term followed by advanced pine regeneration that would help 

stabilize soils and prevent adverse effects of high rain fall events. Riparian areas and 

associated plant species are typically fire resistant. However, the effects of large scale 

mortality caused by MPB increases fuels and the potential for stand replacing fire. A large 

wildfire could seriously impact watershed health, stream morphology and water quality mostly 

short-term, but could have long-term effects. The magnitude of effects caused by a large stand 

replacing fire would depend on several factors such as fire severity and fire intensity, slope, 

and the percentage of the watershed affected. Loss of suitable aquatic habitat and riparian 

communities could affect wildlife presence, distribution patterns, and prey availability. High 

sediment loads into Pactola Reservoir that provides aquatic habitat for many wildlife species 

and their prey could have a negative effect on this lake habitat. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian Habitat 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on riparian communities. Indirectly, MPB effects 

would reduce the amount of trees on the landscape which would increase meadows adjacent to 

streams, stimulate growth in riparian shrub communities, and could increase available water to 

these communities short-term. Open canopies would stimulate pine regeneration, eventually out 

competing seral riparian communities, decreasing these beneficial effects long-term. Loss of 

mature pine along perennial and intermittent streams would increase water temperature if most of 

the stream shade is lost. MPB infestations would not have much effect on riparian communities 

that lacked pine. Increases in CWD from dead trees would offset loss of overstory by providing 

shade to stream channels but too much CWD could affect stream function (e.g., changes in stream 

channel). Existing roads and road crossings that do not meet Forest Plan direction repairs or 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 193

improvements would not occur. These areas would continue to negatively impact stream habitat 

and may continue to be barriers to dispersal. No additional roads/trails would be added, nor 

disturbance caused by harvest activities. This alternative has a higher potential for stand 

replacing wildfire, which could negatively affect watershed function depending on the intensity, 

severity and amount of watershed impacted. Fires that reduce the capacity of the soils and upland 

vegetation to limit surface run-off could be detrimental to riparian communities and aquatic 

habitat short-term. In the absence of fire this alternative would be more beneficial to riparian 

habitat and the species that use them compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian Habitat 

In Alternative B, treatments would occur in riparian communities to meet other Forest Plan 

objectives such as hardwood restoration and public safety (fuel reduction and improved public 

egress). Additional roads/trails are needed to treat areas that may influence riparian habitat. 

Beneficial effects from treatment in riparian communities would likely increase hardwood 

communities if competing conifer is removed. Negative effects from treatment may occur if 

stream shading is removed increasing water temperature and evapotranspiration rates. In 

addition, loss of CWD and horizontal structure could become barriers to dispersal for several 

species (e.g., American marten). Harvest activities (e.g., whole tree harvesting) on steep slopes 

(e.g., 30-40% slopes) adjacent to streams and within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) has the 

potential to degrade stream bank stability and increase in-stream sediments, thus reducing water 

quality in aquatic habitats. Associated activities such as road placement, stream crossings, and 

noxious weed treatment could further impact the function of riparian communities to provide 

habitat for wildlife and aquatic species. Treatment activities would also increase invasive 

species due to disturbed soils. However, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management 

practices (BMPs) 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. In addition, access routes used for treatments 

that have been identified as not meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be repaired 

and improved. This alternative reduces the potential for large stand replacing wildfire compared 

to Alternative A, but to a lesser extent compared to Alternative C. In the absence of fire, 

Alternative B would maintain and improve riparian and stream conditions, but would add more 

negative effects compared to Alternative A, but to a lesser extent compared to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian Habitat 

Direct and Indirect effects to riparian communities and aquatic habitat are similar to those 

discussed in Alternative B. Alternative C would treat more area, therefore effects would be 

greater. As part of this alternative an additional 436 acres of roadside treatments would 

increase the amount of disturbance/treatment in riparian communities compared to Alternative 

B. Roadside treatments that reduce fuel hazard and conifer overstory to <50 basal area (BA) 

that parallel perennial and intermittent stream courses would likely increase water temperatures 

in those streams. Additional road construction (19 miles) and reconstruction associated with 

proposed treatments (e.g., cable systems) have more potential to increase sediments, widen 

stream channels, increase water temperatures and create barriers to dispersal for aquatic species 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 194

compared to Alternative B. Therefore the effects to riparian areas would be greater in this 

alternative compared to Alternatives A and B. Cable and helicopter logging systems usually 

have fewer effects on riparian areas compared to conventional logging systems but the roads 

associated with cable systems have the potential to increase sediment into streams. As in 

Alternative B, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, BMPs and Pactola Project design criteria 

would be followed reducing the effects of treatment and associated activities on riparian 

communities and aquatic habitats (e.g., water quality) within Forest Plan limits. Access routes 

used for treatments that have been identified as not meeting Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines would be repaired and improved. Treatments in this alternative would reduce the 

potential for stand replacing fire more so compared to Alternatives A and B, thus reducing its 

potential negative effects to riparian function and condition. In the absence of fire, Alternative 

C would maintain and improve riparian and stream conditions but would add more negative 

effects compared to Alternatives A and B. Therefore, this alternative would have the least 

beneficial effect on wildlife dependent on riparian communities. 

All of the alternatives would affect the biodiversity, physical structure, and size of riparian 

communities in the area by varying degrees. It is anticipated that Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines would be equally met in both action alternatives and that any residual effects would 

be within Forest Plan limits. None of the alternatives would decrease the amount of riparian 

habitat in the area. Therefore, all alternatives would meet the intent of Objective 213. 

Management Indicator Species 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species that represent a suite of wildlife and 

fish species and their habitats. MIS are evaluated based on observations and/or presence 

of suitable habitat within the Pactola Project Area. The Phase II Amendment FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a; Sec 3-3.3.6 through Sec 3-3.3.8.2) provides in-depth 

information (e.g., range, distribution, etc.) for each MIS selected for analysis. The 

Pactola Project analysis for MIS is tiered to that document and to the 1997 Forest Plan 

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1996). Information from these documents is summarized 

for each MIS. Table 3-29 identifies MIS species selected for analysis for the Pactola 

Project, and reasons for their Forest Plan designation (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Table 3-29 Summary of Forest Plan MIS, their status, and habitat these species represents

Forest Plan MIS Status* Habitat Represented 

Black-backed Woodpecker R2 Mature and late successional forest, burned forest, insects, and 

snag conditions. 

Brown Creeper MIS Late successional conifer forest, large trees, and snag conditions. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet MIS Spruce forest, mostly mature and late-successional. 

Beaver MIS Riparian/aquatic habitat conditions (hardwood forests and shrub 

component). 

Song Sparrow MIS Riparian habitats. 

Grasshopper Sparrow R2 Prairie grassland. 

Ruffed Grouse MIS Aspen quality and vigor in pure and mixed stands. 

White-tailed Deer MIS Variety of forest conditions, including occurrence of understory 

shrubs. 

Mountain Sucker R2 Aquatic habitat condition and connectivity. 

* R2 = Region 2 Sensitive Species. MIS = Management Indicator Species 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 195

The MIS analysis focuses on how the alternatives would influence the Forest-wide population 

trend (if available), the Forest-wide habitat trend, and attainment of Forest Plan Objective 238. 

Trend data for all species was obtained from either the FY 2008 or FY 2009 Forest Plan 

Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (FPMER)(USDA Forest Service 2009c, 2010c) USDA 

unless otherwise indicated. Viability analysis has been completed at the Forest Plan level 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a), and therefore beyond the scope of this project level analysis. If 

the MIS species or suitable habitat does not occur in the project area, or if the species or its 

habitat is not affected by the Pactola Project, then it is excluded from further evaluation. If a 

species is known or suspected to occur in the project area or if suitable but unoccupied habitat 

is present or adjacent to the area, then the species has been evaluated with respect to effects of 

the proposed project activities (Table 3-30). 

Table 3-30 MIS Species and Rationale for Pactola Project Analysis

Species Species/Habitat 

Present? Analyzed Habitat Description 

Black-backed 

woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) 

Y Y 

Burned areas with a high density of preburn snags, dense and/or mature forests 

with a high snag density (Anderson 2003, 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-

2010). 

Brown creeper 

(Certhia americana) Y Y 

In the Black Hills, white spruce and late 

successional pine appears to be the most 

important habitat type for this species 

(Wiggins 2005c, Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory 2001-2010). 

Golden-crowned kinglet 

(Regulus satrapa) Y Y 

Found almost exclusively in white spruce 

habitat but occasionally present in other 

habitats with a spruce component (Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2010). 

Beaver 

(Castor canadensis) Y Y 

Large rivers and lakes down to streams, 

marshes and small lakes with seepage/weak 

flow adequate for damming and suitable 

woody vegetation (Boyle and Owens 2007). 

Song sparrow 

(Melospiza melodia) Y Y 

Streamside thickets, particularly shrubby 

willows, are required. Occasionally found in 

adjacent spruce habitat (Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory 2001-2010). 

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

savannarum) 

Y Y 

Found almost exclusively in native mixedgrass prairies (Slater 2004, Rocky Mountain 

Bird Observatory 2001-2010). 

Ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus) Y Y 

Variable aged aspen stands, other 

hardwoods, and pine forests provide habitat. 

Winter habitat is almost exclusively aspen 

(Tallman et al., 2002; Wiggins, 2006a). 

White-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) Y Y 

Very adaptable species that can live in 

almost any habitat. In South Dakota, this 

includes grasslands, wetlands, and 

woodlands (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 196

Species Species/Habitat 

Present? Analyzed Habitat Description 

Mountain sucker 

(Catostomus 

platyrhynchus) 

Y Y See Fisheries Report. 

Tree Nesting MIS Species 

The following species are dependent on trees for nesting, and are analyzed together in this 

section: black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, and golden-crowned kinglet. For the most 

part, these three species are closely associated with mature pine (SS4C and SS5) and spruce 

communities that provide foraging and nesting habitat, although the black-backed woodpecker 

is predominately found in ponderosa pine habitat. Specific habitat preferences are discussed 

for each species below. 

According to FPMER, there are an estimated total of 152,897 acres of SS4C and SS5 

ponderosa pine and 25,749 acres of spruce on the Forest. The Forest Plan structural stage 

objectives call for 5% of their respective MAs to be managed for SS4C, and 5% in SS5. These 

Forest MAs currently exceed the objective for SS4C habitat Forest-wide (13%), and are 

moving toward the objective for SS5 (0.5%)(USDA Forest Service 2010c). Other indicators of 

potential habitat for these species are the amount of area with spruce, high risk of beetle attack, 

insect mortality, “very large” pine trees, and snag density. 

In Pactola Project Area, there is 253 acres (1%) of white spruce and approximately 1,712 acres 

(10%) of pine SS4C and SS5 in MAs 5.1 and 5.4. Inclusions of spruce do exist, but are typed 

as other cover types, having spruce component less than 50% of the stand. Many of these pine 

structural stages, due to their high beetle risk are heavily infested by MPB. Within the next 

five to ten years, it is likely the amount of SS4C and SS5 in the project area would decrease 

(<1%). Spruce habitat is not expected to change due to MPB effects. Approximately 172 

acres of “very large” trees (<1%) are classified in the area. In Pactola Project Area, the 

average hard snag density is 4.7 snags/acre. See the Pactola Project Silviculture Report for 

more information about these objectives. 

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) 

The black-backed woodpecker has dual management status, it is both an MIS and a R2 

sensitive species. To reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and predicted 

effects information are provided in the Pactola Project BA/BE. Only MIS-specific 

documentation requirements are provided here (e.g., trend information and analysis of 

Objective 238). Forest Plan vegetation objectives that apply to the black-backed woodpecker 

in the Pactola Project are 11.03, 211, 218, 221, 238b, 2.2-401, 3.7-201, 5.1-204, and 5.4-206 

which encourage maintenance of spruce, large snags, late succession characteristics, and pine 

structural diversity. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2202, 2204, 2304, 2305, 4206, 2.2-

1001, 2.2-3201, and 8.2-3201 would be applicable to maintaining habitat for this species. 

Large trees are important habitat component for the black-backed woodpecker. Insect infested 

trees and large diameter snags provide foraging and nesting habitat. In the Black Hills, this 

woodpecker’s distribution and abundance is closely associated with recent stand-replacing fires 

and insect outbreaks (Bonnot et al. 2009, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001 - 2010). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 197

These conditions provide increased numbers of their main prey: larvae of wood-boring beetles, 

engraver beetles, and bark beetles (Saab et al. 2007). However, once prey items become

scarce, this species use of that area declines rapidly. 

Forest monitoring indicates the black-backed woodpecker is distributed in low densities 

throughout most of the Black Hills. Where numerous wildfires and insect outbreaks have

recently occurred, the species has been observed much more frequently and in higher densities. 

Forest-wide relative density for this species is probably higher than “normal” given the 

current habitat conditions. Black-backed woodpecker populations are “eruptive” as reflected 

in their densities in burned habitat. This pattern of rapid colonization and subsequent decline 

is consistent with findings of other studies (Anderson 2003). This species’ Forest-wide 

population trend is likely to decline in the future as vegetation management efforts to reduce 

the fire-hazard and insect-risk continue. Overall, habitat for this species is being provided 

consistent with Objective 238b, Objective 221, and Objective 11.03. The “aging” of large 

burned areas, such as the Jasper Fire, into habitat less suitable for black-backed woodpeckers 

is likely being offset by the increasing acreage of insect-infested timber stands and the stable 

acreage of large diameter, older pine trees. Though additional time is needed to grow more 

of structural stage 5 (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

This species has been documented in the Pactola Project Area mostly in mature pine stands 

and MPB infested areas. 

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 

The Forest vegetation objectives that most closely apply to the brown creeper in the Pactola 

Project are 211, 218, 238a, 239-LVD, 2.2-401, 3.7-201, 5.1-204, and 5.4-206 which encourage 

maintenance of large snags, late succession characteristics, and structural diversity, very large 

trees, and white spruce. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2103, 2202, 2204, 2304, 2305, 

4206, and 8.2-3201 would be applicable to maintaining habitat for this species. 

In the Black Hills, the brown creeper is well distributed but low in abundance and is closely 

associated with dense mature and late successional ponderosa pine stands (structural stages 4C 

and 5) and white spruce forests (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Within that context, dead or 

decaying trees are particularly important because they provide nesting and foraging substrates. 

Large trees are important habitat component for brown creepers for foraging (Wiggins 2005c). 

Evidence suggests this species is area-sensitive (prefers blocks of habitat >30 acres in size), 

and may be susceptible to timber management and forest fragmentation (Wiggins 2005c). 

According to FPMER, the short-term relative densities declined for this species in 2007 

compared to previous years, but rebounded in 2009 in most habitats sampled (White et al. 

2010). In 2009, for the first time the relative density in pine south was higher than white 

spruce. Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it would take 25 years to detect a 3% annual decline 

for this species in pine-north, late successional and white spruce habitats, and 30 years in pinesouth habitat. The Forest-wide preferred habitat has been stable or slightly increasing over the 

past five years. Although preferred habitat defined by structural stages 4C and 5 decreased 

slightly, the acres of structural stage 4C with very large trees (>16” DBH) has increased. It 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 198

appears that Objective 238a is being met. Continued effort and additional time is needed to 

increase the acres of structural stage 5 across the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

This species has been documented in the Pactola Project Area in mature ponderosa pine, spruce 

communities, and in MPB infested areas. 

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

The Forest objectives that are most relevant to the golden-crowned kinglet are 211, 218, 238c, 

239-LVD, 2.2-401, and 3.7-201, which encourage maintenance of large snags, late succession 

characteristics, and management for 20,000 acres of spruce across the Forest. Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines 2202, 2204, 2304, 2305, 4206, 2.2-1001, 2.2-3201, and 8.2-3201 

would be applicable to maintaining habitat for this species. 

The golden-crowned kinglet is found primarily in the northern Black Hills, with more localized 

occurrences in the southern hills and Bearlodge Mountains. This kinglet prefers spruce 

communities but it may be found in lower densities in other forest types. This species forages 

on bark beetle larvae and may be found in heavily infested MPB areas, especially with a spruce 

component. It is assumed that spruce is the preferred habitat of golden-crowned kinglet on the 

Forest, although it is possible that this entire habitat is not occupied and that this species may 

be found in other areas (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Forest-wide monitoring data suggests in the short-term, the golden-crowned kinglet relative 

density in 2007 was the lowest since the forest bird monitoring program began in 2001. Blakesly 

et al. (2008) projected it would take 20 years to detect a 3% annual decline for this species in 

white spruce habitat. Relative densities rebounded considerably in 2009 in both late successional 

and white spruce habitats (White et al. 2010). Spruce habitat for the golden-crowned kinglet has 

increased over the long-term and is exceeding the Forest-wide target of 20,000 acres (Objective 

239-LVD). The Forest is meeting Objective 238c based on the acres of preferred habitat. 

The golden-crowned kinglet has been observed in Pactola Project Area, mostly in mixed conifer 

stands. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Tree Nesting MIS Species 

There are no direct effects to the trees nesting species expected under this alternative. No 

treatment would likely continue widespread epidemic-level infestation of MPB. Therefore 

prey species availability (e.g., arthropods) would be higher in this alternative compared to 

Alternatives B and C short-term. Under this alternative, considerable changes in the seral 

stages of ponderosa pine communities would occur especially where most or all of the mature 

pine overstory would succumb to MPB infestation. The indirect effect to these species would 

decrease preferred SS4C and SS5 pine habitats (high hazard rating) short-term and long-term. 

Snag abundance would increase short-term (5-8 years), but quantity and quality of snags would 

decrease over the long term. Increased prey items along with increased snag densities would 

result in more black-backed woodpecker habitat than currently exists within the next five years 

but rapid changes in both components would decrease habitat and prey availability long-term 

in the area. Alternative A increases the risk of stand-replacing fire, where the effects would be 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 199

similar to landscape level mortality caused by MPB. However, the potential for large fire 

would increase the potential for habitat loss needed for the brown creeper and golden-crowned 

kinglet long-term, especially if large tree component is removed. In the absence of treatment 

and fire, spruce may continue to grow and expand on suitable sites, increasing habitat for the 

golden-crowned kinglet long-term. The level of short-term and long-term effects would be 

dependent on the length and duration of MPB infestation and the intensity and severity of any 

stand-replacing fire. For these reasons, this alternative would be most favorable for the blackbacked woodpecker and brown creeper short-term. However, the loss of all or most of the 

mature trees in the project area could have long-term consequences for the area to provide 

habitat for these tree nesting species. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Tree Nesting MIS Species

Inadvertent loss of some individuals and/or unknown nests is possible in Alternative B. 

Potential direct effects to these species may come from possible loss of nest (tree), nest 

disturbance and associated nesting failure (loss of eggs and hatchlings) resulting from activities 

related to vegetative treatments, fuel treatments, and prescribed burning. Proposed treatments 

and concurrent MPB infestation would decrease preferred pine structural stages (4B, 4C, and 

5) to 6%, but increase the amount of very large tree component (5%) in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 in the 

project area. Treatments would reduce the potential for MPB spread and reduce MPB 

numbers, therefore prey species availability (e.g., arthropods) would be lower in this 

alternative compared to Alternative A, but more than in Alternative C. Effects for tree nesting 

species would be a loss of preferred pine habitat short-term. Vegetative treatments would 

reduce stand susceptibility to MPB attack, therefore providing mature trees and very large tree 

component to remain on the landscape long-term compared to Alternative A. Alternative B 

would decrease snag recruitment rates at the project scale short-term, but may provide large 

diameter snags long-term by reducing the risk of MPB mortality. This could translate to 

reduced habitat quality and fewer tree nesting species within Pactola Project Area short-term, 

but may provide habitat to these species long-term. In areas not treated, it is likely that this 

remaining habitat would succumb to MPB effects where habitat would be optimum short-term. 

The structural stage reductions within the Pactola Project Area would have minimal affect the 

Forest-wide habitat (<1%) needed by these species. 

Prescribed burning could decrease black-backed woodpecker preferred habitat (recently 

created snags) in those areas burned but may increase nesting/foraging habitat for these bark 

gleaning birds by creating new snags. It is unlikely that the proposed prescribed burn would 

impact the kinglet’s habitat. 

Alternative B would minimally reduce the amount of spruce habitat to 235 acres (<1%) to meet 

other Forest Plan objectives. In addition, spruce component in mixed stands may be reduced to 

meet hardwood and grassland objectives. Treatments would open forest canopies which are 

not conducive growth conditions for shade-tolerant spruce. Therefore, expansion of goldencrowned kinglet habitat would not occur. However, these decreases in spruce component 

would have minimal effect on Forest objective 239-LVD. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 200

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Tree Nesting MIS Species

Direct and indirect effects of this alternative are similar to those discussed in Alternative B. 

However, this alternative would treat more area, therefore this alternative would have the 

greatest short-term effect on these species habitat compared to Alternatives A and B. Proposed 

treatments would decrease preferred pine structural stages (4B, 4C, and 5) to 5% and increase 

very large tree component to 4% in the project area. Vegetative treatments would reduce stand 

susceptibility to MPB attack and the potential for stand replacing fire, therefore providing 

mature trees and very large tree component to remain on the landscape long-term compared to 

Alternative A and B. Even with more area treated, the structural stage reductions within the 

Pactola Project Area would have minimal affect the Forest-wide habitat (<1%). Spruce 

habitats would be reduced more than in Alternative B which would slightly decrease habitat for 

the golden crowned kinglet. Prescribed burning would have the same effects as discussed in 

Alternative B. However, areas that have not been treated in the past would lose some of their 

late-succession components that would reduce this species habitat. 

Conclusions for Tree Nesting MIS Species 

All alternatives would slightly affect pine structural stage habitat, very large tree component, 

snag densities, and spruce habitat (1%) Forest-wide. Therefore, none of the alternatives would 

influence the Forest-wide population trend, Forest-wide habitat trend, or attainment of 

Objective 238 for the black-backed woodpecker, brown creeper, and golden-crowned kinglet, 

therefore these species are likely to persist. 

Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species

The beaver and song sparrow are dependent on riparian habitat/vegetation, and are analyzed 

together in this section. See the Pactola Project Hydrology and Fishery Reports along with 

hardwoods and riparian habitat sections in this section for further discussion on effects to these 

species habitat. 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

The Forest Plan objectives that most closely apply to beaver in Pactola Project Area are 103-

105, 108, 201, 213, 214, 217, and 238a. Objectives 201 and 213 encourage maintenance of 

aspen and riparian area diversity, physical structure, and size. Such habitats are used by beaver 

for food, dams, and shelter. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 1105, 1106, 1113-1116, 

1201, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1209, 1301-1302, 1306, 2202, 2205, and 3210-3212, 4111, 4308, and 

9107 would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

Beaver occur throughout much of North America. They are semi-aquatic, and in the Black 

Hills and elsewhere, are widely distributed in streams, lakes, and marshes where permanent 

water is present. Beaver require aspen, willow, or cottonwood as a main food source. Beaver 

also use these and other woody plants to construct their dams and lodges. Beavers are

considered a keystone species, because of their ability to restore degraded wetlands and 

provide habitat for many other species. Other than over harvest for fur, the most serious 

threats to beaver populations are habitat destruction and degradation due to human land uses 

such as water manipulations, livestock grazing in riparian areas, and urban and agricultural 

development in riparian/wetland areas. Human population growth and increasing demands on 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 201

water resources have led to water storage, diversion, and channelization projects that affect 

water available in rivers, lakes, and wetlands (Boyle and Owens 2007). Restoring beaver 

populations to their maximum capability on the Forest would require restoring and maintaining 

healthy riparian ecosystems that would increase the potential for beaver re-establishment 

(Boyle and Owens 2007). In South Dakota, beaver are classified as furbearers, and as such are 

legally harvested during a three month period (South Dakota Game Fish and Parks 2010b). 

According to FPMER, approximately 45,811 acres of aspen exist on the Forest, but only 6% of

that aspen and willow is available to beaver (within 600 ft. of perennial streams). Baseline 

beaver surveys conducted on the Forest during 2004 indicated 259 - 392 beaver existed in nearly 

80 known colonies. The long-term beaver population trend has increased in the Black Hills since 

heavy trapping was moderated by hunting regulations, but it is less than its potential. The longterm habitat trend suggests decline, as evidenced by the decreasing quality of riparian habitats 

since European settlement, and a decrease in the amount of aspen over the past 30 years. In 

2007, beaver abundance and distribution was monitored. Surveys were performed via helicopter

to locate beaver food caches. Preliminary data resulted in a food cache density of approximately 

one cache for every 24 miles of perennial stream. Overall, 20 of the 52 sixth level watersheds 

(38%) surveyed had beaver food caches present. Additional time is needed to determine the 

trend in beaver abundance and distribution based on the food cache protocol (USDA Forest 

Service 2009c, 2010c). 

Approximately 938 acres of aspen habitat occurs within the Pactola Project Area, but not 

necessarily in beaver habitat. No acres are typed as riparian in the project database, but 

suitable beaver habitat is found along the numerous perennial and intermittent stream courses 

in the Pactola Project Area. There are small amounts of both riparian and aspen habitats in 

stands dominated by pine or other species. Active beaver colonies are known to occur within 

the Pactola Project Area. Pactola Reservoir provides habitat for beaver dispersal and 

movement. These colonies are associated with streams and sometimes ponds where willows 

and aspen are present. Due to the steepness of terrain in the project area, most roads/trails are 

found within close proximity to beaver habitat. When conflicts arise, the beavers are moved or 

killed and the dams destroyed. With the increase in recreation demands, use patterns, 

increased road/trail access, and private land development in the Pactola Project Area, conflicts 

between beaver and humans would increase as beaver populations increase. 

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

The Forest Plan Objectives that most closely applies to the song sparrow are 103, 104, 105, 

108, 201, 213, 214, 218, and 238a, which encourage management that promotes long-term 

stream health and riparian area diversity, physical structure, and size. Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines 1105, 1106, 1113-1116, 1201, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1209, 1301-1302, 1306, 2202, 

2205, 3210- 3212, 4111, and 4308 would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

This species is a summer resident of many Black Hills riparian areas, but it is most common in 

the northern hills. It occurs mainly in streamside thickets, especially willows, and is dependent 

upon these habitats throughout the breeding season. This sparrow has also been found in 

spruce areas adjacent to streams. The song sparrow forages on the ground in dense underbrush 

for invertebrates, seeds, and fruits. Nests are low to the ground in shrubs and understory

vegetation. The greatest threats to this species are loss of deciduous riparian habitat to human 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 202

development, conversion to agricultural land, and livestock grazing. Human population 

growth and increasing demands on water resources have led to water storage, diversion, and 

channelization projects that affect water available in rivers, lakes, and wetlands that would 

support riparian plant communities (Arcese et al. 2002, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Forest-wide monitoring data suggests in the short-term, the relative density of song sparrows 

in 2008 had slightly declined since the forest bird monitoring program began in 2001. 

Blakesly et al. (2008) projected it would take 20 years to detect a 3% annual decline for this 

species in the three riparian habitat types monitored (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 

2001-2010). Riparian habitats have decreased in quantity and quality since the pre-European 

settlement era, indicating a long-term declining habitat trend (Parrish et al. 1996). 

Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and best management practices 

maintain riparian habitat, but at less than its full potential. Small riparian protection projects 

that have improved riparian conditions in some areas contribute to habitat enhancement and 

achievement of Objective 238a (USDA Forest Service 2009c). This species has been 

documented in suitable habitat in the Pactola Project Area. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on the beaver or song sparrow. Indirectly this 

alternative would improve riparian and hardwood communities. The loss of most pine 

overstory caused by MPB would likely benefit these species, increasing the potential for 

early seral communities, such as aspen, to expand and flourish short-term and could 

increase water availability necessary for riparian plant communities to thrive and expand. 

However, the loss of overstory that shade streams could affect evapotranspiration rate of 

streams reducing water availability and water quality. An increase in CWD could offset 

loss of shade, but could increase predation rates if near beaver colonies. In the absence of 

shade, young conifer encroachment would continue to out-compete hardwood 

communities in the absence of fire, therefore affecting beaver food availability and song 

sparrow habitat long-term. This alternative, compared to the action alternatives, has a 

higher potential for large stand-replacing fire which could affect watershed health. For 

the most part, riparian communities would be resilient to the direct effects of fire, but 

may affect beaver food availability and dam building materials short-term, but would 

increase these components long-term. Beaver populations would continue to increase in 

suitable habitat, increasing potential conflicts between humans and beaver. This 

alternative would benefit both the beaver and song sparrow by reducing pine competition 

that would expand hardwoods and riparian shrub communities. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species 

Direct effects to beaver are not anticipated by proposed treatments. Direct effects to song 

sparrows may include potential mortality from loss of nests, eggs, or chicks or nest abandonment 

associated with disturbance caused by harvest activities. Indirectly, active beaver dams could 

flood roads that are needed to access treatment areas where beaver are moved or killed. 

Treatments that enhance hardwoods and riparian communities would improve both species 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 203

habitat and contribute to meeting Forest Plan Objectives 201 and 238. Negative effects to beaver 

could potentially stem from placement of log landings and road-crossings that restrict movement 

and inhibit beaver complex expansion. Additional roads would increase conflict with beaver and 

road maintenance if constructed along suitable habitat. In addition, improved road conditions 

and access could increase fur harvest that would affect beaver expansion. Alternative B would 

be the most favorable to beavers and song sparrows of the action alternatives in that less 

disturbance and treatments would occur within riparian habitat. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species 

Direct and indirect effects to beaver and song sparrows and their habitats are similar to the 

effects discussed under Alternative B. However, in this alternative, more area would be treated 

therefore effects would be greater. This includes an additional 436 acres of roadside treatments 

to improve public safety, increasing the amount of disturbance/treatment in riparian 

communities compared to Alternatives A and B. Helicopter logging would not directly affect 

these species unless disturbance from operations would cause sparrow nesting to be interrupted 

or restricts beaver use. Additional road construction (19 miles) and reconstruction associated 

with proposed treatments (cable logging) would likely decrease water quality, increase water 

temperature, create barriers to dispersal and increase conflicts with beaver and road 

maintenance. Additional access would increase predation and trapping. Treatments in this 

alternative would reduce the potential for stand replacing fire more so compared to 

Alternatives A and B, thus reducing its subsequent negative effects to riparian function and 

condition. In the absence of fire, Alternative C would maintain and improve riparian and 

stream conditions but would add more negative effects to riparian communities compared to 

Alternatives A and B. Therefore, this alternative would have the least beneficial effect on the 

beaver and song sparrow species and their habitat. 

Conclusions for Riparian/Aquatic MIS Species 

Riparian dependent species would benefit most from Alternative A. Implementation of 

Alternatives B and C would follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines and contribute to 

riparian stability or improvement. All alternatives would meet the intent of MIS Objective 

238a to maintain habitat for beaver and the song sparrow. Therefore, 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. 

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

The grasshopper sparrow has dual management status, it is both an MIS and a R2 sensitive 

species. To reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and predicted effects 

information are provided in the Pactola Project Wildlife BA/BE. Only MIS-specific 

documentation requirements are provided here (e.g., trend information, analysis of Objective 

238). Forest Plan Objectives that most closely apply to the grasshopper sparrow are 205, 218, 

221, 230, 231, and 238. Objective 205 provides direction to manage for 122,000 acres of 

prairie grassland and 3,600 acres of meadow. Forest Plan Standards 1110, 2107, 2412, 2417, 

4111, 4301-4302, 3125, and 9204 would be applicable to this species. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 204

In the Black Hills, this species is found mostly in native mixed-grass prairies, but is 

documented in other types of grasslands (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2010, 

Vickery 1996). This species appears to be “area sensitive” (>30 ha.), with a close association 

with grasslands of intermediate height. Threats to this species are habitat loss due to conifer 

encroachment, habitat fragmentation, and habitat degradation from grazing and fire regimes 

that often fail to replicate the natural dynamics under which these species and their habitat 

evolved (Slater 2004, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

According to the FPMER, density estimates for the grasshopper sparrow have continued to 

increase since 2002. Grassland cover types are currently below management objectives. The 

general perception is that grassland habitats have been declining due to pine encroachment. 

However, for the ten-year monitoring period, grassland acreages have shown an increase then a 

decrease that is likely explained by inconsistencies in what cover types have been queried in 

the vegetation database not reflecting on the ground conditions which may have only changed 

slightly. The Forest is maintaining existing grassland habitat consistent with Objective 238a 

and additional time and effort is needed to achieve the grassland acreage identified in 

Objective 205 (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In Pactola Project Area, there are approximately 394 acres of grassland communities. 

Additional acres of grassland probably exist, especially on soils that have formed under grass. 

The grasshopper sparrow has been documented adjacent to the area. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Grasshopper Sparrow 

There are no direct effects to the grasshopper sparrow expected under this alternative. Indirect 

effects to grasshopper sparrow habitat could reduce the productivity and availability of native 

grassland habitat due to fire suppression and pine encroachment. However, due to anticipated 

MPB mortality, there is a greater potential for grassland habitat to expand. This alternative has 

a higher potential for stand replacing fire which would greatly add to the amount and size of 

grassland habitat. However, depending on the severity and intensity of the fire, native plant 

composition could change which could negatively affect grasshopper sparrow foraging and 

nesting habitat, especially if invasive species spread. In the absence of fire, this alternative 

would provide habitat for this grassland species to a greater degree compared to the action 

alternatives and indirectly contribute to meeting Objective 205 long-term. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Grasshopper Sparrow

Direct effects to grasshopper sparrows may include potential mortality from nest destruction, 

loss of eggs or chicks or nest abandonment associated with disturbance caused by treatment 

activities. In the absence of fire, treatments that maintain grassland would increase 

grasshopper sparrow habitat slightly (see Grassland habitat discussion), but for the most part 

maintain a pine overstory. Additional pine mortality caused by MPB would have similar 

effects as Alternative A. Treatments and associated activities would increase the potential for 

invasive species to spread which could change plant community composition in grassland 

habitats, especially if large areas are disturbed in or adjacent to native grass communities. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 205

Alternative B reduces the potential for stand replacing fire, reducing the potential for grassland 

habitat expansion compared to Alternative A. This alternative would contribute directly to 

meeting Objective 205, thus increase habitat for the grasshopper sparrow. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Grasshopper Sparrow 

Direct and indirect effects to the grasshopper sparrow and its habitat are similar to those 

discussed in Alternative B. An increase in treated areas, along with increase in disturbance 

associated with treatments and roads increase the potential for invasive species spread which 

would likely reduce productivity and availability of native grasslands. As with Alternative B, 

treatments would reduce the potential for stand replacing fire, reducing the potential for 

grassland habitat expansion from fire when compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would 

directly contribute to meeting Objective 205, thus increasing habitat for the grasshopper sparrow. 

Conclusion for Grasshopper Sparrow 

None of the alternatives would take action to decrease the amount of meadows. All alternatives, 

either directly or indirectly have the potential to contribute to meeting Forest Plan Objective 205. 

Grassland dependent species such as the grasshopper sparrow would benefit most from

Alternative A. Implementation of Alternatives B and C would follow Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines to maintain the integrity of native grassland communities. All alternatives would 

meet the intent of MIS Objective 238a to maintain habitat for the grasshopper sparrow. 

Therefore, none of the alternatives would influence the Forest-wide population trend, Forestwide habitat trend, or attainment of Objective 238, therefore this species is likely to persist 

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

The Forest Plan Objectives that most closely apply to ruffed grouse are 201, 213, 217, and 238. 

Objective 201 encourages the Forest to provide at least 92,000 acres of aspen and 16,000 acres 

of bur oak. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 2107, 2202, and 2205 would be applicable to 

maintaining habitat for this species. 

Ruffed grouse are widespread throughout the Black Hills, but occur in low abundance. This 

species is associated with hardwoods in a variety of age classes, including mature aspen stands 

used for drumming. Although found in conifers and hardwoods, this species is closely tied to 

aspen communities, relying on aspen buds and catkins in winter and spring, respectively. They 

typically nest at the base of a tree, bush, or stump. During the breeding season, drumming 

areas and broods are found in forests with a tall, dense understory of shrubs and abundant 

ground cover (Wiggins 2006a). Threats that affect grouse populations include a lack of mixedseral stage forest habitat, degradation of existing habitat due to fire suppression, and 

overgrazing by ungulates, and perturbations to local hydrology (Wiggins 2006a). The ruffed 

grouse is classified as an upland game bird with an annual hunting season between September 

and January (South Dakota Game Fish and Parks 2010b). 

According to FPMER, the long-term habitat trend for ruffed grouse is one of decline given the 

reduction of aspen acreage compared to historic conditions. This has likely resulted in an 

associated population decline for ruffed grouse. Loss of aspen habitat is attributed to 

decadence of stands, to conifer encroachment and lack of periodic natural fire that would 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 206

stimulate regeneration and suckering. Stands dominated by aspen currently occupy 

approximately 45,805 acres on the Forest. There has been a slight increase in aspen acres since 

1997. The Forest continues to meet Objective 238a by maintaining aspen habitat. Additional 

time and effort would be needed to increase aspen acreage. Monitoring protocol specific to 

ruffed grouse has been developed (Hansen et al. 2008). During this study, baseline estimates 

indicate probability of occupancy 0.111 in suitable habitat Forest-wide. Implementation of 

ruffed grouse monitoring protocol should allow for the detection of long-term population trend 

(USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project, there are approximately 938 acres dominated by aspen. Ruffed grouse 

has been documented in the Pactola Project Area mostly in hardwoods and mixed conifer 

communities. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Ruffed Grouse 

There are no direct effects to ruffed grouse expected under this alternative. Alternative A 

would implement no hardwood retention/restoration treatments. Indirectly expected pine 

mortality caused by epidemic population levels of MPB would increase understory structure, 

hardwood communities and a mix of seral stages more so than the action alternatives (see 

Ponderosa Pine, Spruce, and Hardwood sections). This type of habitat would benefit rearing 

of broods, increase food items, and would provide more cover. Course woody debris would 

be higher, providing drumming logs but could also hide predators thus increasing predation 

rates. Due to the increased fuel hazard caused by the effects of MPB, there is higher 

potential for stand replacing fire. This type of fire usually increases expansion of aspen more 

so than silviculture treatments but could limit use of these areas due to a lack of cover and 

limited food items short-term. In the absence of fire, pine regeneration and encroachment 

would eventually out-compete hardwood communities and understory habitat components 

beneficial to ruffed grouse long-term. Spruce communities would increase in the absence of 

fire. This alternative would benefit this species more so than the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Ruffed Grouse

Direct effects to ruffed grouse may include potential mortality from loss of nest, eggs, or 

chicks or nest abandonment caused by disturbance associated with treatment activities. A 

reduction in pine overstory and proposed hardwood retention and restoration treatments would 

increase aspen communities in the project area but to a lesser degree compared to Alternatives 

A and C. However, as pine canopy closes and regeneration occurs, competition between 

hardwood components and pine would reduce hardwood communities. Proposed treatments in 

addition to continued mortality caused by MPB would not provide a mix of seral stages in pine

necessary for ruffed grouse short-term, but could provide habitat long-term if future treatments 

of the area focuses on increasing heterogeneity across the landscape. Prescribed burning 

would increase suckering and expansion of aspen in burned areas. However, CWD would be 

reduced by both prescribed fire and whole-tree harvest methods which could affect drumming 

areas. Increased access provided by roads could increase predation and hunting. Spruce would 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 207

be slightly reduced by proposed treatments. Due to open canopies spruce would have limited 

expansion potential. There would be less potential for stand replacing fire, therefore expansion 

of aspen would be less than compared to Alternative A. In the absence of fire, this alternative 

would be less beneficial to ruffed grouse compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Ruffed Grouse 

Direct and indirect effects are similar to those discussed in Alternative B but effects would be 

greater due to more area being treated. Treatments that would enhance and expand hardwood 

communities would increase this species habitat more than Alternative B. In addition, loss of 

pine overstory through treatments and additional mortality caused by MPB would increase 

aspen understory component in the project area more so than Alternative B. However, 

proposed treatment and MPB effects would not provide a mix of seral stages in pine necessary 

for ruffed grouse short-term. As with Alternative B, this mix of seral stages could increase 

through future treatments that focus on creating heterogeneity across the landscape. Increased 

access provided by roads could increase predation and hunting far more than Alternative B. As 

with Alternative B, there would be less potential for stand replacing fire, therefore expansion 

of aspen would be less than compared to Alternative A. In the absence of fire, this alternative 

would less beneficial to ruffed grouse compared to Alternative A, but more habitats would be 

provided compared to Alternative B. 

Conclusion for Ruffed Grouse 

Ruffed grouse species would benefit most from Alternative A. However, the Phase II 

Amendment FEIS determined that there would be adequate habitat to maintain a viable

population of ruffed grouse if standards and guidelines are followed, and if conditions move

towards hardwood restoration objectives. Implementation of Alternatives B and C would 

follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to maintain the integrity of aspen and other 

hardwood communities (Objective 201). All alternatives would meet the intent of MIS 

Objective 238a to maintain habitat for ruffed grouse. Therefore, none of the alternatives would 

influence the Forest-wide population trend, Forest-wide habitat trend, or attainment of 

Objective 238, therefore this species is likely to persist 

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

The Forest Plan objectives that most closely applies to white-tailed deer are 201, 203, 204, 205, 

213, 217, 238a, 5.1-202 through 5.1-204, 5.4-206, 5.4-207, and 8.2-203, which encourages the 

Forest to provide habitat species diversity, vegetative mosaic of natural and created openings, a 

variety of stand structures and to limit disturbance during critical months. However, 

Objectives 10-4 and 10-7 which reduces fire and insect hazard for areas with MPB would 

supersede MA objectives for pine at the project scale. Ponderosa pine structural stages provide 

a variety of habitat components for this species. Structural stages 1, 2, 3A, and 4A provide 

foraging habitat. Structural stages 3C, 4C, and 5 provide areas for cover habitat. Intermediate 

cover/forage habitat is provided by structural stages 3B and 4B. White-tailed deer utilize all of 

the pine structural stages, depending on summer and winter habitat needs. Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines 1301, 2101-2107, 2202, 2205, 2207, 3202, 3203, 3210-3212, 4111, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 208

4107, 4201, 4206, 4301-4303, 4306, 9101, 9204 and 5.4-3201, 5.4-4101, 5.4-4102, 5.4-5101, 

and 5.4-9102 would maintain or enhance habitat for this species. 

White-tailed deer are year-round residents in the Black Hills. Hardwood forests, meadows, 

and riparian areas are particularly important because these are the sites that produce the most 

forage (e.g., grasses, aspen, and various shrubs). This species may utilize different areas 

during the summer and winter months, especially if snow pack prevents access to an adequate 

food supply (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Hardwood stands of aspen and birch are prominent

features in white-tailed deer’s selection of home ranges and their use of sites within these 

ranges (SAIC 2003, Sieg and Seversen 1996). Kennedy (1992) suggested aspen stands are 

highly selected during fawning. Suitable deer habitat should have quality forage (tall forbs and 

shrubs) in adequate quantities in close proximity to cover (protection from weather and 

predators) and water within home ranges. These requirements become important on winter 

range and transitory range (SAIC 2003). However, there is no indication that these resources 

are limiting (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Effects to these habitat components have been 

discussed above (See Ponderosa Pine, Hardwoods, Grasslands, and Riparian sections in this

document). This species is considered big game in South Dakota, with yearly harvest 

objectives set by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP 2010). 

According to the FPMER, the most recent Black Hills South Dakota population estimate is 

approximately 43,000 deer (Huxoll 2010). Forest Plan Objective 217 supports habitat for 

management of 60,000 deer in the Black Hills, which matches state population objectives. The 

Forest-wide habitat trend is stable or increasing. Open habitat that provides forage is increasing 

and screening cover is stable. The Forest is meeting Objective 217 and Objective 238 based on 

white-tailed deer habitat and population trends (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

The current MPB epidemic would likely affect white-tailed deer habitat. While there is a great 

deal of information on the effects of the mountain pine beetle on forest health, little is known 

about the effects of this infestation on wild ungulate populations. It is assumed that as trees 

die, pine needles and trees begin to fall, this would lead to an increase in forest understory 

growth, and foraging habitat (Uresk and Seversen 1998, Sieg and Seversen 1996). As more 

trees die, the loss of thermal cover would occur. Depending on the length and duration of the 

current MPB outbreak, the effects could be similar to those caused by a stand replacing event 

such as fire. However, the difference between wildfire and MPB epidemic conditions is that 

hiding cover is not expected to change drastically, especially due to the prolific regeneration of 

pine that is likely to occur (Uresk and Severson 1998). The amount of CWD and slash could 

impede big game forage use temporarily. However, the loss of cover/forage juxtaposition may 

change big game behavior and use of habitats (Rumble et al. 2005, Millspaugh et al. 2000). A

stand replacing fire could further change big game habitat availability and use. 

Big game can be sensitive to disturbance such as road traffic and associated recreational use, 

which may restrict the use of some habitats (Stubblefield et al. 2006, Rumble et al. 2005, 

Wisdom et al. 2004, Millspaugh et al. 2000). The more extensive loss of cover especially in 

roaded areas increases the potential for human caused disturbance and predation which could 

affect winter survival and fawn recruitment. Therefore, reducing disturbance to big game 

during critical periods (winter) becomes more critical (Millspaugh et al. 2000). In areas where 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 209

cover is lost, big game would likely use a combination of shrubs, topography, and areas of low 

human disturbance to meet their requirements for hiding and thermal cover (Stubblefield et al. 

2006, Sawyer et al. 2006). 

Very little is known on the effects of cable or helicopter logging on big game, especially deer. 

Some studies suggest that animals may respond differently to a human caused noise stimulus 

associated with perceived predation risk (Frid and Dill 2002, Stankowich 2008). Elk, bighorn 

sheep, and mountain goats appear to be more sensitive to disturbance. Factors that influence 

movement and avoidance may include predictability, frequency and magnitude, timing, and 

location of the disturbance (Knight and Cole1995). A sudden, fast approaching stimuli coming

from above such as low flying aircraft may illicit a different response compared to a slow 

moving stimuli such as a hiker walking up a hill. Increased vigilance resulting from 

disturbance may reduce the physiological fitness of disturbed animals by increasing stress, 

increased movement costs and reducing time spent foraging (Hurley 2004). 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines recognizes potential human disturbance by limiting access, 

provide cover/forage juxtaposition, and screening cover along at least 20% of arterial and 

collector roads. Roads/trail density open to motorized travel in the Pactola Project Area is 1.6 

mi/mi2. During the winter, road/trail density open to motorized travel is reduced to 0.9 mi/mi2. 

Objective 5.4-207 directs the forest to manage open road density of 1 mi/mi2 or less for public 

travel from December 15 through May 15 to reduce human interaction during critical months. 

Standard 5.4-9101 and Guideline 5.4- 9102 provide additional direction pertaining to 

transportation and travel, restricting travel within certain areas of MA 5.4 between December 15 

through May 15. Although motorized use is outside the scope of the Pactola Project, access 

created or improved to meet treatment objectives would improve access for humans, livestock 

(forage competitors), and predators that would affect big game. 

The Pactola Project is used year-round by white-tailed deer, although many deer migrate to 

traditional winter range in August. Management Area 5.4 is managed to provide winter range 

habitat for big game. Forested stands provide 22% of provide screening cover along arterial 

and collector roads in Pactola Project Area (see Appendix E-Maps). Topography along these 

roads (>30% slopes) would add additional screening cover (28%). The analysis determined 

that through vegetation and topography combined, screening cover is 48%. This demonstrates 

that Guideline 3203 is being exceeded. 

Alternative A - No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to White-tailed Deer 

There are no direct effects to white-tailed deer expected under this alternative. Alternative A 

would implement no hardwood retention/restoration treatments or build additional roads. 

Indirectly expected pine mortality caused by epidemic population levels of MPB would increase 

understory structure, hardwood communities, and a mix of seral stages more so than the action 

alternatives (see Ponderosa Pine, Hardwood, and Riparian sections). This type of habitat would 

benefit rearing of fawns, increase forage availability and provide hiding cover. However, the 

loss of overstory would reduce thermal cover. Juxtaposition of cover/forage habitat would limit 

big game use in large portions of the area especially where there is a greater potential for human 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 210

contact. Course woody debris would be higher, which could restrict access to forage and hide 

predators thus increasing predation rates. Due to the increased fuel hazard, there is higher 

potential for stand replacing fire. This type of fire usually increases expansion of aspen more so 

than silviculture treatments. In the absence of fire, pine regeneration and encroachment would 

eventually out-compete hardwood communities and understory habitat components beneficial to 

white-tailed deer. Spruce communities would likely increase in the absence of fire and would 

provide cover. This alternative does not increase roads/trails but loss of cover in roaded areas 

could increase human disturbance and predation. In the absence of fire, this alternative would 

benefit white-tailed deer more so than the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to White-tailed Deer

Direct effects to white-tailed deer due vegetative treatment are not expected. Reduced pine 

overstory and proposed hardwood retention and restoration treatments would increase aspen 

communities in the project area but to a lesser degree compared to Alternatives A and C. To 

access treatment areas, additional roads would be needed. Proposed treatments in addition to 

mortality caused by MPB would not provide a mix of seral stages in pine necessary for whitetailed deer short-term. There is a potential to provide habitat long-term if future treatments in 

the area focuses on increasing stand heterogeneity and effectiveness of habitat across the 

project area. Road side treatments would reduce forested stand screening cover to 7%, but 

maintain screening cover (31%) along arterial and collector roads. Loss of cover (hiding and 

thermal) would occur in an effort to reduce fire and MPB hazard that could decrease energy 

reserves. Prescribed burning would increase and improve palatability of browse species (e.g., 

aspen, chokecherry) and forage availability in portion of big game winter range. Course 

woody debris would be reduced by both prescribed fire and whole-tree harvest methods which 

could improve access to foraging areas. Spruce stands would be slightly reduced by proposed 

treatments but due to open stand conditions, spruce would not expand. There would be less 

potential for stand replacing fire, therefore expansion of aspen and grasslands would be less 

compared to Alternative A. Total road density would increase slightly, but new roads would 

be closed to motorized travel once treatment activities are completed. New roads/trails would 

increase the potential for livestock use, predation, and human disturbance to areas previously 

not accessible. In the absence of fire, this alternative would be less beneficial to white-tailed 

deer compared to Alternative A, but more beneficial compared to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to White-tailed Deer

Direct effects to white-tailed deer due vegetative treatment are not expected, but could occur if 

flight response to helicopter activity causes death (e.g., loss of footing). Indirect effects to 

white-tailed deer would be similar to Alternative B. However, more area is treated therefore 

effects would be greater. Alternative C would have the greatest effect on ponderosa pine 

structural stages compared to the other alternatives which would affect white-tailed deer use in 

the area short-term but could provide habitat long-term. Prescribed burning would increase 

and improve palatability of browse species (e.g., aspen, chokecherry) and forage availability in 

portions of big game winter range. Additional road side treatments would reduce forested 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 211

stand screening cover to 5 %, but maintain screening cover (31%) along arterial and collector 

roads. More open stands with little escape cover increases susceptibility to predation and 

hunting especially if access is improved. Cable logging could have a varied effect on big game 

populations. For the most part big game would likely become less affected by the disturbance 

as they adapt to a predicted disturbance stimuli. The amount of new roads constructed for 

cable logging in previously inaccessible areas would greatly increase the potential for livestock 

forage use, predation, and human disturbance that could affect big game especially if escape 

cover is not available. Helicopter logging effects to big game would be dependent on the area 

of disturbance, flight levels, approach patterns, and length of disturbance. However, helicopter 

logging would not have the long-term effects associated with new access. Total road density 

would increase appreciably, but new roads would be closed to motorized travel once treatment 

activities are completed. In the absence of fire, this alternative would be less beneficial to 

white-tailed deer compared to Alternatives A and B. 

Conclusion for White-tailed Deer 

All alternatives would slightly affect Forest-wide pine structural stage habitat (1%). All 

alternatives would reduce cover by varying degrees that would affect use patterns at the 

project scale. Implementation of Alternatives B and C would follow Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines to maintain the integrity of big game habitat communities and 

reduce the effect of human disturbance. Therefore, none of the alternatives would 

influence the Forest-wide population trend, Forest-wide habitat trend, or attainment of 

Objective 238, therefore this species is likely to persist. 

Species of Local Concern 

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. A list of SOLC for the Black Hills 

National Forest can be found in FSM 2620, Supplement r2_bh_2600-2005-1. The Phase II 

Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a; Sec 3-3.3.3 through Sec 3-3.3.5.8) provides 

in-depth information (e.g., range, distribution, etc.) on Forest SOLC analyzed for the Pactola 

Project. The Pactola Project analysis for SOLC is tiered to that document, which is 

summarized in each species section. The most relevant Forest Plan Objective for SOLC is 

Objective 221 which directs the BHNF to “conserve or enhance habitat” for SOLC and to 

maintain long-term persistence forest-wide. There are no specific Standards or Guidelines to 

further direct attainment of the objective for the SOLC group as a whole. However, speciesspecific guidance would be addressed as appropriate below. If a species is known or

suspected to occur in the project area or if suitable, but unoccupied habitat is present or

adjacent to the area, then the species has been evaluated with respect to effects of the 

proposed project activities. Table 3-31 below the list of SOLC, whether they are present or if 

suitable habitat is found in the Pactola Project and a summary of their habitat requirements. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 212

Table 3-31 Species of Local Concern of the Black Hills, South Dakota

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present 

Habitat Requirements 

Long eared Myotis 

(Myotis evotis) Yes Yes 

Mostly coniferous montane habitats, uses large 

snags, caves, mines, abandoned buildings as 

maternity/hibernacula, also roosts in 

abandoned mines and buildings, rock crevices, 

and under bark. No known hibernacula in 

Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Long-legged Myotis 

(Myotis volans) Yes Yes 

Primarily in montane coniferous forests, uses 

caves, mines, and snags as 

maternity/hibernacula, also roosts in 

abandoned buildings, rock crevices, and under 

bark (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Northern Myotis 

(Myotis septentrionalis) Yes Yes 

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest. Hibernates in 

caves and mines. Maternity and day roosts in 

snags, buildings, caves and mines (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Small Footed Myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum) Yes Yes 

Variable habitats, but usually associated with 

rocky areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, 

ridges, cliffs and major rock outcrops. Roosts 

include mines, caves, rock features, and under 

bark (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonicus 

campestris) 

Yes Yes 

Strongly associated with riparian habitats along 

small streams in meadows (Cryan and Ellison 

2005). Found throughout the Black Hills of 

Wyoming and South Dakota (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Mountain Goat 

(Oreamnos 

americanus) 

No Yes 

Rugged terrain with cliffs, rock faces, ledges, 

and talus slopes, typically in higher elevations 

of the BHNF. Limited primarily to Black Elk 

Wilderness Area and Norbeck Wildlife 

Preserve (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Northern Flying 

Squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) 

Yes Yes 

Dense ponderosa pine and mixed 

coniferous/deciduous forest, roosts in cavities 

or builds nests. Most often associated with cool 

moist habitat with abundant snags. Large 

openings may inhibit gliding (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

American Dipper 

(Cinclus mexicanus) Yes Yes 

Clear, fast-flowing streams, feeds on aquatic 

insects and insect larvae. Nests adjacent to 

streams on rocky ledges, cliffs, and under 

bridges. Limited primarily to Spearfish and 

Rapid Creeks in the BHNF (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 213

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present 

Habitat Requirements 

Black and White 

Warbler 

(Mniotilta varia) 

No No 

Prefers mature and second growth deciduous 

and mixed deciduous coniferous forest with 

dense understory of shrubs/trees (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). Limited primarily to the 

foothills in the BHNF (Tallman et al. 2002). 

Broad-winged Hawk 

(Buteo platypterus) No Yes 

Found primarily in mixed ponderosa pine and 

deciduous habitats. Nesting in SS4B, SS4C, 

and SS5 (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Cooper’s Hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii) Yes Yes 

Found in ponderosa pine, spruce, shrublands 

and burned areas. Nests in mature riparian, 

conifer, and aspen forests with moderate to 

high canopy closure. Associated with SS3C, 

SS4B, SS4C, and SS5 (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Northern Saw-whet 

Owl 

(Aegolius acadicus) 

Yes Yes 

Prefers dense coniferous or mixed forest for 

nesting habitat. Dense sapling-pole sized 

stands are preferred for roosting, also 

associated with riparian habitats (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Pygmy Nuthatch 

(Sitta pygmaea) No Yes 

Prefers relatively open canopied, very mature 

undisturbed ponderosa pine forests with large 

trees and abundant large diameter snags 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). Communal 

winter roosts in large diameter snags 

(Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk 

(Accipiter striatus) Yes Yes 

Forages in a variety of dense forest habitats. 

Nesting habitat typically restricted to dense 

young conifer stands such as SS3B and SS3C 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Atlantis Fritillary 

(Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapa) 

Yes Yes 

Riparian areas adjacent to openings and moist 

meadows in boreal forests in Pennington, 

Custer, and Lawrence Co. Larvae of this genus 

feed exclusively on violets (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Tawny Crescent 

(Phycoides batesii) Yes Yes 

Open meadows, riparian wet meadows, and 

woodlands that provide diverse floral nectar 

species such as dogbane and composite 

flowers. Larvae feed mostly on asters (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). 

Callused Vertigo 

(Vertigo arthuri) Yes Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous habitats mixed with 

hardwoods, exhibiting a deep litter layer and 

down woody material (DWM). Most sites are 

associated with limestone substrates, but have 

been found in other soil types. Forages on 

decayed deciduous leaves and herbaceous 

plants (USDA Forest Service 2005a). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 214

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

Species 

Present 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present 

Habitat Requirements 

Cockrell’s Striate Disc 

(Discus shemekii) No Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous habitats mixed with 

hardwoods, exhibiting a deep litter layer and 

DWM. Often bordering or ranging slightly into 

stream floodplains. Most sites are associated 

with limestone substrates, but have been found 

in other soil types. Forages on decayed 

deciduous leaves and herbaceous plants 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

Frigid Ambersnail 

(Catinella gelida) No No 

Duff specialist usually associated with 

limestone soils. Moist to dry coniferous forest 

with a deep litter layer, DWM, and deciduous 

tree/shrub understory. (USDA Forest Service 

2005a). 

Mystery Vertigo 

(Vertigo paradoxa) No Yes 

Moist shaded coniferous forest mixed with 

hardwoods, exhibiting a deep litter layer and 

DWM. Most sites are associated with 

limestone substrates, but have been found in 

other soil types. Forages on decayed deciduous 

leaves and herbaceous plants (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). 

Predatory Species 

The following species all prey upon small mammals or birds that are dependent on the lower 

vegetative strata and are analyzed together in this section: broad-winged hawk, Cooper’s hawk, 

northern saw-whet owl and sharp-shinned hawk. Overstory vegetation is an important factor in 

these species foraging strategies in that it allows these species to remain unseen by prey. The 

more open the stand, the higher the potential to be observed. Predation may increase due to 

lack of cover. Since much of these species habitat is associated with pine structural stages, 

analysis is tiered to the Pactola Project Silviculture Report. A discussion of the effects of MPB 

to these communities can be found in the Habitat Communities and Habitat Component 

Sections of this section and the Vegetation Section for information on structural stages. 

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) 

The broad-winged hawk is the most common woodland hawk throughout its range, but is rare 

in the Black Hills. In the Black Hills, this bird is associated with ponderosa pine in mixed pine 

and deciduous habitats, occasionally with a white-spruce component. The Forest’s bird 

monitoring program has recorded this species mostly in the Bearlodge Mountains and the 

northern Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2010c). An active broad-winged hawk nest was 

found near Reno Gulch, making this pair the southernmost extent of this species’ distribution 

in the Black Hills. This hawk hunts in a diversity of habitats, taking primarily a variety of 

small to mid-sized birds and mammals, but it is also an opportunistic raptor, and would feed on 

amphibians, reptiles, and insects. The primary risk factor for this species appears to be habitat 

alteration or loss that decreases nest site availability (Stephens and Anderson 2003). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 215

According to FPMER, the highest number of broad-winged hawks occurred in 2004 in aspen 

habitat but this species has been documented in other habitats. Broad-winged hawk pine 

habitat is quantified as structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5, especially with “very large” tree size. 

Forest MAs are moving towards objectives in pine structural stage 5, but meet or exceed 

Forest Plan Objectives for 4B and 4C. The Forest is above large tree objectives for MA 5.1 

(13%), but slightly below this objective in MA 5.4 (9%). Aspen habitat is currently below 

Forest Plan objective 201 (45,805 acres). Spruce habitat is above Forest Plan Objective 

(25,749 acres). Progress is being made towards meeting Forest Plan Objectives for pine 

structural stages and aspen, though it may take some time to achieve the desired amounts of 

some structural stage habitat to meet this species needs (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project Area, in MAs 5.1 and 5.4, there are approximately 49% in pine structural 

stages 4B, 4C, and 5. In the project area, 1% is typed as spruce. Additional mature pine is 

available in the other MAs that would provide habitat for this species. Other habitats that pertain 

to the broad-winged hawk are addressed in the Very Large Tree, Snag, Aspen, and Riparian 

sections of this document. This species has not been documented in the Pactola Project Area. 

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

The Cooper’s hawk is uncommon, but well-distributed in the Black Hills. This species is 

considered a habitat generalist, requiring mature forest with 60-90% canopy closure for 

nesting. This hawk usually nests in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests. Nest tree diameters 

are typically smaller than goshawk nest trees, although Cooper’s hawks appear to select trees 

larger than what is randomly available. This hawk hunts in a diversity of habitats, taking a 

variety of small to mid-sized birds and mammals. In general, the species is more tolerant of 

human presence and habitat fragmentation than other accipiters. Habitat loss or alteration, 

predation, and prey availability appear to be the most threat to this species’ persistence 

(Stephens and Anderson 2002, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

According to FPMER, Cooper’s hawk was not detected during bird monitoring surveys in 

2009. However, in the past this species has been detected in all major habitats, with no affinity 

to one particular habitat. Cooper’s hawk pine habitat is quantified as structural stages 4B, 4C, 

and 5, especially with “very large” tree size. Forest MAs are moving towards objectives in 

pine structural stage 5, but meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives for structural stages 4B and 

4C. The Forest is above large tree objectives for MA 5.1 (13%), but slightly below this

objective in MA 5.4 (9%). Aspen habitat is currently below Forest Plan Objective 201 (45,805 

acres). Spruce habitat is above Forest Plan Objective 239-LVD (25,749 acres). Progress is 

being made towards meeting Forest Plan Objectives for pine structural stages and aspen, 

though it may take some time to achieve the desired amounts of some structural stage habitat to 

meet this species needs (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project Area, in MAs 5.1 and 5.4, there are approximately 49% in pine structural 

stages 4B, 4C, and 5. Additional mature pine is available in the other MAs that would provide

habitat for this species. In the project area there is 4% typed as aspen and 1% typed as spruce. 

Other habitats that pertain to the Cooper’s hawk are addressed in the Very Large Tree, Snag, 

Aspen, and Riparian sections of this document. This species has been documented foraging 

and nesting in the Pactola Project Area. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 216

Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) 

There are few documented observations of the northern saw-whet owl in the Black Hills, but 

this may be attributable more to its nocturnal habits than to actual demographics. The sawwhet is considered a habitat generalist usually found in coniferous and riparian forests. The 

species prefers mature forest, and selects large snag cavities excavated by primary cavity 

nesters (e.g., woodpeckers). Northern saw-whet owl pine habitat is quantified as structural 

stages 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5, especially with “very large” tree size, spruce, and aspen. The sawwhet owl often forages along forest edges, where it preys upon small mammals and birds. 

Limiting factors are availability of mature forests and nesting cavities (e.g., snags) within 

suitable breeding habitats (Johnson and Anderson 2003, USDA Forest Service 2005a). 

According to FPMER, northern saw-whet owls were not recorded during forest bird 

monitoring surveys in 2009. However, Drilling (2010) found that saw-whet owls are the most

common and widespread owl in the Black Hills. They were detected at 15% of all survey 

points and 93% of all routes and at all elevations and in all months. Forest MAs are moving

towards objectives in pine structural stage 5, but meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives for 

structural stages 4A, 4B, and 4C. The Forest is above large tree objectives for MA 5.1 (13%), 

but slightly below this objective in MA 5.4 (9%). Aspen habitat is currently below Forest Plan 

Objective 201 (45,805 acres). Spruce habitat is above Forest Plan Objective 239-LVD (25,749 

acres). Progress is being made towards meeting Forest Plan Objectives for pine structural 

stages and aspen, though it may take some time to achieve the desired amounts of some 

structural stage habitat to meet this species needs (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project Area in MAs 5.1 and 5.4, there is about 71% of mature pine. Additional 

mature pine is available in the other MAs that would provide habitat for this species. In the 

project area, there is 4% typed as aspen and 1% typed as spruce. Other habitats that pertain to 

the northern saw-whet owl are addressed in the Very Large Tree, Snag, Aspen, and Riparian 

sections of this document. This species has been documented along drainages the Pactola

Project Area (Drilling 2010). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

This hawk occurs widely within the Black Hills, but it is also one of the rarest hawks here. 

Only a few nests have been documented on the Forest, primarily in conifer stands. Conifer 

stands of young age, with high tree density and high canopy closure have all been identified as 

potentially important breeding habitat parameters range-wide. This equates to white spruce 

and ponderosa pine in structural stages 3B and 3C. Furthermore, mature aspen may be 

particularly important foraging habitat due to the high wildlife diversity that it supports. The 

sharp-shinned hawk preys upon numerous species of small animals and birds. It is thought that 

foraging habitat for this hawk is represented by a variety of different vegetation conditions, 

especially those that provide a diverse prey base within their territories. Habitat loss or 

alteration, predation, and prey availability appear to be the most threat to this species’ 

persistence (Stephens and Anderson 2002, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2010). 

According to FPMER, sharp-shinned hawk was detected during bird monitoring surveys in 

2009. However, this species is perhaps the rarest of the three forest accipiters and the 

Monitoring Breeding Bird Habitat (MBBH) program may not be adequate to effectively 

monitor this species. Forest MAs are moving towards objectives in pine structural stages 3B 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 217

and 3C, but are below Forest Plan Objectives for these pine stages (4.65% and 3.13% 

respectively). Spruce habitat is above Forest Plan Objective 239-LVD (25,749 acres). 

Progress is being made towards meeting Forest Plan Objectives for pine structural stages 

though it may take some time to achieve the desired amounts of some structural stage habitat to 

meet this species needs (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

In the Pactola Project Area, in MAs 5.1 and 5.4, there is 9% in pine structural stages 3B and 

3C. Additional pine habitat is available in the other MAs that would provide habitat for this 

species. In the project area 1% is typed as spruce. Other habitats that pertain to the sharpshinned hawk are addressed in the Ponderosa pine, Very Large Tree, Snag, Aspen, and 

Riparian sections of this document. This species has been documented foraging and nesting in 

the Pactola Project Area. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Predator Species 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on these species or its habitat. Indirectly, the MPB 

mortality would decrease pine structural stages that 3B, 3C, 4B, and 4C habitats. Based on 

predicted mortality caused by MPB, existing MAs 5.1 and 5.4 pine structural stages 3B and 3C 

would change from 17% to 9% and structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 would be reduced from 

49% to 12%. Effects could be greater depending on the duration of the MPB infestation and 

stand densities. This decrease would only have a 1% affect on these structural stages forestwide. Structural stage 4A would decrease from 32% to 23% as a result of MPB. MPB effects 

would improve stand heterogeneity that could be beneficial to these species long-term. Aspen 

component would increase due to lack of pine competition, improving prey abundance, but as 

pine regeneration becomes prolific, this component would start to decrease. In the absence of 

fire, spruce communities would increase providing stand heterogeneity. Indirect effects to the 

sharp-shinned hawk would be mostly short-term and would increase long-term (10-30 years) 

due to the high pine regeneration that occurs in the Black Hills and that MPB do not usually

infest trees less than 6 inch diameter. Growth of younger pine would also be stimulated by the 

loss of mature overstory. However for the other predator species that require large diameter 

trees and dense mature stand conditions, the effects of large scale mortality caused by MPB 

could affect habitat availability long-term. Loss of overstory, increase in snag component, and 

CWD would improve most prey species (e.g., woodpeckers, small mammals) availability 

short-term. However long-term, a reduction of CWD, snags, and increased pine regeneration 

could affect prey availability. Short-term, large openings created by MPB limit the predator 

species foraging habitat to the edges due to the potential for predation. A stand replacing fire 

could also affect habitat and prey availability long-term. In the absence of fire, this alternative 

would be the least beneficial for predatory species long-term. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Predator Species 

Potential direct effects to predator species include nest loss during reproductive period, death of 

chicks and or fledglings and nest abandonment associated with treatment activities. Treatments 

to reduce susceptibility to MPB attack in addition to mortality caused by MPB would reduce 

preferred pine structural stages more than Alternative A, to a lesser degree compared to 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 218

Alternative C. Alternative B would reduce MAs 5.1 and 5.4 pine structural stages 3B and 3C 

from 9% to 3% and structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 would be reduced from 12% to 6% compared 

to Alternative A. This decrease would only have a 1% affect on these structural stages forestwide. The beneficial effects would be to reduce susceptibility of MPB attack in remaining 

mature pine and would leave 46% vs. 23% (Alternative A) in structural stage 4A to provide pine

habitat for these species long-term. Effects could be greater depending on the duration of the 

MPB infestation and remaining stand densities. Untreated stands would be affected by MPB 

mortality and the effects to those stands would be similar to Alternative A. Aspen communities 

would increase benefiting broad-winged hawk and northern saw-whet owls, but as canopy

closure and stand density increases, this benefit would start to decrease. Spruce stands would be 

slightly affected by treatment but open canopies would limit spruce expansion. Short-term, 

nesting habitat for predator species would be marginal. Open forest conditions would be 

beneficial to these species hunting strategies but also increases their susceptibility to predation. 

Treatments to reduce fuel hazard would reduce snag densities and CWD, reducing prey habitat. 

Even aged treatments would reduce stand heterogeneity, which could have long-term effects on 

these species habitat. Prescribed burning may increase stand heterogeneity but could reduce 

nesting habitat and prey habitat. The potential for stand replacing fire is less likely to occur 

which would be beneficial in maintaining mature pine stands long-term. In the absence of 

wildfire, this alternative would be less beneficial to these predator species short-term, but would 

be more beneficial to these predator species long-term compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Predator Species 

Direct and indirect effects to predator species are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. However, more area would be treated so the loss of suitable habitat would be 

greater than compared to Alternatives A and B. Alternative C would reduce pine structural 

stages 3B and 3C from 9% to 2% and structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 would be reduced from 

12% to 5% in the project area compared to Alternative A. This decrease would only have a 1% 

affect on these species habitat forest-wide. The beneficial effects would be to reduce 

susceptibility of MPB attack in remaining mature pine leaving 50% vs. 23% (Alternative A) in 

structural stage 4A providing habitat long-term. Cable and helicopter logging systems could 

increase disturbance during nesting and cause abandonment. Roadside treatments would 

increase hardwoods, but a decrease in the conifer overstory could decrease effective foraging 

strategies (stealth) and increase owl predation. Treatments to reduce fuel hazard would reduce 

CWD, reducing prey abundance more so than Alternatives A and B. The potential for stand 

replacing fire is less likely to occur compared to Alternatives A and B. In the absence of 

wildfire, this alternative would be least beneficial for predator species compared to 

Alternatives A and B. 

Conclusion for Predatory Species 

All alternatives decrease pine structural stage habitat for these species short-term by varying 

degrees. 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 predatory 

species habitat at the Forest-wide scale. Therefore, it appears that all alternatives would be 

consistent with Objective 221; therefore these species are likely to persist.
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 219

Insectivore Species 

The following species are dependent on insects as prey items. Nesting and roosting habitat are 

important factors but prey abundance and availability are important in maintaining persistence. 

Therefore, the pygmy nuthatch, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, northern myotis, and 

small-footed myotis are analyzed together in this section. Since much of these species habitat 

is associated with pine structural stages, analysis is tiered to the discussion on structural stages 

in the Vegetation Section and the Pactola Project Silviculture Report. A discussion of the 

effects of MPB to these communities can be found in the Habitat Communities and Habitat 

Component sections in this document. 

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) 

The pygmy nuthatch is an uncommon resident in the Black Hills and has been documented in a 

variety of ponderosa pine habitats, as well as in spruce forests and recently burned areas. This 

nuthatch has been observed in late successional pine, but may not be limited to this habitat type 

in the Black Hills (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2010). This small bird is often 

associated with undisturbed old growth or mature pine stands. Large trees and snags (15-27” 

DBH) are preferred for nesting, foraging, and communal roosting. It is thought that mature 

pine forests with abundant big trees and snags provide good habitat in the Black Hills. This 

equates to pine stands having very large tree size (>16” DBH) in structural stages 4A, 4B, 4C, 

and 5. In addition, areas that have large snag densities such as burns and MPB affected areas 

could provide habitat for this nuthatch. Limiting factors appear to be loss of available large 

diameter snags for nesting and roosting habitat and availability of productive foraging habitat 

(Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). The nuthatch feeds on ants, wasps, moths, beetles, 

grasshoppers, spiders, and pine seeds. 

According to FPMER, the highest number of occurrences of pygmy nuthatch was recorded in 

2007, but the number detected fluctuates from year to year. Forest MAs are moving towards 

objectives in pine structural stage 5 but meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives for structural 

stages 4B and 4C. The Forest is above large tree Objectives for MA 5.1(13%), but slightly 

below this Objective in MA 5.4 (9%). Ponderosa pine structural stages are moving toward 

Forest Plan objectives and along with stable to increasing snag availability forest-wide, 

indicates that the Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat for the pygmy nuthatch (USDA 

Forest Service 2009c, 2010c). The pygmy nuthatch has not been recorded in the Pactola 

Project Area. 

SOLC Bats: Long-eared (Myotis evotis), Long-legged (Myotis volans), Northern (Myotis 

septentrionalis), and Small-footed (Myotis ciliolabrum)

Each of these bat species has similar limiting factors, response to management actions, and 

applicable Forest Plan direction. Because of this, they are summarized here as a group, with 

major similarities and differences discussed below. 

All four SOLC bats appear to be widely distributed throughout the Black Hills region (Tigner 

and Stukel 2003). Abundance varies between the species, the long-legged myotis may be the 

most common in the Black Hills, and the long-eared myotis is probably the least common. All

four bats utilize coniferous and mixed coniferous/deciduous forests in the Black Hills and in 

other parts of their ranges. Mature conifer forests with abundant big trees and snags provide 

good tree roosting habitat in the Black Hills. This equates to pine stands having very large tree 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 220

size (>16” DBH) in structural stages 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 and spruce communities. Roosts, 

considered the primary limiting factor, include very large trees (live and dead), caves, mines, 

and rocks. Roosts provide relatively stable temperatures and moisture patterns compared to 

nearby external environments (Schmidt 2003a-2003d, Tigner and Stukel 2003, USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). Flying insects, especially moths and beetles, are important prey items for 

these species. Grasslands and hardwoods provide for diverse understory components that 

attract prey species. Water sources, especially ponds are important to bats in that they attract 

abundant numbers of prey species. 

White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a disease responsible for unprecedented mortality in 45 species 

of hibernating bats in the northeastern United States. This previously unknown disease has spread 

very rapidly since its discovery in January 2007, and poses a considerable threat to hibernating 

bats throughout North America. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has drafted a National Plan 

to aid in detection of WNS and conservation efforts (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011g). In 

2010, Forest Service temporarily closed to the public, all caves and abandoned mines on USFS 

lands within the five-state Rocky Mountain Region to help slow the spread of WNS. Currently, 

little is known about WNS except that the fungus (G. destructans) is a common factor. It is 

unlikely that the proposed actions would have any impact on the spread of WNS. To date, 

hibernating bat species that are considered “cave species” have mostly been affected by WNS. 

Northern Myotis bats have been documented as being affected WNS. In January 2010, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to list the northern myotis as endangered and threatened. 

On June 29, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced their 90 day finding that listing 

of this species may be warranted (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011f). 

According to FPMER, Forest-wide monitoring suggests roost protection and snag availability 

are stable to increasing, therefore the Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat for the SOLC 

bats (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Forest MAs are moving towards objectives in pine 

structural stage 5, but meet or exceed Forest Plan Objectives for structural stages 4B and 4C. 

The Forest is above large tree Objectives for MA 5.1 (13%), but slightly below this Objective 

in MA 5.4 (9%) (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

Caves and mines (collectively termed “caverns” hereafter) are other important roost resources 

in the Black Hills. Although caverns are not as common as trees, they provide communal 

opportunities, meaning that any one suitable structure has the potential to host a greater number 

of bat species and individuals than any one tree typically does. Vegetation removal near 

cavern entrances could potentially change temperatures or air flow patterns within them 

(Tigner and Stukel 2003). Standards 3102 and 3207 mandates that microclimates be 

maintained in bat roosts. Implementing these standards would serve two purposes: ensuring 

that microclimates are maintained and preventing disturbance to roosting bats. 

Currently, there many abandoned mines known to house SOLC bats in the Pactola Project 

Area. Surveys indicate that most of the mines are used for night roosts and a few indicated 

maternity or hibernation sites. Several of the mines have collapsed since original surveys were 

completed in 1992(e.g., Diana and Edelweiss). None of the sites have been gated to protect 

habitat. Due to high recreation activity, most mines have been entered by the public which 

may affect bat use and may pose a safety risk. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 221

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Insectivores 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on these species or its habitat. Indirectly, MPB 

mortality would decrease pine structural stages that are currently in the moderate to high insect 

hazard, negatively affecting mature and late seral habitats. Based on predicted mortality 

caused by MPB, in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 existing pine structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 in the project 

area would be reduced from 49% to 12% and structural stage 4A would decrease from 32% to 

23%. This decrease would only have a 1% affect on these structural stages forest-wide. MPB 

effects to these species habitat could be greater depending on the duration of the infestation and 

stand densities. For these species, the loss of large diameter trees and dense mature stand 

conditions could affect habitat availability long-term. For the pygmy nuthatch, this loss of 

mature pine could also affect the availability of pine seeds as a food item. For SOLC bats, loss 

of vegetation adjacent to caverns could affect their microclimates making these caverns 

unsuitable for maternity and hibernation roosts. Grass/forb understory, aspen, and spruce 

communities would increase and improve prey availability. Snag densities would be greatest 

in this alternative compared to the action alternatives that would benefit these species shortterm as snags created by MPB would fall within five to ten years. Long-term, the lack of large 

mature pine, snag densities, and their availability would limit habitat needed by insectivore 

species. A stand replacing fire would provide prey habitat but could reduce the availability of 

water sources (ponds) that would affect foraging strategies of bats and further exacerbate the 

loss of large snags long-term. The loss of suitable habitat long-term makes this alternative the 

least favorable for the pygmy nuthatch and SOLC bats. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Insectivores 

Potential direct effects to SOLC insectivore species include loss of roost and nesting sites, death 

of pups and chicks and abandonment of nesting/roost sites associated with treatment activities. 

Treatments to reduce susceptibility to MPB attack in addition to mortality caused by MPB would 

reduce preferred pine structural stages more than Alternative A, to a lesser degree compared to 

Alternative C. Alternative B would reduce mature pine structural stages in the project area from 

12% to 6% compared to Alternative A. The beneficial effects would be to reduce susceptibility 

of MPB attack in remaining mature pine and would leave 46% vs. 23% (Alternative A) in 

structural stage 4A providing mature habitat long-term for these species. MPB effects to treated 

and untreated mature pine stands could be greater depending on the duration of the infestation 

and remaining stand densities. This decrease in mature pine in the project would only have a 1% 

affect on these structural stages forest-wide. Very large tree component would increase from 3% 

in Alternative A to 5%. Snag densities would remain high short-term, but are likely to decline 

after five to ten years. Treatments to reduce fuel hazard would reduce CWD compared to 

Alternative A, affecting prey abundance. The potential for stand replacing fire would be 

reduced, avoiding its negative effects to these species habitat long-term. Grass and aspen 

communities would increase due to treatment but as canopy closure and stand density increases, 

abundance would decrease. Spruce stands would slightly be affected by treatment. Short-term, 

this alternative would provide a mix of pine habitat to a lesser degree compared to Alternative A, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 222

but to a greater degree compared to Alternative C. Alternative B would be more beneficial for 

the pygmy nuthatch and SOLC bats long-term compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Insectivores 

Direct and indirect effects to these insectivore species are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. However, more area would be affected by vegetative treatment, so the effects 

would be greater. Alternative C would reduce pine structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 from 12% 

to 5% in the project area compared to Alternative A. This decrease would only have a 1% 

affect on these species habitat forest-wide. The beneficial effects would be to reduce 

susceptibility of MPB attack in remaining mature pine and would leave 50% vs. 23% 

(Alternative A) in structural stage 4A providing habitat long-term for these species. Roadside 

treatment would increase hardwood communities, but may also increase evapotranspiration of 

water sources that could affect bat foraging. Cable and/or helicopter logging systems would 

have similar effects to insectivore species as conventional logging systems. Areas that have 

not been treated in the past would lose some of their late-succession components (decay

processes) reducing preferred habitat long-term. Short-term this alternative would reduce 

preferred habitat compared to Alternatives A and B. This alternative would maintain mature 

overstory that would provide habitat for these species long-term. 

Conclusion for Insectivore Species 

None of the alternatives would notably decrease the amount of these species habitat at the 

Forest-wide scale. All of the alternatives would reduce preferred nesting/roosting habitat 

short-term. Alternatives B and C would maintain mature trees in treated areas increasing the 

potential for these species’ habitat to persist long-term. It appears that all alternatives would be 

consistent with Objective 221; therefore these species are likely to persist.

Riparian Dependent Species 

The following species are dependent on riparian habitat/vegetation, and are analyzed together 

in this section: meadow jumping mouse, Atlantis fritillary butterfly, tawny crescent butterfly, 

and the American dipper. These species require various aspects of maintaining water quantity 

and quality, healthy riparian communities that provide structural diversity. For further 

discussion on the effects to these species habitat, see the Pactola Project Watershed, Geology, 

and Soils Section and the Hardwood and Riparian Habitat Sections in this document. 

Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonicus campestris) 

This subspecies occurs in the Black Hills and its range is thought to be limited to mountainous 

portions of eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota (Cryan 2004, Cryan and Ellison 2005, 

King et al. 2006). This species was found to be relatively common in riparian habitat sampled in 

the Black Hills (Cryan and Ellison 2005). The meadow jumping mouse is strongly associated 

with riparian and meadow habitats that occur along small streams. A dense understory of 

deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs, and downed wood are often present. The mouse’s diet varies, 

and includes seeds, berries, leaves, buds, fungi, and insects. This dense, diverse understory 

requirement in riparian areas may limit the species’ distribution and abundance if these 

components are not available (Cryan 2004, Cryan and Ellison 2005, Duckwitz 2001). 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 223

According to FPMER, no Forest-wide monitoring data for the meadow jumping mouse or 

riparian resource condition (Objective 213) was collected in FY 2009. Implementation of

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and best management practices maintain riparian habitat 

Forest-wide, but probably at a level less than its full capability. Progress is being made in 

achieving Objective 214 (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Projects to restore riparian and 

wetland habitat or to rehabilitate stream reaches have increased in the last five years, which 

could partially indicate trend of jumping mouse habitat. These projects have a small positive 

influence on the habitat trend for these mice to meet the intent of Objective 221. Limited data 

suggest that the Forest is conserving habitat for the meadow jumping mouse (USDA Forest 

Service 2009c, 2010c). This species likely occurs in the Pactola Project Area since it was 

commonly found in riparian zones sampled (Cryan and Ellison 2005). 

SOLC Butterflies: Atlantis Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis pahasapa) and Tawny Crescent 

(Phycoides batesii) 

These two species have similar limiting factors, response to management actions, and applicable 

Forest Plan direction. Because of this, they are summarized here as a group. In South Dakota, 

both species are found only in the Black Hills. Both of these butterflies are associated with 

riparian areas, particularly when found adjacent to meadows. Specific plant species are important 

to each butterfly for nectar supplies and/or larval hosts. The Pahasapa fritillary is most dependent 

on violets, and the tawny crescent is most closely associated with smooth aster, dogbane, and 

other composites. These butterflies have been documented feeding on noxious weed species such 

as leafy spurge and Canadian thistle. Limiting factors include the loss of nectar and larval host 

species through habitat loss, herbicide treatments, and invasive species (Marrone 2002, 2005, 

2006, 2007). Stefanich (2001) hypothesized that the limiting factor in the Black Hills is the 

destruction of this butterfly’s habitat or isolation of colonies to the extent that populations are 

unable to disperse. Both butterflies have been documented in the Pactola Project Area. 

According to FPMER, no Forest-wide monitoring data regarding these butterflies or riparian 

resource condition (Objective 213) was collected in FY2009. Implementation of Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines and best management practices maintain riparian habitat Forestwide, but probably at a level less than its full capability. Progress is being made in achieving 

Objective 214. Projects to restore riparian and wetland habitat or to rehabilitate stream reaches 

have increased in the last five years, which could partially indicate trend of riparian butterfly 

habitat. These projects have a small positive influence on the habitat trend for these butterflies 

to meet the intent of Objective 221 (USDA Forest Service 2009c, 2010c). 

American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) 

The American dipper is uncommon and isolated to clear, fast-flowing streams in the Black 

Hills. Dipper populations in South Dakota are declining, hence a status of state threatened in 

South Dakota. Until 2010, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks monitored 

dippers during the breeding and winter seasons (Backlund 2007, Lovett 2010). The Forest’s 

bird monitoring program has recorded this species in Spearfish Creek and several of its 

tributaries but it has also been found in other streams (e.g., Bear Butte, Elk, Iron, Spearfish, 

Little Spearfish, East Spearfish, Whitewood, French, and Rapid Creeks). DNA analyses 

suggest that the Black Hills dipper population may be genetically distinct from other 

populations (USDA Forest Service 2010c, Backlund 2007). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service announced its 90 day finding on a petition to list the Black Hills population as a
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 224

distinct population segment (DPS). Based on their review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concluded that this population is not a “listable” entity under the Endangered Species Act 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b). 

This bird usually nests within 25 feet of streams on rocky ledges, cliffs, boulders, and bridges 

that overhang flowing water, preventing predation. It feeds primarily on aquatic insects and 

insect larvae caught while diving underwater. The dipper prefers cool, clear streams that flow 

for most of the breeding season. Loss of nests and young can be attributed to high flows, human 

disturbance, and predation (Lovett 2010). The primary risk factor for the dipper appears to be 

flow reductions, degraded water quality due to sedimentation, and other pollutants that reduce 

habitat and reproduction. Limiting factors include prey availability, suitable winter habitat, 

stream connectivity, and availability of nest sites (Anderson 2002). According to FPMER, 

nesting attempts in Spearfish Creek have remained fairly stable and then declined in 2009. 

Nesting attempts and success have declined in Whitewood Creek but remained stable in 2009. 

Additional monitoring is needed to determine long-term trends (USDA Forest Service 2010c). 

There is one historical record of American dipper nesting along Rapid Creek above Silver City in 

the Pactola Project Area. No recent surveys for this species have been completed. Rapid Creek, a 

fast-flowing perennial stream may not provide suitable foraging habitat for the dipper due to poor 

water quality (iron), water temperature, and high sediment loads. However despite the water 

quality issues, Rapid Creek has been identified as providing good fish habitat, which indicates an 

adequate food supply. Additional habitat for this species could be available in smaller perennial 

streams in the project area, but most of these have water quality issues. Most likely the lack of 

nesting substrates that overhang perennial flowing water limits the area being used by dippers, 

since most streams in the area experience reduced flows in the middle to late summer. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Riparian Dependent Species 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on the riparian dependent SOLC species. No 

treatments to enhance meadows and hardwoods would occur. No treatments adjacent to or 

within the WIZ would occur. No additional roads would be constructed or improved. Indirectly 

this alternative would improve riparian and hardwood communities. Loss of most pine overstory 

caused by MPB would likely benefit these species, increasing the potential for more openings 

adjacent to streams and stimulating hardwoods and shrub species. Loss of most overstory due to 

MPB effects could improve water availability. The loss of overstory that shade streams could 

affect evapotranspiration rate of streams reducing water availability and water temperatures 

which could affect dipper habitat. An increase in CWD could offset this loss of shade while 

providing cover for the meadow jumping mouse. Long-term, open conditions would stimulate

pine regeneration which encroach into meadows and out-compete seral riparian communities, 

reducing habitat for these species. This alternative, compared to the action alternatives has a 

higher potential for large stand-replacing fire. For the most part, riparian communities would be 

resilient to the direct effects of fire but a stand replacing wildfire could increase water 

temperature and decrease water quality reducing aquatic prey abundance short-term. Wildfire 

would increase meadow habitat adjacent to streams that would be beneficial to SOLC butterflies 

and the jumping mouse. In the absence of fire, Alternative A would provide the most beneficial 

effects to these species habitat compared to the action alternatives. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 225

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Riparian Dependent Species 

In Alternative B, treatments would occur in riparian communities to meet other Forest Plan 

Objectives such as hardwood restoration and public safety (fuel reduction and improved public

egress). Additional roads/trails are needed to treat areas that may influence riparian habitat. 

Potential direct effects to the meadow jumping mouse and SOLC butterflies include loss of nests 

with young, eggs, and mortality caused by machinery. Direct effects to American dipper are not 

expected. Beneficial effects would increase meadow habitat and hardwood habitat adjacent to 

streams and stimulate growth of deciduous riparian shrubs if competing conifer is removed. 

Negative effects from treatment may occur if stream shading is removed increasing water 

temperature and evapotranspiration rates. Treatments to reduce overstory and fuel hazard (e.g., 

CWD) along roads that parallel streams would reduce stream shading, increasing water 

temperatures. Harvest activities (e.g., whole tree harvesting) on steep slopes (e.g., 30-40% 

slopes) adjacent to streams and within the Water Influence Zone (WIZ) has the potential to 

degrade stream bank stability and increase in-stream sediments, thus reducing water quality in 

aquatic habitats. Associated activities such as log decks, road placement, stream crossings, and 

herbicide treatment increase the potential for loss of nectar and host species, increase disturbance 

where invasive species can spread, and increase in-stream sediment during high rainfall events. 

For the American dipper, sediments into Rapid Creek would negatively impact this species 

foraging abilities. However, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, best management practices 

(BMPs) 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, improving 

water quality, water temperature, and maintain connectivity of streams in those areas. 

Treatments in this alternative would reduce the potential for stand replacing fire more so than 

Alternative A, but to a lesser extent compared to Alternative C. In the absence of fire, 

Alternative B would maintain and improve riparian and stream conditions within Forest Plan 

limits. However, the additional roads and treatments would cause disturbance to these species 

habitat short-term. Therefore, Alternative B would be less favorable to these riparian dependent 

SOLC species than Alternative A but more favorable than Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Riparian Dependent Species 

Direct and indirect effects to riparian dependent SOLC species and their habitat are similar to 

those discussed in Alternative B. Alternative C would treat more area, therefore effects would 

be greater. As part of this alternative an additional 436 acres of roadside treatments would 

increase the amount of disturbance/treatment in riparian communities compared to Alternative B. 

Roadside treatments that reduce fuel hazard and conifer overstory to <50 BA that parallel 

perennial and intermittent stream courses would likely increase water temperatures and 

evapotranspiration rates in those streams which could affect aquatic prey abundance. However, 

roadside treatments would remove conifer competition that would enhance riparian plant 

communities which would SOLC species habitat. Additional road construction (19 miles) and 

reconstruction associated with proposed treatments (e.g., cable systems) have more potential to 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 226

increase sediments, widen stream channels, increase water temperatures and create barriers to 

dispersal for aquatic species compared to Alternative B. Increase in sediments to tributaries of 

Rapid Creek could negatively affect American dipper use of Rapid Creek. Cable and helicopter 

logging systems usually have fewer effects on riparian areas compared to conventional logging 

systems but the roads associated with cable systems have the potential to increase sediment into 

streams. As in Alternative B, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, BMPs, and Pactola Project 

design criteria would reduce the effects of treatment and associated activities on riparian 

communities and aquatic habitats (e.g., water quality) 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, improving water quality, water temperature and maintain 

connectivity of streams in those areas. Treatments in this alternative would reduce the potential 

for stand replacing fire more so than Alternatives A and B. In the absence of fire, Alternative C 

would maintain and improve riparian and stream conditions but would add more negative effects 

compared to Alternatives A and B. Therefore, this alternative would have the least beneficial 

effect on SOLC species dependent on riparian communities. 

Conclusion for Riparian Dependent SOLC Species 

Alternative A would be the most beneficial to these SOLC species. Alternatives B and C 

through treatment activities would increase the potential to negatively affect riparian 

communities and aquatic habitats. None of the alternatives would notably decrease the amount 

of these species habitat at the Forest-wide scale. Forest Plan direction would maintain riparian 

diversity, condition, and trend, therefore Objective 213 would be met. It appears that all 

alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221; therefore these species are likely to persist. 

SOLC Snails: Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri), Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa), and 

Striate Disc (Discus shemekii) 

Gastropods are typically found in well-developed litter (but not thick or fungus matted) with very 

rich and comparatively wet, loose soil. Most sites have dense overstory and a deciduous 

component. Snail colonies in the Black Hills have patchy distribution (Frest and Johannes 1993, 

2002, Anderson 2003b). This may be due to habitat preferences, foraging requirements, and/or

hostile environmental conditions. Some snail species can tolerate somewhat dryer site conditions, 

where others may not. Most snail species prefer calcareous substrate materials but others (e.g., 

Vertigo spp.) have been found in other soil types (Frest and Johannes 1993, 2002, and Anderson 

2004a, 2004b). Snails are generally susceptible to activities that change the temperature and 

moisture at the soil or litter level. Additional microhabitat conditions such as soil type, amount 

and type of plant ground cover, soil pH, depth and type of litter, and amount of cover from rocks 

or woody debris also play a role in where these snails can survive. Research indicates low snail 

diversity may be due to changes in the moist microclimate (lack of moss/lichen), increased 

environmental effects, and loss of overstory cover which creates drier site conditions that are 

detrimental to land snails (Anderson 2004a, 2004b). Threats to gastropods include loss of 

suitable habitat, predators, desiccation, soil compaction, trampling, and barriers to dispersal 

(Anderson 2004a, 2004b). Frest and Johannes (2002) identified that these snails are affected by 

roads (and their associated activities), livestock trampling, and timber harvesting. 

According to FPMER, monitoring for these species was not funded in 2009. Forest Plan Standard 

3103 requires known SOLC snail colonies to be managed to retain favorable site conditions and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 227

to avoid/minimize the effects of land management activities to protect SOLC snails and their 

habitat. Subsequently, habitat is likely to be conserved for these species consistent with Objective 

221 (USDA Forest Service 2010c). The Vertigo species have been documented in and/or 

adjacent to most of the Pactola Project Area, associated primarily with riparian areas and 

spring/seeps. Due to their small size, these species are often overlooked. All known Frest sites 

are immediately adjacent to existing roads, two of which (sites 95 and 306) are found in mesic 

conditions associated with conifer/hardwood mixed stands. Site 94 appears to have undergone 

previous treatment, where site conditions are open, dry with limited hardwood overstory. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to SOLC Snails 

No direct effects to SOLC snails are expected under this alternative. Indirectly loss of 

overstory caused by MPB infestation would increase sunlight and wind in suitable snail 

habitat. Open stands would increase mortality on drier areas. This would decrease the mesic 

conditions needed for snail movement and colony expansion. As trees die, pine needles, and 

CWD would increase along with understory vegetation that would maintain preferred 

microhabitat conditions and increase refugia habitat (e.g., large rotting logs). The potential for 

large stand replacing fire in this alternative is greater than compared to the action alternatives. 

This type of fire would cause mortality, loss of litter layers and vegetation that would provide 

suitable snail habitat. In addition, snail colonies may become more isolated or even be lost. In 

the absence of fire, this alternative would maintain suitable habitat for these snails. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to SOLC Snails 

Potential direct effects to SOLC snail species include mortality caused by equipment 

associated with treatment activities and herbicide treatments. Indirectly, loss of overstory 

caused by MPB and treatments in suitable snail habitat would likely result in more open, drier 

site conditions that would affect snail colonies similar to effects discussed for Alternative A. 

Treatments and associated activities (e.g., road placement, skidding) that affect springs, seeps, 

and wet areas may cause soil compaction and habitat loss. Isolation of colonies could also 

occur if equipment use, roads, and skid trail compact soils and reduce litter layers that would 

create barriers to dispersal. Whole tree skidding and fuel treatments would reduce CWD that 

could provide habitat for snails during dry periods. Prescribed fire would not affect known 

snail colonies. In suitable habitat prescribed fire has the potential to lose colonies, isolate 

colonies, and/or reduce litter layers similar to the effects of more severe and intense wildfires. 

Forest Plan direction would protect known snail locations. In the absence of fire, this

alternative would be less beneficial to SOLC snails compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to SOLC Snails

Direct and indirect effects to SOLC snail species are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. In this Alternative, more area is treated to remove overstory and fuel hazards 

which would reduce habitat and the capability of these snails to disperse due to drier site 

conditions, therefore the effects would be greater than Alternative B. As in Alternative B, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 228

Forest Plan direction would protect known snail locations from loss due to treatments. 

Additional roadside treatments, especially along riparian areas and mesic sites would further 

isolate known colonies by opening up stands and reducing CWD. 

Conclusion for SOLC Snail Species 

All alternatives have the potential to reduce habitat either directly or indirectly that would 

affect the capability for snail species to disperse. Alternatives B and C through treatment 

activities would reduce the potential for stand replacing fire, which has the potential to 

decrease the number of snail colonies known to occur on the Forest. None of the alternatives 

would notably decrease the amount of these species habitat at the Forest-wide scale. Forest 

Plan direction would maintain riparian diversity, condition, and trend, therefore Objective 213 

would be met. All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan Standard 3103 and 

Objective 221; therefore these species are likely to persist. 

Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) 

The flying squirrel resides in a variety of forested habitats including pure ponderosa pine and 

pine mixed with aspen, birch, or spruce in the Black Hills (Krueger 2004). This species is well 

dispersed across the forest but is found primarily in the northern and central hills (Krueger 

2004, Hough 2008). This species is nocturnal and utilizes mostly spruce and dense mature 

pine (SS 3C and 4) for foraging habitat, and snags for denning in the Black Hills (Hough 

2008). Flying squirrels consume a varied diet, including fungi, lichens, seeds, insects, and bird 

eggs (Higgins et al. 2000). They nest and shelter in cavities of large trees, snags, and in small 

structures (dreys) that they build from twigs, bark, and roots. The flying squirrel tends to avoid 

large openings and early seral pine stages, which may prevent crossing small openings by 

gliding from one tree to the next (Hough 2008, Duckwitz 2001). 

Turner (1974) noted that the highest densities of flying squirrels are likely found in white 

spruce forests in moist canyons and in the northern Black Hills. Hough (2008) found that the 

highest densities were found where habitat features such as snags, dead/down material, and a 

moist microclimate with fungi were most abundant. Aspen/birch stands were important 

denning habitat but were avoided for foraging habitat (Hough 2008). 

According to FPMER, the Forest is conserving habitat for the northern flying squirrel in 

regards to spruce habitat, snag habitat, and very large tree components. Progress towards 

increasing the acres of structural stage 5 and structural stage 3C is still needed to enhance 

habitat. Hough (2008) determined that the population appeared to be stable. 

In Pactola Project Area, suitable habitat for this squirrel is found in pine, spruce, and hardwood 

communities. See the Vegetation Section for discussion of pine structural stage habitat and 

Habitat Community and Habitat Component sections. This species has been documented in 

the Pactola Project Area mostly in late successional conifer habitat and hardwood draws. 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Flying Squirrel 

Alternative A would have no direct effect on this species or its habitat. Indirectly, MPB cause 

mortality would decrease pine structural stages that are currently in the moderate to high insect 

hazard, negatively affecting mature and late seral habitats. Based on predicted mortality 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 229

caused by MPB, in MAs 5.1 and 5.4 existing pine structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 in the project 

area would be reduced from 49% to 12%. Structural stage 4A would decrease from 32% to 

23% as a result of MPB. This decrease would only have a 1% affect on these structural stages 

Forest-wide. MPB effects to these species habitat could be greater depending on the duration 

of the infestation and stand densities. For this species, the loss of large diameter trees and 

dense mature stand conditions due to large scale mortality caused by MPB could affect habitat 

availability long-term. Loss of mature pine could also affect the availability of pine seeds as a 

food item. Although CWD would increase the potential for other food items such as fungi and 

insects, the large openings created by MPB infestation would affect movement and use of this 

habitat by flying squirrels. Snag densities would be greatest in this alternative compared to the 

action alternatives. Snag densities would remain high short-term but are likely to decline after 

five to ten years and could become limiting long-term. Hardwoods would increase due to an 

increase in sunlight but without other habitat features the benefits would be minimal. A stand 

replacing fire would further exacerbate loss of nesting habitat and increase open conditions not 

conducive for flying squirrel. In the absence of fire, the loss of suitable habitat both short-term 

and long-term makes this alternative the least favorable for the northern flying squirrel. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Flying Squirrel

Potential direct effects to northern flying squirrels include loss of nest tree, death of young, and 

abandonment of nest sites associated with treatment activities. Treatments to reduce 

susceptibility to MPB attack in addition to mortality caused by MPB would reduce preferred 

pine structural stages more than Alternative A, but to a lesser degree compared to Alternative 

C. Alternative B would reduce mature, late successional pine structural stages in the project 

area from 12% to 6% compared to Alternative A. The beneficial effects would be to reduce 

susceptibility of MPB attack in remaining mature pine and would leave 46% vs. 23% 

(Alternative A) in structural stage 4A providing mature habitat long-term for these species. In 

addition, remaining pine would increase the potential for movement and use of treated areas. 

MPB effects to treated and untreated mature pine stands could be greater depending on the 

duration of the infestation that could create large openings avoided by this squirrel. This 

decrease in mature pine in the project would only have a 1% affect on these structural stages 

forest-wide. Snag densities would remain high short-term, but are likely to decline after five to 

ten years and could become limiting long-term. Treatments to reduce fire hazard may affect 

forage item availability that are associated with CWD. The potential for stand replacing fire 

would be reduced, increasing the potential for sustained food items long-term. Aspen 

communities would increase due to treatment but as canopy closure and stand density 

increases, abundance would decrease. Spruce stands would only slightly affected by treatment. 

Alternative B would be more beneficial for the northern flying squirrel long-term compared to 

Alternative A, but to a lesser degree compared to Alternative C. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Northern Flying Squirrel

Direct and indirect effects to the flying squirrel are similar to the effects discussed under 

Alternative B. However, more area would be affected by vegetative treatment, so the effects 

would be greater. Alternative C would reduce pine structural stages 4B, 4C, and 5 from 12% 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 230

to 5% in the project area compared to Alternative A. This decrease would only have a 1% 

affect on these species habitat forest-wide. The beneficial effects would be to reduce 

susceptibility of MPB attack in remaining mature pine leaving 50% vs. 23% (Alternative A) in 

structural stage 4A providing habitat long-term for these species. Roadside treatment would 

increase hardwood communities, but may also increase open areas that could prevent dispersal 

and increase predation. Cable and/or helicopter logging systems would have similar effects to 

this species as conventional logging systems. Areas that have not been treated in the past 

would lose some of their late-succession components (e.g., decay processes, mosses). 

Alternative C would be the most favorable for maintaining this species habitat long-term. 

Conclusion for the Northern Flying Squirrel 

None of the alternatives would notably decrease the amount of these species habitat at the 

Forest-wide scale. All of the alternatives would reduce preferred nesting and foraging habitat 

short term. Alternatives B and C would maintain mature trees in treated areas increasing the 

potential for northern squirrel habitat to persist long-term. It appears that all alternatives would 

be consistent with Objective 221; therefore these species are likely to persist. 

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep was recently added to the R2 Sensitive species list. To 

reduce redundancy, most life history, current condition, and predicted effects information are 

provided in the Pactola Project Biological Evaluation document. Bighorn sheep are found in 

the Pactola Project Area and utilize some areas for lambing (J. Kanta, South Dakota Game, 

Fish, and Parks, Pers. Comm. 2009). All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines, and Objective 221, therefore this species is likely to persist. 

Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) 

The mountain goat is distributed from southeast Alaska through the Canadian Rockies to 

various mountain ranges in the northern United States. The goat was introduced to the Black 

Hills in 1924, and became established in only one area: the Black Elk Wilderness and Norbeck 

Wildlife Preserve region (Higgins et al. 2000). 

The mountain goat is typically found in alpine and subalpine habitats, which straddle the 

natural tree line. Neither of these high elevation habitats (or a tree line) exists in the Black 

Hills. Here, the species occupies among the highest and rockiest habitats available to it, 

including pine and spruce covered slopes. The bulk of the mountain goat population in the 

Black Hills occurs largely within the Black Elk Wilderness and the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve 

(Griebel et al. 2007), but they have moved to other suitable areas outside of the granitic core. 

Mountain goats utilize a variety of forage plants in the Black Hills, including chokecherry, 

buffaloberry, grasses and sedges, aspen, serviceberry, wild rose, willow, and hazel (USDA 

Forest Service 2005a). Mountain goats are sensitive to disturbance, depending on the 

perceived threat. Recreationists, especially rock climbers have been attributed to causing 

mortality by loss of footing during escape (See white-tailed deer Section). 

Current mountain goat populations are smaller than estimates by Richardson (1971). The 

SDGF&P administers a hunting season on this population but the harvest season has been 

closed since 2006. The original herd of six transplanted animals grew to an estimated 300-400 

animal by 1971, but a 2007 survey suggests a current population of only 60 goats. The cause 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 231

of this decline is unknown. Some possibilities include high predator (mountain lion) numbers, 

genetics, and/or possible habitat loss (USDA Forest Service 2010c). The Forest continues to 

coordinate with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks to determine if more 

specific habitat management actions are needed to conserve/enhance habitat for this species. 

Steep terrain in the Pactola Project Area could provide habitat for this species, but would not 

be considered optimum habitat for this species. In 2009, a mountain goat was observed near 

Mystic (J. Kanta, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pers. Comm. 2009). 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Goat 

There are no direct effects mountain goats expected under this alternative. Indirectly expected 

pine mortality caused by epidemic population levels of MPB would increase understory

structure, hardwood communities, and a mix of seral stages more so than the action 

alternatives. This type of habitat would benefit this species habitat by increase forage 

availability, especially on or adjacent to steep rocky slopes where CWD would be higher, 

which could restrict access to forage and escape terrain and could hide predators thus raising 

predation rates. Due to the increased fuel hazard caused by the effects of MPB, there is higher 

potential for stand replacing fire. This type of fire usually increases expansion of grassland, 

shrubs, and aspen more so than silviculture treatments. In the absence of fire, pine 

regeneration and encroachment would eventually out-compete these seral communities and 

understory habitat components beneficial to mountain goats. This alternative does not increase 

roads/trails, but loss of cover in roaded areas could increase human disturbance and predation. 

This alternative would benefit mountain goat more so than the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Goat 

Direct effects to mountain goats due to vegetative treatments are not expected. Direct effects 

to this species may occur if a sudden and unexpected stimulus causes mountain goats or their 

kids to lose footing while escaping. Indirect effects of treatment would reduce pine overstory, 

increase hardwoods, and stimulate understory production that would benefit the mountain goat 

but to a lesser degree compared to Alternatives A and C. MPB caused mortality would 

continue in treated and untreated areas, therefore habitat conditions would improve (slopes 

>40%) similar as described in Alternative A. Long-term, pine regeneration would out-compete 

these seral communities, eventually decreasing forage for this species. Prescribed burning 

would increase and improve palatability of browse species (e.g., aspen chokecherry) and forage 

availability treated areas. Course woody debris would be reduced by both prescribed fire and 

whole-tree harvest methods which could improve access to foraging and escape cover. There 

would be less potential for stand replacing fire, therefore expansion of aspen and grasslands 

would be less compared to Alternative A. Total road density would increase slightly, but new 

roads would be closed to motorized travel once treatment activities are completed. New 

roads/trails would increase the potential for livestock competition, predation, and human 

disturbance in areas not previously accessible. Disturbance caused by recreation and logging 

operations could cause mountain goats to move to secure areas short-term. In the absence of 

fire, this alternative would less beneficial to mountain goats compared to Alternative A, but 

more beneficial compared to Alternative C. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 232

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Mountain Goat 

Direct effects to mountain goats due to vegetative treatment are not expected. Direct effects to 

this species may occur if a sudden and unexpected stimulus causes mountain goats or their kids 

to lose footing while escaping. Helicopter activity could cause this type of stimuli, but would 

be dependent on several factors (See white-tailed deer section). Indirect effects to mountain 

goat would be similar to Alternative B. Alternative C treats more area therefore the effects 

would be greater. Alternative C would treat slopes >40% which would increase forage, but

also affect use of these areas short-term. More open stands with little escape cover may 

increase susceptibility to predation and increase hunting opportunities, especially if access is 

improved. Cable logging could have a varied effect on mountain goats. For the most part, this 

species would likely become less affected by the disturbance as they adapt to a predicted 

disturbance stimuli. The amount of new roads constructed for cable logging in previously 

inaccessible areas would greatly increase the potential for livestock forage use, predation, and 

human disturbance that could affect mountain goats, especially if escape terrain is not 

accessible. However, helicopter logging would not have the long-term effects associated with 

new road access. Total road density would increase appreciably but new roads would be 

closed to motorized travel once treatment activities are completed. In the absence of fire, this 

alternative would the least beneficial to mountain goats compared to Alternatives A and B. 

Conclusion for the Mountain Goat 

None of the alternatives would notably decrease the amount of these species habitat at the 

Forest-wide scale. All of the alternatives would improve habitat short-term and long-term. It 

appears that all alternatives would be consistent with Objective 221; therefore these species are 

likely to persist. 

Threatened, Endangered and Region 2 Sensitive Species 

A Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) has been completed for the Pactola 

Project Area and can be found in the project file. The effects of the various alternatives and 

activities proposed were evaluated for all Endangered Threatened, Proposed, and R2 Sensitive 

species, and their habitat. A BA/BE is prepared in accordance with legal requirement set forth 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follows 

standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal 

Regulations (50 CFR S401). The Regional Forester issued a Sensitive species list for the 

Rocky Mountain Region (FSM 2670), and a revised Sensitive species list (FSM Regional 

Supplement No. 2600-2009-1, dated June 9, 2009). The BA/BE tiers directly to the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2005a). The BA/BE does not address species listed as threatened or endangered by the 

state of South Dakota, species tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, or U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009c), unless 

they have been identified as Region 2 (R2) Sensitive species. 

The USDA Fish and Wildlife Service website 

(http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/endsppbycounty.htm) was accessed on January 5, 

2011 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a) to determine the current list of Threatened, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 233

Endangered, or Proposed species that occur or potentially occur in Pennington, Lawrence, and 

Custer Counties. The bald eagle was removed from the list of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife effective August 8, 2007, therefore this species is now considered an R2 Sensitive 

species. No further analysis is needed for the whooping crane, least tern, and black-footed 

ferret because these species are not known or suspected to occur in the project area, and there 

is no suitable habitat is present (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011e). 

The determinations of effects for Region 2 Sensitive species were made based on the 

information gathered in the pre-field review, field reconnaissance and using information 

provided in the Pactola Project EIS draft document. The bases for the determinations are 

potential habitat, species distribution, and anticipated effects from proposed activities. The 

determination language is set forth in FSM Regional Supplement No. 2600-2009-1. 

The Phase II Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a) evaluated 

population viability, and determined that all federally listed and R2 Sensitive species are likely 

to persist on the Forest over the next 50 years if standards and guidelines are followed, and if 

conditions move toward Forest Plan objectives. Project implementation would incorporate all 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Furthermore, all alternative are consistent with 

Objective 221, which is to conserve or enhance habitat for R2 Sensitive species. Therefore, 

persistence of all federally listed and sensitive species would not be affected by any alternative 

of the Pactola Project Area. 

Migratory Birds

Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to naturally small ranges, loss 

of habitat, observed population declines and other factors. The BHNF recognizes the

ecological and economic importance of birds, and approaches bird conservation at several 

levels by implementing: 1) Forest Plan Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines, 2) a Forest-wide 

bird monitoring program, and 3) site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for identified 

species of concern. 

Bird monitoring is conducted at the Forest-level to determine species distribution, abundance, 

and trend (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 2001-2010). The monitoring is designed and 

conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory to provide statistically rigorous 

population trend data for at least 61 species that breed in the Black Hills. Trend data would 

assist the Forest in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary. 

Migratory birds of concern are identified by many sources, including the Endangered Species 

Act, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, the BHNF MIS and SOLC lists, the USFWS 

list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008), South 

Dakota Heritage Program (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department 2011a) and the 

South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks

2005b). All of these sources and their respective species of concern except for the BCC and 

South Dakota lists have been examined elsewhere in this section and/or the Pactola Project 

Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) report. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 234

The BCC 2008 publication lists 24 species in the BRC 17 conservation region that includes the 

Black Hills. However, not all of these species are found in the Black Hills National Forest. The 

South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan developed priority bird species list within specific 

habitats in the state. For the Black Hills, Level I and II priority species have not been identified. 

Nineteen Level III species may be affected by either of the Pactola Project action alternatives 

(South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 2005b), especially if they are riparian 

dependent. The South Dakota Heritage Program has identified several bird species as being rare 

or threatened in the state that were not included in the Black Hills list in the All Bird 

Conservation Plan. Two of these species could be affected by the proposed treatments in the 

Pactola Project and would be discussed below. Most of the species do not need to be addressed 

here because: 1) specific species have another status designation that is already addressed in this 

section or the project BA/BE (e.g., MIS, SOLC, Sensitive), or 2) their habitat needs are 

addressed by Forest MIS species or 3) no habitat exists for them in the Pactola Project Area. 

Please see Appendix D for the full list and specific project disposition of each species. 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

The Osprey is a fish-eating bird of prey that is listed as a state threatened species in South 

Dakota (South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 2005b). A small breeding population occurs in 

the Black Hills, but they are very rare elsewhere in the state. Ospreys range throughout much 

of the world and are common in many parts of North America. This species responded well 

to the ban on DDT, which had caused eggshell thinning and led to population declines. 

Ospreys live in both freshwater and saltwater areas, including coastlines, inland lakes, and 

rivers. They prey on fish that they capture in shallow water or near the surface. Ospreys 

select nest sites that are higher than surrounding vegetation, safe from predators and allow 

easy access to nests (poor maneuver capabilities). Ospreys traditionally use large trees on or 

near water bodies as nest sites but have adapted to artificial sites such as power lines, channel 

markers, and nesting platforms (Nature Serve 2011). 

Ospreys tend to be poor nesting pioneers, and do not typically nest in new areas far from an 

existing population therefore their population has been slow to recover and expand. Ospreys 

were first documented in the Black Hills in the Pactola Basin. Currently, there are 

approximately nine known nest locations in the Black Hills, mostly increasing in the last five 

years. Most nest locations are close to ponds or lakes and some are on artificial structures. 

Due to the presence of nesting ospreys and recent sightings near Pactola Reservoir, it is likely 

that unknown nest(s) are within one mile of the Lake. Natural nest sites could be lost to 

MPB mortality and or treatments. Proposed treatments could affect prey availability if 

sediments are deposited into the lake that affects water quality (see Riparian section). Forest 

Plan Standard 3204 would be adequate to protect this species nesting habitat. 

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 

This species is found across North America and is the most abundant of heron species. The 

South Dakota All Bird Action plan lists this species as a bird of conservation concern (Priority 

Level II) because their population is suspected to be in decline (South Dakota Game Fish and 

Parks 2005b). Prey items are mostly small fish but have been known to eat amphibians, 

reptiles, small mammals, and birds. Foraging habitat is along streams and lake edges where 

water is calm or slow moving. This species usually nests in colonies (rookeries), but may have 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 235

a single nest. Nesting habitat selection is predator driven, usually in trees located on islands or 

oxbows in close proximity to foraging sites. The heron is susceptible to human disturbance, 

especially in the early nesting season where adults would abandon eggs. Nest abandonment 

and colony abandonments increase as human visits increase. Road building and logging 

operations have been known to cause abandonment. However, this species would eventually 

habituate to non-threatening disturbance (Nature Serve 2011, Butler 1992). 

In the Black Hills, the number of great blue heron rookeries has increased, mostly in the last five 

years. Several colonies are located adjacent to streams in high areas where predators can be 

observed. Currently, there are no known heron rookeries in or adjacent to Pactola Reservoir, but 

due to sightings and suitable habitat found in the project area, it is highly probably that a rookery 

may exist or appear in the future. Recreation use in the colony area could cause abandonment. 

The proposed activities in Alternatives B and C could also cause nest abandonment to unknown 

rookeries in the Pactola Project Area. This species does not have specific Forest Plan direction 

that would protect colonies from disturbance. Therefore, design criteria have been added that 

would protect colonies during treatment activities (see Appendix B). 

Climate Change 

The USFS has embraced the management challenges posed by climate change. The agency’s 

“Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change” (Hayward et al. 2009, USDA Forest 

Service 2008c) provides broad direction to guide future management and research to address 

climate change in all aspects of agency work. With this Framework, the agency has attempted 

to integrate climate change throughout its organizational structure. As a result, significant 

momentum is building from the individual Ranger District level up through the Washington 

Office to actively manage fish and wildlife habitat in a way that is mindful of climate change. 

It is assumed that climate change likely would lead to the loss of native species from extensive 

areas and result in increasingly scarce and fragmented populations in many others. Further 

changes within ecosystems would be triggered as invasive species, both plant and animal, fill 

the "holes" that are left as native species are lost. Increases in disturbance owing to fire, 

insects, and disease would accelerate the infiltration of invasive species. The loss of native 

ecosystems to invasive species affects many species as the effects of changing plant 

communities ripple through the ecosystems. As a result, many animal species likely would be 

lost as vegetation patterns change, associated changes in the food-web would cascade and 

further destabilize ecosystems. Until these changes are better understood, it would be difficult 

to reliably predict the environmental outcomes of forest management activities (Ruggiero et al. 

2008, Reid and Lisle 2008). The uncertainty associated with climate change and the potential 

risk associated with novel and untested management practices would require altogether new 

levels of institutional flexibility. The potential impacts to species in Pactola Project are 

becoming better understood and that effects of any one project such as this are not 

meaningfully measurable, especially at the scale of the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Forest Plan Monitoring Implementation Guide (USDA Forest Service 2009h) provides 

guidance to implementing the monitoring and evaluation requirements to the Forest Plan. 

Forest-wide monitoring results can be found in the Black Hills National Forest Monitoring and 

Evaluation Reports (USDA Forest Service 2009c, 2010c). Projects, such as the Pactola Project, 

contribute to forest-wide cumulative effects on the landscape scale. The following cumulative 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 236

effects analysis incorporates the 8th order watersheds within and adjacent to the Pactola Project. 

See the main discussion in the analysis of effects section. 

There is no known evidence that the Black Hills was a stable ecosystem dominated by mature, 

dense conifer forests, especially in a ponderosa pine ecosystem. Evidence suggests that the 

Black Hills is ever changing from the effects of fire, insect outbreaks, drought, and human 

disturbances (Brown and Cook 2006, Sheppard and Battaglia 2002, USDA Forest Service 1996). 

The Pactola Project Area has been largely unaffected by recent wildfires (within the last 30 

years). Prescribed burning has occurred or may occur on 3,660 acres, mostly in the McVey 

winter range. Several prescribed burns may occur within the next five years that were identified 

in the Lakes EA, Prairie EIS, and the Slate Castle EIS. These burns are specifically designed to 

reduce ground fuels, pine regeneration, thin dense stands, and improve winter forage for big

game. These burns have created an interspersion of openings and various tree densities while 

increasing the grass/forb understory. Pockets of snags are apparent in the burn area, along with 

insect and disease components that normally follows a fire. Proposed prescribed burns in the 

action alternatives would add to cumulative effects of these burns in reducing ground fuels, 

reduce pine regeneration, thinning dense stands, and improving winter forage habitat. These 

prescribed burns would increase the within stand heterogeneity across the landscape. 

Fire suppression would continue to influence communities in the Pactola Project Area 

regardless of the alternative. As a result of fire suppression, the loss of seral plant communities 

due to pine growth, regeneration, and encroachment would likely reduce grassland/meadow 

communities, hardwood communities, and early seral pine structural stages over time. The 

loss of these seral habitats over-time would reduce available habitat for MIS species such as 

grasshopper sparrow, ruffed grouse, and white-tailed deer. 

The MPB infestation is likely to increase due to the growing MPB population levels that are 

currently affecting the central portion of the Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2010d), 

especially to the west/northwest of the analysis area (USDA Forest Service 2010e). All 

alternatives would reduce areas of continuous pine structural stages, especially mature and late 

succession pine, thus reducing patch size of these stands. The MPB population has already had 

an impact in these watersheds, increasing edge and changes to pine forest structure and size. 

Alternative A, due to stand densities, could increase the intensity and lengthen the duration of 

the current MPB epidemic. Alternative A would not move toward Forest Goal 10. Alternative 

B and C would move toward Forest Goal 10 for managing insect outbreaks by reducing stand 

densities and reducing the susceptibility of those stands from MPB attack. However, in doing 

so these even-aged treatments along with continued MPB effects would create larger areas of 

structural stages 2, 3A, and 4A where stand and within stand heterogeneity is low. Because 

there is less competition with overstory, pine regeneration would flourish in the next 10-20 

years. Combined with similar treatments in the analysis area, the treatments in Alternatives B 

and C could add to a loss of heterogeneity across the landscape, creating the same conditions 

(high fire hazard and high insect risk) in the next 20-30 years that could affect wildlife. 

Limited use of pesticides (e.g., Carbaryl) to control the effects of mountain pine beetle in the 

Pactola Recreation campground area would occur for the next three – five years, separate from 

the proposed action. These treatment would focused on maintaining mature pine overstory and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 237

provide public safety in high use recreation areas. No cumulative effects from the action 

alternatives would occur. 

In areas not treated to reduce the susceptibility of MPB attack, increased fuel loading, and 

steep inaccessible slopes may create the conditions that increase the rate of spread, increase 

severity, and intensity of wildfires. A large stand-replacing wildfire, depending on the severity 

and intensity would be detrimental to soil, water, and ultimately loss of wildlife/aquatic habitat. 

Stand replacing wildfires may drastically alter or eliminate some species’ habitat for long 

periods (e.g., >50 years). Alternative A due to the amount of standing dead and downed fuels 

created by MPB would add to the potential this type of wildfire. Alternatives B and C could 

reduce the rate of spread, severity, and intensity of wildfires by decreasing fuel loadings, 

increasing natural and planned fuel breaks and open crown densities allowing for effective fire 

suppression. Fuel reduction treatments in Pactola Project Area, along with areas adjacent to 

Pactola Project that reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire are expected to benefit most 

wildlife species, the exception would be the black-backed woodpecker and pygmy nuthatch 

that prefer standing dead/burned habitats. 

During the last two decades, commercial and non-commercial treatments have occurred on 

70% of the NFS lands in the project area. Post timber sale treatments such as thinning, noxious 

weed treatment, hardwood retention/restoration, and meadow restoration have been planned in 

the project area for the next five years as part of the Bullock Sale Area Improvement Plan (e.g., 

Knutson-Vandenberg Funds). In areas adjacent to the Pactola Project Area, several planning 

documents have been completed in the last 10 years, the more recent document was the Slate 

Castle EIS (signed July 9, 2009) that include commercial and non-commercial vegetative 

treatments similar to the treatments proposed in the Pactola Project Area. The main emphases 

of these treatments are to protect communities, forest resources, and ecosystems from the ongoing MPB epidemic and to reduce the potential for a large stand replacing wildfire. The 

result of these past and current vegetative management activities include moving much of the 

dense, mature pine forest toward more open stands structural stages. The Slate Castle Project 

Area (South and west of the Pactola Project Area) would reduce fuels, especially in the WUI, 

to reduce the potential risk of large-scale wildfire and the effects of the epidemic MPB activity. 

The Prairie Project Area (east of the Pactola Project Area) completed treatments to reduce 

wildfire hazard and insect/disease hazard and protect the communities of Johnson Siding and 

Rapid City, SD. In addition, treatments to protect private land and communities from the 

effects of MPB and wildfire are planned and would likely continue as needed. 

Alternative A would not contribute directly to cumulative effects of past and current vegetative 

treatments in reducing mature, dense pine structural stages on the landscape. However, 

indirectly forest maturation and predicted MPB mortality estimates would reduce mature, dense 

pine structural stages. The effects of this habitat loss would be dependent on the extent and 

duration of the beetle epidemic. Treatments associated with Alternatives B and C would 

contribute to meeting Forest-wide objectives for early seral and open canopied pine structural 

stages (1, 2, 3A, and 4A), but would contribute to a loss in denser stand conditions, especially in 

the older more mature structural stages (3B, 3C, 4B, 4C, and 5) on the landscape. Cumulatively, 

all Pactola Project alternatives would further reduce habitat for several wildlife species that 

require late-successional or dense mature stands in the analysis area, affecting their distribution 

on the landscape. All alternatives whether indirectly or directly contribute to the distribution and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 238

restoration of other plant communities by varying degrees in the analysis area, increasing 

structural diversity and maintaining seral communities on the landscape. Alternative A would 

maintain snag and CWD at the project scale and would contribute to meeting snag and downed 

wood objectives short-term. Alternative A, based on predicted MPB effects, may not contribute 

to snag objectives long-term. Alternatives B and C could further reduce snag distribution and 

CWD in treated areas, especially adjacent to roads and private land if deemed a safety hazard. In 

addition, silviculture treatments may affect snag densities (recruitment) by decreasing the 

number of low vigor trees available to become snags. However, the action alternatives would 

contribute to maintaining large snags on the landscape long-term. 

Since 1997, cutting of snags on the forest has been limited to protecting the public and their

communities, fuel breaks, and designated firewood gathering areas. Based on the amount of 

dead and downed wood from MPB and in close proximity to Rapid City and Hill City, it is 

likely that areas in the analysis area would be designated for firewood gathering. This would 

decrease snag abundance and availability mostly adjacent to accessible areas. However, 

firewood gathering is not expected to affect Forest-wide snag objectives. 

The Canyon City RNA is surrounded on three sides by MA 3.7-Late Successional Forest 

Landscape, located along upper Rapid Creek. The Canyon City RNA would not be treated as 

part of the Pactola Project. A small portion of Pactola Project’s MA 3.7 is proposed to be

treated to meet Objective 10-03 through 10-06. Most of the areas adjacent to Rapid Creek and 

Slate Creek and have had not undergone vegetative treatments due to the steep slopes and lack 

of access. In those untreated areas, natural processes would continue to occur (fire, insects, 

and disease), providing habitat components associated with late succession habitat (decay 

process, fungi, CWD). MPB would likely reduce the amount of dense mature stands, changing 

the structural stage distribution in these areas. In addition, MPB effects would increase CWD, 

especially on steep slopes and inaccessible areas. These components would create conditions 

that increase the rate of spread, size, and complexity of a wildfire and compound effective fire 

suppression efforts. Alternative A would add to the potential of stand-replacing fire, therefore 

increasing the potential for these late successional MAs to move toward very open, less latesuccessional habitats. Treatments in Alternative B and C would reduce fire and insect hazards 

adjacent to these areas providing some protection to these MAs from large stand replacing fire 

events. In the event of this type of fire, the late-succession characteristics associated with the 

management objectives of MA 2.2 and 3.7 and untreated areas may be lost. The loss of latesuccession habitat to MPB or wildfire could add to the reduction in many wildlife species 

habitat (pygmy nuthatch, brown creeper, and bats) Forest-wide. 

Livestock grazing on Forest and private land would continue in the Pactola Project Area and 

surrounding areas. Although grazing practices have improved from historic conditions, 

impacts may occur, especially during drought conditions. Some allotments in the project have 

recently undergone an analysis to improve grazing practices in the allotments (Mystic Range 

Project). Grazing allotment management plans incorporate wildlife habitat needs, protection of 

riparian habitats and moves toward meeting Forest Plan direction to maintain forage and cover 

for wildlife species. The Pactola Project would not add any cumulative impacts to livestock 

use long-term. However, livestock structures may be damaged by harvest activities, increase 

accessibility by adding roads and trails and/or create open stand conditions changing livestock 

grazing patterns and livestock distribution short-term. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 239

Due to the project’s location (close proximity to Rapid City), improved access (US Hwy 385), 

developed recreation facilities, and the Pactola Reservoir, the analysis area is greatly influenced 

by recreationists, both consumptive and non-consumptive. Roads and trails can remove habitat, 

increase predation, create barriers, or decrease habitat quality for some species (e.g., fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, and land snails). Use of roads by humans can also increase disturbance to 

wildlife, particularly to nesting raptors. High road densities increase accessibility, and can 

facilitate recreation use, wildlife hunting, poaching, and illegal removal of snags. Road/trail 

densities have increased in the analysis area as a result of past vegetation management activities 

(e.g., ground based and cable logging), private land development, and recreation. 

In 2010, the Forest Travel Management Plan changed motorized travel use in the Pactola 

Project and surrounding areas. The northern portions of the Pactola Project Area have been 

designated as a concentrated road and trail use areas would have more motorized use than in 

the past. Of the CMUA, the amount of road and trails currently utilized by the motorized 

public would be limited to designated routes. Off-road/trail motorized recreation is prohibited. 

However, road templates whether open to motorized travel or not could still provide access for 

recreationist (foot or horse travel), livestock, and predators. In addition, roads have been 

attributed to increasing sediments into streams. Alternative A would not add any additional 

road/trails to the area that could open up previously inaccessible areas, therefore would not add 

any cumulative effect to the analysis area. Alternative B would add additional road/trails (e.g., 

NFSR, temporary roads) to the landscape that would allow more access to previously 

inaccessible areas, but would repair poor roads/trail conditions to meet Forest Plan direction. 

Alternative C would greatly add additional roads/trails to the landscape allowing more access, 

especially to areas previously inaccessible but repair poor roads/trail condition to meet Forest 

Plan direction. All alternatives would maintain road/trail densities open to motorized vehicles, 

both year-round and seasonally. An increase in road prisms across the landscape may cause 

additional negative effects to stream health that could impact Pactola Reservoir and its 

downstream users. Since the Forest Travel Management Plan is a fluid plan, increases in 

motorized travel could occur if roads exist on the landscape (USDA Forest Service 2010). The 

effects to wildlife distribution and habitat availability may be further affected by this increase 

in motorized use. 

Private land development is still occurring, and the trend is expected to continue into the

future. Habitat changes associated with increased development would likely decrease prime 

wildlife habitat (riparian areas and grasslands) and could influence wildlife distribution and 

their ability to move across the landscape. Providing secondary access roads (for evacuation 

during a fire) and clearing along these roads to maintain safe egress to private land would 

increase sight ability of wildlife and affect movement patterns. As development increases, 

water availability would be reduced, either from wells or water impoundments reducing flows 

in streams. Low water tables could drastically change riparian communities and aquatic 

habitats. Species most affected are those associated with riparian components (e.g., fish, song 

sparrows, beavers) and grassland communities (e.g., grasshopper sparrows, big game). In 

addition, increased noise, domestic animals, and introduction of invasive species would occur, 

changing wildlife distribution and use. Roads on private land are expected to increase, as land 

is sub-divided. Roads that access private land and communities would likely be improved to 

allow easier, safer access to arterial roads that would increase mortality and decrease use in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 240

adjacent suitable habitat. Some vegetative treatments are occurring on private land, mostly in 

conjunction with reducing MPB effects and increasing development opportunities. The 

amount of vegetative treatments on private land would slightly reduce wildlife habitat on the 

landscape. Alternatives B and C would contribute to these effects improving secondary access 

routes and by clearing roads and egress routes. Noise created by harvest activities would be 

short-term and cause a slight change in wildlife distribution and use. However, once 

equipment leaves an area, wildlife use would resume. 

Although climate change may affect wildlife and fish species, it is difficult to determine the 

potential impacts to species in Pactola Project Area. Effects of climate change are 

becoming better understood but at this time, the effects cannot be meaningfully measured 

at the project scale. Therefore, cumulative effects are difficult to reliably predict the 

environmental outcome of a particular land-use activity on wildlife species or their habitat 

as a result of the Pactola Project. 

FISHERIES 

Affected Environment 

The fish native to the Black Hills included a few species of suckers, chubs and daces. 

The mountain sucker is designated as a Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species and a 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Black Hills National Forest. Other native 

fish species documented in the analysis area include the longnose dace and white sucker. 

The primary recreational fishing opportunities in the project area are on Rapid Creek and 

Pactola Reservoir. Recreational fisheries are comprised of non-native gamefish species, 

primarily trout. Brook and brown trout fisheries are sustained almost entirely by natural 

reproduction, whereas rainbow trout are routinely hatchery stocked for high-use “put and 

take” fisheries. Brook and brown trout spawn in the fall with the fry emerging in the 

spring. A number of other gamefish species, such as bass, pike and perch, occur in 

Pactola Reservoir due to illegal stockings. Restricted motor vehicle access along Rapid 

Creek provides for a walk-in fishing experience immediately upstream of Pactola 

Reservoir and also upstream of Silver City. 

There are no natural lakes in the Black Hills (Stewart and Thilenius 1964). Pactola Reservoir 

is a 785-surface acre impoundment on Rapid Creek, constructed in the mid-1950s, and 

operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Of the twelve fish species reported in Pactola 

Reservoir (SDGFP 2007), only the white sucker is a native species. 

All streams and lakes in South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation and fish 

and wildlife propagation, recreation, and stock watering (South Dakota Administrative Rule 

74:51:03:01). Rapid Creek, Jenny Gulch, Kelly Gulch and Pactola Reservoir are also assigned 

the beneficial use of coldwater permanent fish life propagation. This use is currently being 

attained (SD DENR 2010). West Nugget Gulch is assigned the beneficial use of coldwater 

marginal fish life propagation. Additional information on water resources can be found in the 

Watershed, Geology, and Soils section. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 241

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative there would be no effects from a proposed action. However, there

are effects of continuing current management (no action) as discussed below. 

Past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable actions would continue to affect fisheries. The 

most obvious direct effect results from anglers catching fish for recreation. Aquatic habitat 

would continue to be fragmented by Pactola Dam and other fish barriers, such as impassable 

culverts at road-stream crossings. Natural erosion processes, as well as road use and 

maintenance, livestock grazing, recreation activities and other uses would continue to add 

sediment into streams and Pactola Reservoir. This alternative has the highest fire/fuels hazard. 

There could be a pulse of sediment input into water bodies if a stand-replacing wildland fire 

occurs in the project area that is followed by a rainfall event prior to groundcover becoming 

reestablished to prevent soil erosion. All sediment transported through the stream network 

ultimately gets deposited in Pactola Reservoir. Sediment input into Pactola Reservoir postwildfire may have a short-term negative impact on fish survival and reproduction. Bog iron 

deposits in the upper Rapid Creek watershed bind with phosphorus resulting in low 

productivity in Pactola Reservoir. A nutrient pulse into Pactola Reservoir post-wildfire may 

have short-term positive benefits to fish growth. 

Site-specific fish habitat enhancement projects that improve fish passage, reduce sediment 

input, etc. may occur on a limited basis thru other program funding, such as wildlife/fish, 

watershed improvement, or Roads/Engineering. Recreational fishing opportunities, which 

exist primarily within Rapid Creek and Pactola Reservoir, would continue to be provided under

the State’s management jurisdiction. Fish harvest regulations and stocking rates may change to 

meet angler expectations. 

Alternative B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects to fisheries resulting from land management activities were 

disclosed in the Forest Plan Phase II Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Direct 

effects to fisheries are defined as those inwater activities that have the potential to immediately 

injure or kill fish. These activities are typically associated with the installation or repair of 

structures, such as culverts at road-stream crossings. Reconstruction of National Forest System 

Roads 141.1D, 142, and 249 on Broad Gulch, Kelly Gulch, and Nugget Gulch, respectively, 

would require some inwater construction to harden stream crossings or to install culverts. The 

normal operating season for road work is June 1 to November 1, which minimizes the overlap 

with fall-spawning brook trout and brown trout, that are more susceptible to harm because their 

eggs are buried in the stream bottom in concentrated pockets (redds) and require a fairly long 

time to incubate, hatch and emerge as compared to native fishes. A design criteria specific to 

Kelly Gulch and Nugget Gulch to avoid inwater activities associated with road reconstruction 

and maintenance from October 15 to April 1 to avoid impacts to fall-spawning brook trout and 

brown trout their redds. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 242

The indirect effects to fisheries are the changes in water quality, flow regimes, stream 

temperature, etc. that result from implementation of the action alternatives. These effects are 

disclosed in the Watershed, Geology and Soils section of the EIS. The input of fine 

sediments from roads have the potential to adversely affects fisheries by reducing forage and 

pool depth and degrading spawning habitat. Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines, Rocky Mountain Region Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP’s; Forest 

Service Handbook 2509.25), and design criteria specific to this Project would maintain water 

quality standards and protect assigned beneficial uses. 

Subsequently, no long-term negative effects to fish spawning, rearing, foraging or 

sheltering are anticipated. No new barriers to fish movement would be created because all 

new instream structures would allow for the passage of fish consistent with Standard 1203. 

Effects specific to the mountain sucker are disclosed in the Biological Evaluation and 

summarized in Appendix D of this EIS. 

Alternative C proposes cable and/or helicopter logging, roadside treatments and shaded 

fuel breaks that are not in Alternative B. 

Only a small acreage of cable logging is proposed in close proximity to Pactola Reservoir, 

Jenny Gulch, Kelly Gulch, or Rapid Creek. Cable logging yards logs uphill concentrating the 

disturbance away from drainage bottoms and water bodies reducing the likelihood of sediment 

into streams and Pactola Reservoir. Design criteria to minimize ground disturbance in the 

water influence zone (a minimum of 100 feet adjacent to water bodies) should avoid adverse 

effects to fisheries due to loss of riparian vegetation or increased sediment input. Cable 

logging requires 19 miles of new road construction. New roads to access most of these units 

are on ridgelines, with the exception of about 0.3 mile of new road that spurs off of NFSR 141 

upslope of Jenny Gulch, approximately 0.5 miles upstream of Pactola Reservoir. Road-related 

design criteria to minimize erosion and avoid sediment transport into Jenny Gulch and 

ultimately Pactola Reservoir would mitigate indirect impacts to fisheries. 

Helicopter logging is expected to have minimal indirect effects to fisheries because 

ground disturbance at the site of tree removal would be negligible and the same road 

network would be used as haul routes. Logs would be flown to roads and landings used 

for ground based or cable logging. 

Approximately 135 acres of roadside treatments are proposed within the water influence zone. 

The majority of these acres are along Kelly Gulch, Bear Gulch, and Broad Gulch, 58, 30, and 

23 acres respectively. The implementation of resource conservation measures to avoid 

sediment input, maintain streambank stability, and maintain riparian shading to moderate water 

temperatures is predicted to mitigate indirect adverse effects to fisheries. 

Four sites, totaling approximately 31 acres of fuel breaks adjacent to private lands, are 

proposed in proximity to perennial streams. A little over half of these acres occur near Rapid 

Creek and the remainder are near Bear Gulch. No roads are proposed to access these sites. 

Untreated private land provides a vegetation buffer between the fuel breaks and these perennial 

streams, reducing the likelihood of sediment input into streams. Overall, ground disturbance 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 243

associated with these fuel breaks would be minimal and no adverse indirect effects to fish 

habitat are predicted. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis was bounded in space as the Pactola Project Area. Any 

potential indirect impacts to fisheries are not likely to be discernable in Rapid Creek 

downstream of Pactola Dam due to the dilution factor based on the volume of water stored in 

the reservoir and the regulated releases from the reservoir. The analysis was bounded in time 

as the next 10-15 years which is the likely duration of activities that may affect fisheries. 

Overall, Alternatives B and C would have a positive incremental impact to fishery resources. 

Vegetation treatments that move ecological conditions (reduced fuel loads, increased 

hardwood acres) to a more desired fire regime condition class are likely to minimize the 

sediment “pulse” and water quality impacts that could result after a stand-replacing wildfire, 

should one occur. No substantial increase in sediment transport to water bodies is 

anticipated. Both Alternatives B and C are not expected to degrade water quality or exceed 

State-defined thresholds for the various water quality parameters associated with each 

beneficial use (see the Watershed, Geology, and Soils section for additional information). 

The maintenance and improvement of existing road-stream crossings in the Pactola Project 

Area provides an opportunity to reduce sediment input into streams in the long-term and 

maintain or improve fish passage and aquatic habitat consistent with Objectives 217, 219, 

and Standard 1203. Fisheries-related beneficial uses and water quality standards will be 

attained, thereby maintaining recreational fishing opportunities. 

Management Indicator Species 

Based on the mountain suckers historic occurrence in the analysis area, it was identified for 

project-level MIS analysis. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the mountain sucker 

are disclosed in the Biological Evaluation (BE). The BE is summarized in Appendix D. 

Long-term viability for this species was evaluated in the BE for the Forest Plan Phase II 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2005c). The Phase II BE determined that the mountain 

sucker was likely to persist for the next 50 years if land management activities are 

implemented consistent with the Forest Plan. 

This MIS discussion focuses on this project’s effects on the Forest-wide population and/or 

habitat trend and this project’s consistency with the mountain sucker MIS objective in the 

Forest Plan (Objective 238d). 

The Forest-wide population trend for mountain sucker is one of decline when comparing past to 

present abundance and distribution (USDA Forest Service 2010c). All alternatives would have a 

neutral effect on the Forest-wide population trend for the mountain sucker because of this 

species’ limited occurrence and the small portion of habitat (Rapid Creek upstream of the Castle 

Creek confluence) that is in the Pactola Project Area. The implementation of design criteria, 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and regional watershed conservation practices under both 

Alternatives B and C would meet the intent of Objective 238d to maintain habitat quality and 

connectivity for this species. Reducing the fire/fuels hazard and the risk of mountain pine beetle 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 244

infestation at the landscape level may have some positive benefits to this species, but the action 

alternatives are not focused on the threats, such as habitat degradation due to recurrent drought, 

negative interactions with non-native fish and stream fragmentation due to barriers, that are more 

likely causing the downward trend in the Forest-wide mountain sucker population. 

Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Region 2 Sensitive Species

There are no federally threatened, endangered or proposed fish species known to occur or 

likely to be affected by management activities in Pennington county nor any designated critical 

habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Subsequently, no additional consultation is 

needed for fish species pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act. 

The finescale dace, lake chub, and mountain sucker are Region 2 sensitive species known to 

occur on the Black Hills National Forest. The action alternatives will have no impact on the 

finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus) or the lake chub (Couesius plumbeous). The finescale 

dace has not been documented in the Rapid Creek drainage (Isaak et al. 2003). The lake chub 

occurs in Deerfield Reservoir (Isaak et al. 2003), which is upstream of this analysis area. 

The only documented occurrence of mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) in the Pactola 

Project Area has been in Rapid Creek upstream of the Castle Creek confluence (Stewart and 

Thilenius 1964, Ford 1988). Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to this species have been 

analyzed in the Biological Evaluation and summarized in Appendix D of this document. 

Alternatives B and C would have no impact on the mountain sucker because of its limited 

occurrence in the analysis area and the lack of proposed management activities that are likely to 

directly or indirectly affect this species in Rapid Creek upstream of the Castle Creek confluence. 

BOTANY 

Affected Environment 

The Pactola Project Area supports a diversity of plant community types as a result of the range 

of elevation in the project area and major variations in geology and geomorphology. 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) dominates the majority of the project area. Most drainages 

and north facing slopes are characterized by white spruce (Picea glauca) stands with little 

vascular understory, mixed hardwood aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch (Betula 

papyrifera), or willow/sedge (Salix spp. /Carex spp.) communities. Meadows within the 

project area are most commonly mixed grass/forb meadows or grass/sedge meadows. 

Ponderosa pine is encroaching into many community types as a result of suppression of

the natural fire regime. Riparian community types occur along perennial streams such as 

Rapid Creek, Slate Creek, and Jim Creek, as well as their tributaries. There are also 

numerous intermittent streams with varying amounts of associated riparian vegetation. 

No Botanical Areas overlap with the Pactola Project Area, however the Canyon City Research 

Natural Area (RNA) lies within the project boundary. The Canyon City RNA is afforded 

protection from timber harvest to conserve and protect all natural ecosystem functions. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 245

Species Considered and Evaluated 

Federally Listed Plant Species 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list for Threatened and Endangered 

species was accessed on December 10, 2009 for the state of South Dakota. As of this date, 

there were no threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within the State of South 

Dakota (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 2009a & 2009b), nor were there any proposed or 

candidate threatened or endangered plant species known to occur in South Dakota (USDI Fish 

& Wildlife Service 2009c & 2009d). 

Threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species which could potentially occur on the Black 

Hills National Forest were identified and addressed through informal consultation with the South 

Dakota and Wyoming Field Offices of USFWS during the Phase II Amendment development 

(USDA Forest Service 2005a). Subsequently, these threatened, endangered, or proposed species 

do not need to be further analyzed and are not mentioned in subsequent sections. 

Candidate species have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to warrant a 

proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but development of a listing regulation is precluded 

by other higher priority listing activities. Species that are candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) are automatically placed on the Region 2 Forester’s sensitive 

species list. The analysis and determination of effects for candidate species are included as part 

of the Biological Evaluation for sensitive species. The only candidate plant species known to 

occur on the BHNF, narrowleaf grapefern (Botrychium lineare), was officially removed from the 

candidate list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI Fish & Wildlife 2007). However, 

narrowleaf grapefern remains on the Region 2 sensitive plant list and is discussed under the 

Biological Evaluation for Region 2 sensitive species found later in this document. 

No further analysis is needed for species not known or suspected to occur in the project area. 

Implementation of any of the three alternatives as described will not affect any threatened or 

endangered plant species or designated critical habitat. Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation is not required for this project. 

Region 2 Sensitive Plant Species 

The Forest Service Manual defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species 

identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidence by: 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density. 

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5, 19). 

All Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur in the Black Hills National Forest were 

considered in the evaluation. Habitat exists in the Pactola Project Area for several Region 2 

sensitive plant species confirmed to occur within the Black Hills. Based on available 

information, species with habitat preferences differing from habitat types present within the 

Pactola Project Area were not analyzed. Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) is the only 

Region 2 sensitive plant species confirmed to occur within the project area. Table 3-32 

summarizes Region 2 sensitive plant species having suitable habitat within Pactola Project Area. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 246

Table 3-32 Region 2 sensitive plant species having suitable habitat within the project area

Scientific Name Common Name Known to 

Occur in 

Project Area 

Suitable 

Habitat 

Habitat Category for 

Analysis 

Botrychium campestre prairie moonwort Y + + 

Botrychium lineare narrowleaf grapefern N + + 

Carex alopecoidea fox-tail sedge N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Cypripedium 

parviflorum 

yellow lady’s slipper N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Lycopodium 

complanatum 

trailing clubmoss N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Platanthera orbiculata large round-leaved 

orchid 

N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Salix candida sage willow N Y wet meadow 

Salix serissima autumn willow N Y wet meadow 

Sphagnum 

angustifolium

sphagnum moss N Y wet meadow

Viburnum opulus var. 

americanum 

highbush cranberry N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

Viola selkirkii Selkirk’s violet N Y white spruce/hardwood 

drainage 

+ Based on limited knowledge of habitat requirements for this species, presence/absence of suitable habitat 

in the project area and the habitat category for analysis were not determined. 

Species of Local Concern (SOLC) 

A Species of Local Concern is described in the Forest Service Manual as plant, fish or wildlife 

species (including subspecies or varieties) that do not meet the criteria for sensitive status. 

These could include species with declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those that 

are important components of diversity in a local area. The local area is defined as NFS lands 

within the Black Hills National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The list of SOLC 

appears in the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Phase II 

Amendment Final EIS. 

Two populations of pleated gentian (Gentiana affinis) were confirmed within the Pactola Project 

Area. Habitat may be present in the project area for seven additional plant Species of Local 

Concern. The primary habitat for the eight plant Species of Local Concern which occur or have 

suitable habitat within the project area can be categorized as white spruce and hardwood 

dominated drainages and wet meadows. Any potentially suitable habitat that may exist overlaps 

with suitable habitat for Region 2 sensitive plant species. Therefore, design criteria exist in the 

Botany Biological Evaluation that includes potential habitat for plant Species of Local Concern 

as well. Refer to the “Effects Analysis” section in the Botany Biological Evaluation (BE) for a 

discussion of possible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these habitats. 

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project 

area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 247

Analysis was conducted on the effects of the proposed action on Black Hills National Forest 

Species of Local Concern that may occur or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs in the 

Pactola Project Area. This analysis considers management activities of all action alternatives 

and associated design criteria and mitigation measures (see Appendix B). 

Table 3-33 Plant Species of Local Concern with suitable habitat in Pactola Project Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Known to Occur 

in Project Area 

Suitable Habitat 

Botrychium multifidum leathery grape-fern N Y 

Carex bella southwestern showy sedge N Y 

Gentiana affinis pleated gentian Y Y 

Listera convallarioides broadlipped twayblade N Y 

Lycopodium annotinum stiff clubmoss N Y 

Oxyria digyna alpine mountainsorrel N Y 

Petasites sagittatus arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot N Y 

Salix lucida ssp. caudata shining willow N Y 

Environmental Consequences 

An effects analysis was completed for those species that could be impacted by the proposed 

project. This analysis addresses Region 2 sensitive plant species and plant Species of Local 

Concern (SOLC) with suitable habitat in the project area. 

Two populations of pleated gentian were confirmed within the Pactola Project Area. Habitat 

may be present in the project area for seven additional plant Species of Local Concern. The 

primary habitat for the eight plant Species of Local Concern which occur or have suitable 

habitat within the project area can be categorized as white spruce and hardwood dominated 

drainages and wet meadows. Any potentially suitable habitat that may exist overlaps with 

suitable habitat for Region 2 sensitive plant species. Therefore, design criteria exist in the 

Botany Biological Evaluation that includes potential habitat for plant Species of Local Concern 

as well. Refer to the “Effects Analysis” section in the Botany Biological Evaluation (BE) for a 

discussion of possible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to these habitats. 

No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or suspected to occur in the project 

area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. 

Analysis was conducted on the effects of the proposed action on Black Hills National Forest 

Species of Local Concern that may occur or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs in the 

Pactola Project Area. This analysis considers management activities of all action alternatives 

and associated design criteria and mitigation measures as set forth in the Pactola Project Area 

DEIS and can be found in the Pactola Project Area Botany Specialist Report. 

In the Black Hills, the primary habitat for the R2 sensitive and plant SOLC with suitable 

habitat in the project area is moist forest and/or riparian communities often with a birch or 

spruce component. The Pactola Project Area has suitable habitat for the following species: 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 248

• R2 sensitive species: Prairie moonwort, narrowleaf grapefern, foxtail sedge, 

yellow lady’s slipper, trailing clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, sage willow, 

autumn willow, sphagnum moss, highbush cranberry, and great-spurred violet. 

• SOLC: Leathery grapefern, southwestern showy sedge, pleated gentian, 

broadlipped twayblade, stiff clubmoss, alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet 

coltsfoot, and shining willow. 

Because suitable habitats for the analyzed Region 2 sensitive plant species can be grouped into 

like habitats, effects analysis were combined for species based on habitat type as divided in 

Table 3-34. 

Table 3-34 Habitat Types Analyzed in Effects Analysis

Suitable Habitat Type Species included in habitat 

Drainages associated with white spruce and 

hardwoods 

Foxtail sedge, yellow lady’s slipper, trailing 

clubmoss, large round-leaf orchid, highbush 

cranberry, and great-spurred violet 

Wet meadows Sage willow, autumn willow, and sphagnum 

moss 

Unknown habitat classification Prairie moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Suitable Habitat Types 

Under Alternative A there would be no negative and/or beneficial direct effects to any of the 

habitat groups because implementation of elements of the proposed action would not take 

place. Ongoing forest protection efforts and recurring road maintenance on system roads 

would continue as directed by the Forest Plan. Other management activities within the project 

area would also continue (see Cumulative Effects below). 

Low intensity fires, commonly associated with light fuels (grass and small diameter woody 

debris) generally do not burn continuously or with great heat through moist, white spruce and 

hardwood dominated drainages or wet meadows and therefore do not have a catastrophic 

impact on these community types. If the project area remains untreated, over time there would 

be an increase in the amount of fuel in the area as trees are killed by mountain pine beetle and 

fall leading to an increased risk of high intensity wildfire. High intensity fires can change the 

characteristics of the soil making them unsuitable for certain sensitive plant species. When a 

fire burns in heavy fuels, the result is a smoldering fire. Although smoldering fires have lower 

temperatures than flaming fires, they move slowly through an area causing more profound soil 

impacts and greater vegetative mortality (Lentile et al. 2006). 

Over time, if no action is taken within the Pactola Project Area, mountain pine beetles 

would most likely continue to cause ponderosa pine mortality. As the trees fall, more

sunlight and precipitation would be allowed through the canopy to the understory 

changing the microclimate and ultimately the vegetation composition. Fallen trees could 

also crush sensitive species and cover up suitable habitat. These impacts affect unknown 

habitat classification suitable habitat type (Table 3-34). These impacts will be smaller in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 249

hardwood and white spruce drainages and wet meadows because ponderosa pine is not 

the dominant species. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are bound in space by an area half a mile outside the project area, 

because the influence of other management activities (particularly timber management) on 

botanical resources is primarily determined by impacts on hydrology and a half-mile buffer is 

sufficient to capture this influence. The cumulative effects are bound in time ten years prior to 

the decision and ten years after the decision because this is the average amount of time 

between vegetation treatments in any given area. 

Activities outside the scope of this proposed action would continue regardless of which 

alternative is chosen and include firewood gathering, Christmas tree cutting, road and utility 

right-of-way clearing, range improvements, livestock grazing, and mining. 

Firewood gathering occurs in designated areas, generally away from known occurrences of 

Region 2 sensitive species and their habitat, therefore the risk of firewood gathering to Region 

2 sensitive plant species is low. This activity would most likely be less common in the project 

area if Alternative A is chosen because these areas are usually associated with slash piles and 

former timber sales. This activity would primarily affect the unknown habitat classification 

suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Because Christmas tree cutting occurs Forest-wide, it can affect Region 2 sensitive plant species 

and their habitat. Because this activity occurs when the ground is frozen and the impact area is 

small, the risk to Region 2 sensitive plant species is low and generally limited to removing 

spruce trees which provide shade and microhabitat. This activity would remain at current levels 

if Alternative A is chosen. This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet 

meadows, and unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Road and utility right-of-way clearing affects areas already impacted by the presence of roads 

and utility corridors. Effects of these activities are similar to those of timber sales and include 

crushing, trampling, and uprooting of individual plants as well as changing the light and moisture 

regime within the project area. This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, 

wet meadows, and unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Range developments include fencing, dugouts, wells, and spring developments. These 

management activities are used to influence the distribution of livestock on the landscape. 

Range developments, particularly water developments, affect Region 2 sensitive plant habitat 

because they occur in drainages and wetlands (suitable habitat), however they tend to 

concentrate livestock use in these areas and exclude livestock from spring sources and other 

sensitive areas. This activity would continue at current levels if Alternative A is chosen. This 

activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet meadows, and unknown 

habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Livestock grazing affects most of the project area, with the greatest impacts on meadows, 

riparian, and wet areas. Impacts to Region 2 sensitive plant species includes trampling and 

grazing on individuals by livestock as well as soil disturbance and compaction. If 

Alternative A is chosen, livestock grazing may be further concentrated into meadows and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 250

riparian areas because as conifers encroach on meadows and convert from grassland to 

woodlands, less forage is available to livestock outside of the open grassy areas. This would 

result in livestock concentrating in smaller areas, particularly meadows and drainages, for 

longer periods of time, thus increasing their impact on these habitats. This activity would 

affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet meadows, and unknown habitat 

classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Any future projects would require separate environmental review and analysis of effects on 

resources to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. This analysis addresses the 

direct and indirect effects the alternatives have on botanical resources in the Pactola Project Area. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) was the only Region 2 sensitive plant species 

confirmed within the project area and is restricted to one population. This population has 

design criteria associated with it that would limit the potential effects (see Appendix B). The 

population is buffered with an area that would not be vegetatively treated, not have landings or 

log decks constructed, not have equipment parked during any management activities, not have 

broadcast prescribed burn control lines constructed through, and would only be burned if a low 

intensity burn can be achieved. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Suitable Habitat Types 

Direct negative effects of the proposed action to undetected individuals include destruction of 

individuals during tree felling and skidding operations, burial, crushing, and burning of 

individuals by slash piles, trampling by equipment and/or personnel, and burning of at least 

above ground parts as part of broadcast prescribed burning. Application of fire (either pile 

burning or broadcast prescribed burning) may result in the burning of undetected individuals, 

however most species recover quickly after low- to moderate-intensity prescribed burns 

(Knapp et al. 2007) and the areas exposed to high intensity pile burning are relatively small. 

Equipment used during construction and maintenance of roads and/or prescribed broadcast 

burn control lines could crush, bury, or uproot undetected individuals. Prairie moonwort and 

narrowleaf grapefern are particularly susceptible to these impacts because they frequently 

occur along road corridors and other disturbed areas. This potential effect is mitigated by 

limiting the grading of roads in areas of highest potential habitat. 

Application of fire, particularly broadcast prescribed burning, removes the understory and litter 

layer from the forest floor. This loss of organic matter can decrease the moisture content of the 

soil. The heat generated by combustion of organic matter can also damage the ectomycorrhizal 

fungi community upon which some Region 2 sensitive species are dependent (narrowleaf 

grapefern, prairie moonwort, and yellow lady’s slipper), however this effect is usually slight if 

fire intensity is kept low (Bastias et al. 2006). In addition, burning removes existing 

understory vegetation, reducing competition, and opening up habitat for invasion by other 

species. These effects are magnified in areas experiencing intense burns, such as slash piles 

(Haskins and Gehring 2004). Once established, these exotic species can out-compete native 

vegetation causing a shift in the ecology of the area. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 251

Other potential indirect effects result from greater use of existing roads for hauling resulting in 

an increase in dust pollution. Sensitive plants that are undetected along roads could experience 

reduced photosynthetic capacity due to a coating of dust on the leaves. Also, removal of 

timber may also open access to areas previously protected from impacts by livestock and 

illegal off-road vehicle use. Increased livestock utilization and illegal off-road travel in 

previously inaccessible areas not only increases the potential for grazing, trampling, and other 

losses of individuals, but also increases the chance for non-native species invasion.

Indirect effects that could stem from not treating all of the acres proposed in Alternative C 

include attack by mountain pine beetle on remaining trees. Once infested, the trees would most 

likely die and fall, leaving heavy fuels, and increasing the chance of catastrophic wildfire. 

When a fire burns in heavy fuels, the result is a smoldering fire. Although smoldering fires 

have lower temperatures than flaming fires, they move slower through an area causing more 

profound soil impacts and greater vegetative mortality (Lentile et al. 2006). 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Specific Suitable Habitat Types 

If undetected populations are present in hardwood and white spruce drainages, direct negative 

effects of project activities could include risk of impact from hardwood restoration cuts and 

stream crossings. Hardwood retention treatments pose an even greater risk of direct impacts to 

undetected individuals in hardwood dominated drainages because this treatment requires 

personnel and equipment to access the interior of hardwood communities to remove conifers. 

This exposes the entire stand to direct impacts rather than only the edges (as would be

experienced in a hardwood restoration cut). 

If undetected populations exist in wet meadows, riparian areas, and spruce drainages they would 

be afforded more protection than those discussed in the Direct and Indirect Effects Common to 

All Suitable Habitat Types under Best Management Practices and Forest Service Manual 

2509.25. Design criteria limit road construction, skidding, control lines, staging and parking in 

unique botanical areas including wet meadows, riparian areas and hardwood/white spruce 

drainages commonly associated with sensitive species. If such activities are unavoidable, a 

botanist would be available and would be consulted to mitigate impact to habitat. 

Indirect effects of meadow and hardwood release treatments on hardwood/white spruce 

dominated drainages and wet meadow habitats (Table 3-34) include disruption of key fungal 

and other biological relationships that occur in the soils under meadows and hardwood leaf 

litter. Indirect effects of conifer removal would be a more open canopy that would allow more 

sunlight and precipitation to reach the ground, possibly altering habitat characteristics 

necessary for Region 2 sensitive plant species. Potentially beneficial indirect effects result from 

expansion of hardwood and meadow communities by removal of encroaching conifers 

(hardwood restoration and meadow release cuts). These treatments may result in direct impacts 

due to ground disturbance in the short term, but improve sensitive plant habitat over the longterm by preventing conversion of the stand to ponderosa pine. 

Heavy equipment associated with mechanical treatments can loosen and displace soil, which 

can then collect in drainages and other low-lying habitat which is suitable for Region 2 

sensitive plant species. Heavy equipment can also alter the microsite hydrology and fungal 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 252

communities preventing dependant Region 2 sensitive species (such as prairie moonwort, 

narrowleaf grapefern, and yellow lady’s slipper) from establishing. 

One of the potentially beneficial indirect effects of the proposed action is the introduction of 

disturbance, such as burned areas and roads. These disturbed areas, if decommissioned and left 

undisturbed could become suitable habitat for Region 2 sensitive species such as narrowleaf 

grapefern and prairie moonwort as these species are associated with historically disturbed 

areas. In addition, the removal of fuels from the project area would decrease the chance of 

large-scale wildfire as discussed in the effects analysis for Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B with the difference being more acres treated, use of 

cable logging in areas non-conducive to ground based harvest, and helicopter logging in 

inaccessible areas. The direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative B, with a 

slightly higher probability of directly impacting Region 2 sensitive species because 19 miles 

of additional roads would be constructed to access cable logged areas. 

Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) was the only Region 2 sensitive plant species 

confirmed within the project area and is restricted to one population. This population has 

design criteria associated with it that would limit the potential effects (see Appendix B). The 

population is buffered with an area that would not be vegetatively treated, not have landings or 

log decks constructed, not have equipment parked during any management activities, not have 

broadcast prescribed burn control lines constructed through, and would only be burned if a low 

intensity burn can be achieved. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Suitable Habitat Types 

Direct negative effects of the proposed action to undetected individuals include destruction of 

individuals during tree felling and skidding operations, burial, crushing, and burning of 

individuals by slash piles, trampling by equipment and/or personnel, and burning of at least 

above ground parts as part of broadcast prescribed burning. These impacts would be the same 

for Alternative C as Alternative B. Application of fire (either pile burning or broadcast 

prescribed burning) may result in the burning of undetected individuals, however most species 

recover quickly after low- to moderate-intensity prescribed burns (Knapp et al. 2007) and the 

areas exposed to high intensity pile burning are relatively small. Equipment used during 

construction and maintenance of roads and/or prescribed broadcast burn control lines could 

crush, bury, or uproot undetected individuals. Prairie moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern are 

particularly susceptible to these impacts because they frequently occur along road corridors and 

other disturbed areas. These impacts would be potentially greater for Alternative C than 

Alternative B because 19 miles of additional roads would be constructed to access cable logged 

areas. This potential effect is mitigated by limiting the grading of roads in areas of highest 

potential habitat. 

Application of fire, particularly broadcast prescribed burning, removes the understory and litter 

layer from the forest floor. This loss of organic matter can decrease the moisture content of the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 253

soil. The heat generated by combustion of organic matter can also damage the ectomycorrhizal 

fungi community upon which some Region 2 sensitive species are dependent (narrowleaf 

grapefern, prairie moonwort, and yellow lady’s slipper), however this effect is usually slight if 

fire intensity is kept low (Bastias et al. 2006). In addition, burning removes existing 

understory vegetation, reducing competition, and opening up habitat for invasion by other 

species. These effects are magnified in areas experiencing intense burns, such as slash piles 

(Haskins and Gehring 2004). Once established, these exotic species can out-compete native 

vegetation causing a shift in the ecology of the area. 

Other potential indirect effects result from greater use of existing roads for hauling resulting in 

an increase in dust pollution. Sensitive plant individuals that are undetected along roads could 

experience reduced photosynthetic capacity due to a coating of dust on the leaves. Also, 

removal of timber may also open access to areas previously protected from impacts by 

livestock and illegal off-road vehicle use. Increased livestock utilization and illegal off-road 

travel in previously inaccessible areas not only increases the potential for grazing, trampling, 

and other losses of individuals, but also increases the chance for non-native species invasion. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Specific Suitable Habitat Types

If undetected populations are present in hardwood and white spruce drainages, direct negative 

effects of project activities could include risk of impact from hardwood restoration cuts and 

stream crossings. Hardwood retention treatments pose an even greater risk of direct impacts to 

undetected individuals in hardwood dominated drainages because this treatment requires 

personnel and equipment to access the interior of hardwood communities to remove conifers. 

This exposes the entire stand to direct impacts rather than only the edges (as would be

experienced in a hardwood restoration cut). 

If undetected, populations existing in wet meadows, riparian areas, and spruce drainages would 

be afforded more protection than those discussed in the Direct and Indirect Effects Common to 

All Suitable Habitat Types under Best Management Practices and Forest Service Manual 

2509.25. Design criteria limit road construction, skidding, control lines, staging and parking in 

unique botanical areas including wet meadows, riparian areas and hardwood/white spruce 

drainages commonly associated with sensitive species. If such activities are unavoidable, a 

botanist would be available and would be consulted to mitigate impact to habitat. 

Indirect effects of meadow and hardwood release treatments on hardwood/white spruce 

dominated drainages and wet meadow habitats (Table 3-34) include disruption of key fungal 

and other biological relationships that occur in the soils under meadows and hardwood leaf 

litter. Indirect effects of conifer removal would be a more open canopy that would allow more 

sunlight and precipitation to reach the ground, possibly altering habitat characteristics 

necessary for Region 2 sensitive plant species. Potentially beneficial indirect effects result 

from expansion of hardwood and meadow communities by removal of encroaching conifers 

(hardwood restoration and meadow release cuts). These treatments may result in direct 

impacts due to ground disturbance in the short term, but improve sensitive plant habitat over 

the long-term by preventing conversion of the stand to ponderosa pine. 

Heavy equipment associated with mechanical treatments can loosen and displace soil, which 

can then collect in drainages and other low-lying habitat which is suitable for Region 2 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 254

sensitive plant species. Heavy equipment can also alter the microsite hydrology and fungal 

communities preventing dependant Region 2 sensitive species (such as prairie moonwort, 

narrowleaf grapefern, and yellow lady’s slipper) from establishing. 

One of the potentially beneficial indirect effects of the proposed action is the introduction of 

disturbance, such as burned areas and roads. These disturbed areas, if decommissioned and left 

undisturbed could become suitable habitat for Region 2 sensitive species such as narrowleaf 

grapefern and prairie moonwort as these species are associated with historically disturbed 

areas. In addition, the removal of fuels from the project area would decrease the chance of 

large-scale wildfire as discussed in the effects analysis for Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are bound in space by an area half a mile outside the project area, 

because the influence of other management activities (particularly timber management) on 

botanical resources is primarily determined by impacts on hydrology and a half-mile buffer is 

sufficient to capture this influence. The cumulative effects are bound in time ten years prior to 

the decision and ten years after the decision because this is the average amount of time 

between vegetation treatments in any given area. 

Past actions, within the Pactola Project Area, are discussed in Appendix C. Current actions 

in the adjacent Prairie Project Area include the Placer Timber Sale (7 acres). The Slate 

Castle Project Area (USDA Forest Service 2009b) is a 38,271 acre planning area adjacent 

to the Pactola Project Area on the southwest side. The Slate Castle Project is currently 

being implemented with treatments similar to those proposed in the Pactola Project. 

Private land within and adjacent to the project area would most likely experience treatments 

similar to those used on NFS lands. This includes possible thinning activities used to create 

defensible space and fuel breaks around private property and structures, as well as fighting 

spread of mountain pine beetles. Livestock grazing is also a current use on privately held land. 

Firewood gathering occurs in designated areas, generally away from known occurrences of 

Region 2 sensitive species and their habitat, therefore the risk of firewood gathering to 

Region 2 sensitive plant species is low. This activity would most likely be more common in 

the project area if Alternative B or Alternative C is chosen over Alternative A because these 

areas are usually associated with slash piles and former timber sales. This activity would 

primarily affect the unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Because Christmas tree cutting occurs Forest-wide, it can affect Region 2 sensitive plant species 

and their habitat. Because this activity occurs when the ground is frozen and is small in impact 

area, the risk to Region 2 sensitive plant species is low and generally limited to removing spruce 

trees which provide shade and microhabitat. This activity would remain at current levels if 

Alternatives A, B, or C is chosen. This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce 

drainages, wet meadows, and unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Road and utility right-of-way clearing affects areas already impacted by the presence of 

roads and utility corridors. Effects of these activities are similar to those of timber sales and 

include crushing, trampling, and uprooting of individual plants as well as changing the light 

and moisture regime within the project area. This activity would increase if Alternative B or 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 255

C is chosen because trees would be cleared from new access roads. However, the long term 

need to clear trees from roads and utility right of ways would decrease because of lower tree 

density in the area. This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet 

meadows, and unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Range developments include fencing, dugouts, wells, and spring developments. These 

management activities are used to influence the distribution of livestock on the landscape. 

Range developments, particularly water developments, affect Region 2 sensitive plant habitat 

because they occur in drainages and wetlands (suitable habitat), however they tend to 

concentrate livestock use in these areas and exclude livestock from spring sources and other 

sensitive areas. This activity would continue at current levels if Alternative B or C is chosen. 

This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet meadows, and unknown 

habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Livestock grazing affects most of the project area, with the greatest impacts on meadows, 

riparian, and wet areas. Impacts to Region 2 sensitive plant species includes trampling and 

grazing on individuals by livestock as well as soil disturbance and compaction. If 

Alternative B or C is chosen, livestock grazing may impact a wider area of NFS lands 

because thinning of timber would allow livestock to roam into areas that were inaccessible 

due to tree density. This could expose populations of Region 2 previously protected from 

impacts by livestock use. Livestock usage in previously inaccessible areas not only increases 

the potential for grazing, trampling, and other losses of individuals, but also increases the 

chance for non-native species invasion. 

This activity would affect hardwood and white spruce drainages, wet meadows, and 

unknown habitat classification suitable habitat types (Table 3-34). 

Any future projects would require separate environmental review and analysis of effects 

on resources to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. This analysis

addresses the direct and indirect effects the alternatives have on botanical resources in the 

Pactola Project Area. 

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

This section will describe the affected environment and environmental consequences for each 

alternative to the Social Environment (Travel Management, Scenic Quality, Recreation Use, 

Lands and Special Uses, Heritage, and Social). 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Background 

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan 

was signed on May 7, 2010 and implementation began with publication of the Motorized 

Vehicle Use Map effective December 1, 2010. The Travel Management Plan will help meet 

the increasing demand for recreational travel opportunities and provide a range of quality 

experiences for other Forest users, while offering many recreational opportunities over time. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 256

The ROD designated 707 miles of system trails of various types Forest-wide, as well as 548 

miles of roads open to all vehicles. These roads and trails were designated to provide diverse 

motorized recreation opportunities in off-highway settings rather than roaded settings, to meet 

user interests and best manage public safety risks, disperse users, and reduce crowding and 

conflicts with other users. Motorized cross-country travel is prohibited, other than for 

dispersed camping and game retrieval along selected routes. 

The Travel Management Plan recognizes that the total number of off-highway vehicle miles 

included in the decision will not likely be available in a given year, with some trails being 

closed for project work or seasonal closures. The ROD also acknowledges that certain 

designated routes may not be available in any particular season or year because of contractor or 

timber purchaser operations, public safety, or resource concerns, leading to reduced miles 

available for OHV operation. 

Affected Environment 

Displayed in Table 3-35 below are the miles of various types of routes designated for motorized 

travel in the Pactola Project Area by the Forest Travel Management Plan Record of Decision 

(ROD). Also shown in the table below are the trail mileages that are currently open for motorized 

travel as shown on the 2011 Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). Miles of trail currently open is 

lower that designated in the ROD, since a number of trails require improvement before 

accommodating motorized traffic. The majority of the trails and roads open to all vehicles are 

concentrated in the northern portion of the project area, south of the Rochford Road, although 

there are a few trails in the southwestern portion of the project area off the China Gulch Road. 

Road and trail conditions vary throughout the project area. In areas with currently active 

timber sales, roads meet maintenance standards due to recent or ongoing maintenance activities 

by the timber purchaser. Other roads and trails that were system roads prior to becoming a 

designated trail likely do not meet maintenance standards. All or portions of some trails were 

“unauthorized” routes submitted by the public prior to designation. None of these routes have 

been maintained to any standard, and some of these routes may be poorly located, do not have 

adequate drainage structures, and may have steep grades with rutting and surface material loss 

resulting in sediment movement. 

Table 3-35 Miles of routes designated for motorized travel in the Pactola Project Area 

Route Type Open Yearlong Open Seasonally Total 

ROD MVUM ROD MVUM ROD MVUM 

Highway Legal Only 22 22 7 7 29 29 

Roads Open To All 12 12 2 2 14 14 

Trails Open To All 5 5 8 7 13 12 

Trails Open to Vehicles <62” 13 10 16 15 29 25 

Trails Open to Motorcycles 10 4 2 0 12 4 

TOTAL 62 53 35 31 97 84 

Note: Miles of National Forest System Roads closed yearlong = 60. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 257

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct effects to motorized 

recreation or to designated routes because no proposed activities would occur in the project 

area. Some beneficial, indirect effects include no increased dust, noise, and traffic associated 

with project activities under Alternatives B and C. 

Adverse, indirect effects of the No Action Alternative are that maintenance, 

relocation/reconstruction, and closures of routes not designated for motorized travel that are 

associated with and funded by timber harvest would not occur. Trails with steeper grades and 

those without adequate drainage structures would continue to erode and rutting would deepen 

as surface material continues to wash off the road. Soil and water resources would continue to 

be negatively affected by soil movement and sedimentation. Motorized recreation experiences 

would be negatively affected as the condition of the roads and trails continues to deteriorate. 

Unauthorized roads not designated for motorized travel would remain on the landscape, 

possibly leading to illegal use. Existing road closures in the project area that are currently 

ineffective would not be reinforced to restrict motorized travel until additional funding could 

be obtained. Continued motorized use of routes and areas meant to be closed to motorized 

travel would negatively impact those routes and areas, as well as the non-motorized 

recreational experiences of those seeking quiet and solitude. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The action alternatives, to varying degrees depending on the alternative, propose 

maintenance, reconstruction, potential road closures, and reinforcement of some existing but 

ineffective road closures. Direct effects from these activities are short-term vegetation 

loss/removal, soil disturbance and compaction, and an increase in noise, dust, and traffic 

during project operations. Motorized trails in the area bounded by US Highway 385, Rapid 

Creek, and Rochford Road (approximately 55 miles) that were system roads prior to 

designation as trails would be converted back to system roads from January 1, 2012 to May 

15, 2014 to accommodate project activities, and thus not available for non-highway legal 

motorized use. Trails in this area that were unauthorized routes or citizen submitted routes 

prior to designation would be closed to all motorized use during that same timeframe. After 

May 15, 2014, routes would be converted back to trails and open for motorized use from 

May 15 to December 15 of each year. Trails in the area bounded by US Highway 385, Silver

City Road, and Jenny Gulch Road that are currently open yearlong (approximately 19 miles) 

would thus be unavailable from December 15 to May 15 until project activities are 

completed, including non-commercial treatments. Project activities could also delay opening 

of designated trails that are not currently open, until after project activities are competed. 

Beneficial direct and indirect effects include maintenance, and relocation/reconstruction of 

some trails and roads open to all that are utilized for project activities would occur. 

Closures associated with and funded by timber harvest of some routes not designated for 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 258

motorized travel would also occur. All road work would comply with Best Management 

Practices and road design criteria. Safety issues would be addressed in the road design 

phase. Some routes would be realigned and relocated to reduce steep grades. Newly

constructed routes could provide additional motorized recreation opportunities with the 

potential to be added to the designated trail system at some point in the future. The newly 

constructed closed roads could, however lead to illegal motorized use of the routes. 

Long term, miles of roads and trails designated for motorized recreation would not change as 

a result of implementation of either action alternative, therefore the mileages shown in Table 

3-35 above would remain the same post-project. As previously noted, the miles of roads and 

trails designated by the Black Hills NF Travel Management ROD for motorized travel, as 

displayed above, are the maximum amount of routes available; not all the routes would be

available for motorized recreation in any given year, regardless of project activities. 

The number of miles of routes proposed to be maintained, reconstructed, converted, and 

constructed are very similar between Alternatives B and C, except that Alternative C 

proposes constructing an additional 15 miles of road to facilitate cable harvest operations. 

These newly constructed routes would be closed to motorized vehicles upon completion 

of harvest activities. 

Cumulative Effects

There are potential cumulative effects to the larger motorized trail system across the Forest. 

Temporary changes from trails to roads would likely be needed in other parts of the Forest, in 

addition to the Pactola Project Area, to respond to vegetation management needs associated 

with the ongoing mountain pine beetle epidemic. These additional temporary changes to the 

motorized trail system could affect the total amount of trails available to recreation users, and 

also affect the connectivity of various trails within the system. 

SCENIC QUALITY 

Affected Environment 

The Pactola Project Area is located west of Rapid City, SD in the Black Hills National Forest. 

Recreationists, permittees, and homeowners travel through this project area on a daily basis. 

During the spring and fall, the area is well traveled by hunters. During the summer, the area is 

heavily used for camping, fishing, boating and hiking. 

Valued Landscape Character Development 

Landscape character gives a geographic area its visual and cultural image, and consists of the 

combination of physical, biological, and cultural attributes that make each landscape identifiable 

or unique. Existing landscape character may range from predominantly natural landscapes to 

those that are heavily culturally influenced. The landscape character units are derived from an 

ecological framework utilizing ecological land descriptions and existing landscape uses. 

Ecological units are the mapped landscape analysis units used for ecosystem planning and 

management. The visual image created by the physical, biological, and cultural factors in the 

ecological land unit description helps define the landscape character for scenery management. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 259

Scenic Class measures the relative importance of, or value, of discrete landscape areas having 

similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic Class is used to 

compare the value of scenery with the value of other resources. The higher the Scenic Class, the 

more important it is to maintain the highest scenic value. The inventoried Scenic Class Values, 

on the Black Hills NF, are 1 (Highest), 2, 3, and 4 (Lowest). The scenic class values demonstrate 

the importance of the views in different areas. Approximately 29% of Pactola Project Area is 

designated as a Scenic Class 1, 47% in a Class 2, 23% in a Class 3, and 1% in a Class 4. 

Inherent Scenic Attractiveness is obtained by classifying the landscape into different degrees 

of variety. This determines which landscapes are most important and those that are of lesser 

value from the standpoint of scenic quality. The classification is based on the premise that 

all landscapes have some value, but those with the most variety or diversity have the greatest 

potential for high scenic value. Scenic Attractiveness classifications are: A - Distinctive, B - 

Typical and C - Indistinctive. Approximately 20% of the Pactola area is in the A - 

Distinctive classification, 60 % in the B - Typical and 20% in the C – Indistinctive. 

Landscape Visibility is the portions of landscapes visible from travel ways and use areas are 

important to constituents for their scenic quality, aesthetic values, and landscape merits. 

Sensitivity Level 1 travel ways that lead to important scenic features, residential areas, resorts, 

recreation areas, unique natural phenomena, wilderness trailheads, national parks, state and 

county parks, attract higher percentage of users having high concern for scenic quality, thus 

increasing the importance of those travel ways. 

Sensitivity Level 1 Corridors County and Forest Development Roads and Trails: 47% of the 

project area is visible. The project area is seen in the Foreground from US Highway 385, the 

Mickelson Trail, the Centennial Trail #89 - a designated ‘National Recreation Trail,’ and the 

Deerfield Trail #40. The project area is seen in the Middleground and Background from US 

Highway 385. The most visible areas of the project area are in the eastern and central portions, 

where the project area provides a backdrop for campgrounds, water activities on Pactola 

Reservoir, and Pactola Visitor Center. 

Sensitivity Level 2 Corridors County and Forest Development Roads and Trails: 56% of the 

project area is visible. This includes County Roads: 141 (Silver City), 237 (East Gimlet access 

to Silver City), 251 (Cross Over access from Silver City to Edelweiss), 251.1D (Edelweiss 

access), and National Forest Service Roads (NFSR): 157 (Jenny Gulch Picnic Ground access), 

251 (Cross Over access to Edelweiss), 253 (Bear Creek Group Camp site access), 258 (Custer 

Gulch boat launch and Pactola Campground access), 269 (Pactola Boat Dock access), and 545 

(Pactola Campground access). 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are management objectives that were adopted from the 

scenic class values. Scenic Integrity is a measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually 

perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes 

that have little or no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic 

appeal. Within the Pactola Project Area, approximately 27% has a High, 44% Moderate, 29% 

Low, and less than 0.1% Very Low assigned SIO. 

Existing Scenic Integrity represents the current status of a landscape. It is determined on the 

basis of visual changes that detract from the scenic quality of the area. Direct human 

alterations may be included if they have become accepted over time as positive landscape 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 260

character values. Existing scenic integrity is the current visual state, which is measured in 

degrees of deviation from the natural appearance of the landscape character type. These 

ratings give an indication of the present level of visual quality and visual evidence of 

management activities. The frame of reference for measuring achievement of scenic integrity 

levels is the valued attributes of the existing landscape character unit being viewed. In natural 

or natural appearing character, this is limited to natural or natural appearing vegetative 

patterns, features of water and rock, and landforms. 

The area is noted for conifer stands in gently rolling terrain, meadows that follow streams 

and intermittent streams, and pockets of Aspen and other hardwood trees. Forested areas are 

predominantly populated by ponderosa pine communities, but spruce communities are found 

in the project area. Water features include Pactola Reservoir (approximately 868 acres) and 

are limited to narrow, quiet, low-flow streams. Apparent human alterations in the form of 

roads have generally been accepted over time as part of the positive cultural landscape 

character attributes – when they do not dominate the landscape in appearance or quantity, 

and are limited around non-motorized areas or recreation facilities. Vegetation alterations in 

the form of fuel treatments, commercial and non-commercial thinning are scattered, and only 

readily apparent when adjacent to a main road. Pine and spruce stands are expanding into 

meadows and hardwood stands. 

In the portion of the project area (east of US Hwy 385, along the Silver City Road, etc.) there 

are isolated Foreground views (locations along the main roads) where past vegetative 

treatments are evident; however in the Middleground views (away from the main roads) 

vegetative treatments are not readily apparent. Mountain pine beetle activity is evident in this 

area in the form of red-needle trees that were recently killed. Trees that are under attack, 

visually clumps of pitch are apparent on the trunk when viewed up close, and the color of the 

needles is a lighter hue which is generally not apparent from a distance until the trees begin 

fading and the lighter hue begins to stands out from adjacent trees. The western portion of the 

project area, in and around the Canyon City Natural Research Area (RNA), appears to have the 

heaviest concentrations of mountain pine beetle activity (USDA Forest Service 2010d). The 

eastern portion of the project area is ‘natural-appearing’ with a High Existing Scenic Integrity 

condition, and isolated pockets of mountain pine beetle activity are evident. 

In the surrounding landscape, outside this project area, past vegetation treatments are evident in 

the middle ground and background views to the south of the Pactola Project Area. Areas to the

north, east, and west are generally more natural appearing. Overall, the surrounding area has a 

slightly altered to altered appearance – a Moderate Existing Scenic Integrity condition. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Existing conditions and natural processes of trees growing and regenerating would continue. 

The quantity of trees within the forest would become denser. These conditions are primed for 

normal ecological processes, in the form of wildland fire, insects, and disease, to take place. 

These ecological processes are not controlled and may affect natural resources in a manner that 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 261

is undesirable or desirable and may move the landscape vegetation away from or toward the 

Desired Future Condition in areas that are valued for their scenic beauty. 

Currently, there is a large outbreak of mountain pine beetle (MPB) on the forest. In areas 

similar to the Pactola Project Area, with a basal area of 90 or greater, the MPB have killed the 

majority of trees (approaching 100%). Currently, there is evidence (attacked and killed trees 

have needles that have turned red) of small pockets of MPB activity within the project area. 

These pockets, in areas of high tree densities, would expand killing greater and greater 

numbers of trees. The trees that are valued for their scenic beauty would likely be killed. 

When trees are removed during commercial operations, the remaining tops and limbs (“slash”) 

is treated and reduced or eliminated – creating a “clean” forest floor (that mimics the effects of 

periodic wildfires that historically burned through the landscape) – that is desired by the public. 

In this case, that would not occur. The resulting decay and falling of these trees will create a 

“jack-straw” of down trees - a very undesirable scenic condition. 

Wildland fire (e.g., – lightning caused) is an essential ecological process in this ecosystem. 

Fire plays the dominant role in reducing competition for nutrients among pine trees; those that 

survive the fire generally become the dominant trees. Due to the proximity of private lands, 

homes, utilities, and other improvements, efforts are made to extinguish wildland fires as 

rapidly as possible to reduce the threat to human-made or valued natural resources. As a result, 

this management policy would continue to limit the natural role of fire in the landscape. 

Prescribed human initiated fires would mimic the beneficial ecological effects of wildland 

fires; however they cannot be conducted on the scale and frequency, to cover the landscape, to 

reduce the rapidly growing ponderosa pine. As a result, the vegetation would continue to grow 

densely, becoming thicker, and reducing visible open space. Views into the forest would 

become more limited as the trees grow more densely – reducing visual diversity such as 

wildflowers, shrubs, hardwoods, and open meadows. Should wildfires burn into stands of 

densely packed ponderosa pine trees, smaller trees can act as “ladder fuels” moving the fire up 

into the crowns of the trees, resulting in groups of fire killed trees. In this project area, 

hardwoods could move in and populate these openings where moist conditions are present. 

Otherwise, ponderosa pine would likely re-seed into these openings. 

Efforts are made to keep the fires small. These efforts would likely continue to limit visual 

evidence of the effects of wildfires within the landscape. Should fires spread beyond initial 

containment, such as in drought and/or high wind conditions, and spread into hillsides of 

densely packed trees, we could expect to see hillsides of fire-killed trees. As these trees fall, 

these areas would be more visible in the landscape as large openings. During periods when the 

ground is snow covered, these areas would be highly visible in the landscape. Burned areas 

may, or may not, be similar in shape and size (scale) to meadows, and other existing natural 

open areas in the landscape. Eventually seeds carried by the wind, from the surrounding trees, 

would land in the area and new trees would sprout, as the process of re-growth begins anew. 

As in previous fire areas, we may see the burned areas move toward becoming aspen stands. 

In areas with a High or Moderate SIO along travel corridors, should fires occur or insect 

activity levels pickup beyond natural levels - killing large areas of trees, the forested landscape 

would move away from the desired future condition for more open park-like stands. In small 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 262

areas, such as one to three acres, where trees are killed, a mosaic of tree sizes and openings 

would be maintained that would move toward the desired future condition. In some areas 

where the insect attacks dominate the landscape, large open areas (exceeding the size of 

opening normally found in this area) could be created – dramatically changing the appearance 

of the forest, as viewed from private land interspersed throughout the project area. In these 

areas, we can expect a large amount of down trees, a greater amount than natural levels, would 

dominate the landscape. Should a wildfire occur in these areas of dead and down trees, we can 

expect long residence time of the fire which in turn can sterilize the soil – thus limiting the 

ability of seeds to sprout and quickly reforest these areas (Jasper Fire (2000), Battle Creek Fire 

(2002), and on the Snowshoe and Sheep Fires in the Malheur National Forest. 

Small openings interspersed with forested areas provide an opportunity to see into the 

forest - which in turn increases the potential to view wildlife, wildflowers, and flowering 

shrubs. In addition, an ever changing kaleidoscope of light and shadow, as well as a 

variety of sizes of vegetation, create an interesting and diverse visual landscape. 

In areas where no disturbance occurs, the vegetation would grow into a thick dense forest, with 

competition for light, water, and nutrients. In some areas, the dense conifers are out-competing 

the hardwoods for these necessary components for plant growth. This dense vegetation 

provides the greatest potential for disturbance (fire or insect) that could greatly change the 

visual appearance of the vegetation across the landscape. The dense vegetation may shade out 

shrubs, wildflowers, and other low growing plants – reducing visual diversity. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects that are common to the No Action Alternative. However, 

given the rapidly moving MPB outbreak, and the rate of spread across the Forest, the small 

pockets of MPB activity already in the area could spread in this project area due to the existing 

high basal area (see Vegetation section). Effects of this activity can be widespread and highly 

visible within five years of an outbreak of activity. The valued forest vegetation would likely 

be heavily impacted, and it will take a long time, more than 50 years, to approach the existing 

condition again. 

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Management activities that would move forested stands to residual basal areas below 80, 

would reduce the potential of mountain pine beetle populations reaching epidemic levels 

(consultation with Kurt Allen, Entomologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station, March, 2010). 

Commercial thinning can result in a uniform appearance of the remaining forest stand (both in 

size and spacing). The vertical lines of the remaining tree boles would be more evident. 

Thinning the understory would further increase the emphasis and visibility of the larger 

diameter trees in the landscape. Understory grasses and shrubs would be more evident offering 

seasonal variety of light and color (when spring flowers are evident). The visibility of larger 

diameter trees would add variety of color (orange and black bark on the tree boles), light and 

texture. When higher numbers of larger trees remain on the landscape, the evidence of this 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 263

thinning is reduced, and can have a natural appearance. In the Foreground and Middleground, 

textural differences would be the most evident, in the Background textural changes may be 

evident, but form, lighting (shadows) and color differences can be the most evident. 

Commercial Thin treatment method generally meets a Moderate to High SIO. Commercial 

Thin treatments with a remaining basal area of 50+, generally meet a Moderate to High SIO. 

Those with a basal area of 40 – 50 generally meet a Low to Moderate SIO, and those below 

40 basal area generally meets a Low to Very Low SIO. In stands where there is a mixture of 

tree sizes, including the understory, random spacing, and groups/clumps of remaining trees 

can help maintain an appearance in character with the landscape and improve the SIO rating. 

Products Other Than Logs Thinning removes six to nine inch diameter trees (POL thinning) 

would open up views into the Forest. This treatment often leaves a moderate level of 

vegetation debris on the forest floor, reducing grasses and shrubs, and dominating foreground 

views. Once the slash is cleaned up, this treatment should meet a Moderate SIO. In the 

middleground and background, large diameter trees surrounding the treatment areas should be 

more dominant in this landscape. In the middleground and background, this treatment should 

meet a Moderate to High SIO. 

Overstory Removals result in an open area with seedlings scattered across the opening, and three 

to six large (commercial-sized) trees, for wildlife remain per acre. There may be a few 

remaining trees as well. In the Foreground, the opening in the forest canopy and the seedlings 

across the forest floor would be the most evident. In the Middleground and Background, the 

form, or shape, of the unit would be most evident in the winter months when snow is present on 

the ground, creating a strong contrast from the darker surrounding forest. In the months when 

the snow is not present, the form and color would be most evident. During periods when snow is 

on the landscape, would likely appear as large white forms, with patches of dark vegetation (and 

corresponding shadow) in them – when larger trees remain on the landscape. These units have 

the greatest potential to appear out of scale and character with natural vegetative patterns. 

Overstory Removal treatments generally meet a Moderate to Low SIO, depending on how 

closely they appear in shape and size (scale) to mimic the natural openings in the characteristic 

landscape, and the size of the remaining seedlings. Liberation Cuts would meet a higher SIO 

when larger trees remain to be released from a dominant overstory. A Moderate SIO can be 

achieved if the size of the unit does not exceed the natural openings by more than 10%, 

otherwise it would likely meet a Low SIO. If the units do not borrow from the shape and size of 

the natural openings, a SIO higher than Very Low would not be expected to be met. 

Hard wood Retention and Restoration and Meadow Retention and Restoration treatments are 

treatments to remove encroaching conifers, whether from hardwood stands or meadows. These 

treatments remove all pine trees – when the treatment is completed (piled tops and limbs [slash 

piles] are burned) only the low stumps would remain. In a hardwood stand, it would take time

for new shoots to sprout and take advantage of the reduced competition for nutrients. In 

commercial treatments, pine trees larger than nine inch diameter are removed as well. In these 

areas, some hardwood may be damaged by feeling pine trees. The contrast of overstory pine 

trees shape color with the lower hardwoods, viewed as a desirable scenic characteristic, will be 

eliminated. These remaining hardwood trees often create a transition zone between open 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 264

meadows and the surrounding forest. These treatments would restore meadows and increase 

hardwood stands - ecological goals identified in the Forest Plan. If all the slash is treated or 

removed, these treatments should all meet a Moderate to High SIO when they are completed. 

As this is a “restoration” treatment, these treatments may not initially meet the assigned SIO, 

however the rapid sprouting and growth of hardwoods would quickly revegetate the area and 

meet the SIO within two to three years, and the restoration would have long-term benefits to 

the scenic quality. 

There are state and county rights-of -ways throughout the project area. Many of these have 

both commercial and non-commercial timber in them. Hazard trees and timber within these 

rights-of-ways would be removed to reduce the risk to motorists from trees falling (e.g., during 

wind storms) and ice build up on the roads during the winter (due to shading). This would 

occur in areas where rights-of-ways are adjacent to timber harvest units. This treatment would 

be in the Immediate Foreground of the road. On the one hand it would reduce the feeling of 

driving in and among the trees; this treatment would allow opportunities for shrubs, flowers, 

and grasses to provide additional color, texture, and interest in the Immediate Foreground – 

while improving public safety. With hand-piling/burning slash, this treatment should meet a 

High SIO when completed. 

Non-Commercial Vegetative Treatments can result in a uniform appearance of the remaining 

forest stand (both in size and spacing). Understory grasses and shrubs would be more evident 

offering seasonal variety of light and color (when spring flowers are evident). Uneven spacing 

of the remaining trees is the most desirable, as it creates a more natural appearance. In the 

Foreground and Middleground, textural differences would be the most evident, in the 

Background textural changes may be evident, but form, lighting (shadows) and color differences 

can be the most evident. 

How well non-commercial treatments blend into the characteristic landscape, and meet the 

Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO), is based upon the slope, aspect, soil disturbance, residual tree 

spacing, and slash clean-up. Often reducing soil disturbance, uneven spacing of the remaining 

trees, and reducing the quantity of slash to natural levels, would result in a higher SIO being 

achieved. Evidence of vegetation management would generally be more visible when these 

landscapes are snow covered, so the shape of the treatment unit should not follow a geometric 

pattern (e.g., square, rectangular, or angular shapes). As most of the project area is covered 

with treatments units, non-commercial treatments would extend over most of the area in a 

combination of treatments. 

When activities are completed, non-commercial thin treatment methods generally meet a 

Moderate SIO. A High SIO can be achieved if the remaining trees vary both in spacing 

(including clumps) and height, to mimic a natural growing stand. 

Road construction creates a road template with a cut and fill slope in the landscape. On steep 

slopes this road template can be highly visible; on flat slopes the road template is not readily 

evident unless the viewer is in a superior position. Any new road construction along the edge 

of private land has the potential to be highly visible. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 265

By-products of vegetation removal - include ‘slash’ (tops and branches not utilized for

commercial products or fuel are left on the ground, or piled, throughout the area of the vegetation 

removal) and stumps would likely be evident throughout the treatment areas. As a result of the 

treatment, slash is in quantities usually well above natural levels - creating strong contrasts (the 

slash reflects light) in color and texture. On steep slopes stumps can be highly evident, as they 

too would reflect light; on flat terrain grasses can grow up and hide them. With both byproducts, 

it is the quantity present that determines how natural the forest would appear after treatment. 

Additional slash treatments such as piling and burning, crushing, or moving to a large landing for 

treatment, can all greatly reduce the visual impact from the slash. 

When slash is piled, it is usually then burned within one to two years. Burning of slash is 

dependent upon weather condition that aid in containing the fire to the immediate area. 

Generally, these conditions occur within two years of the time the slash is placed on the 

ground. Once the dried slash is burned, circular burn marks are clearly evident on the ground. 

Normally, these burn marks are no longer visible once rehabilitation (adding & mixing soil, 

burying or scattering burned remaining slash) and grasses and other vegetation grow up the 

following spring. Piling and burning can meet a range from High to Low SIO, depending upon 

the level of rehabilitation that is accomplished, and scorching/killing of residual trees 

surrounding the burn piles. A Low scenic integrity is usually only achieved when large burn 

bays are used and the soil is sterilized – even with rehabilitation and seeding it can take a 

number of years to re-establish the vegetation. 

However, due to the wetter snow conditions found within this planning in the winter (when 

burning of piles occurs), the slash often is not fully consumed, leaving piles of blackened slash 

– a visually negative element due to the concentration of material. This residual material is 

visually evident in the landscape for years. Where burn piles are placed within the foreground 

of visually sensitive roads - and the piles are not completely consumed, only a LOW SIO. 

Prescribed Burning sends fire across the landscape, within a designated boundary, prescribed in a 

manner to keep the fire from getting into the tree tops is beneficial to the Scenic resource by 

removing dead plant material and slash, and stimulating plants, shrubs and hardwoods, that

increase visual diversity and fall color in the landscape. Once the area is burned, ash and 

blackened tree bark are clearly evident across the landscape. Normally, these burn marks are no 

longer visible once new grasses and other vegetation grow up the following spring. Prescribed 

burning can meet a range from High to Low SIO, depending upon burn intensity. Most burns 

conducted on this Forest meet a High SIO one year after the burning is completed. 

Skidding logs on, or across, steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil leaving trails 

that can be quite visible – creating lines or unusual color contrasts in the landscape. These skid 

trails would be evident until cleanup activities (slash treatment and seeded areas germinate) are 

completed. On gently rolling terrain, disturbance is generally kept to a minimum – however it 

is dependent upon the quantity of logs moved along the skid trails. 

Locations where logs are brought, piled, and then loaded onto trucks and removed from the 

site. The size of these landings and amount of disturbance (vegetation removed and often soil 

displaced) would vary by location, depending upon the type of logging system employed 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 266

(forwarder, etc.) and the volume of logs being brought to that landing. Once logging is

completed, these landing sites are cleared of debris and reseed. The length of time before the 

site appears as a natural opening is generally one to four years, depending upon the level of 

disturbance, any remaining debris (slash), and how quickly grasses take over the site. 

Alternative B – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The rolling nature of the terrain in this project area limits views to the Foreground and near 

Middleground. This alternative creates a variety of treatments. Areas that would remove the 

greatest number of trees are scattered around the area, so no single viewshed area is heavily 

impacted. In other areas, the treatments would reduce the density of trees, though still 

maintaining a natural appearing condition. Approximately 13,000 acres or 52% of the project 

area would be mechanically treated under this alternative through commercial and noncommercial vegetation treatments, and meadow and hardwood enhancements. 

Of the commercial treatments, Overstory Removals are the most evident (by creating large open 

areas) and have the greatest potential to negatively affect the scenery within the project area – 

these treatments would make up approximately 52% of the project area. The majority of these 

areas proposed for final Overstory Removal are heavily managed, have been thinned in the past, 

and have an understory of trees coming up. These units potentially could be the most visible in 

the Middleground and Background distance zones. However their location, in this project area, is 

predominantly located in drainages that are not readily visible from Sensitivity Level 1 and 2 

routes. Generally only portions of these units are visible, minimizing the negative visual impacts. 

Skidding logs on, or across, steep slopes can remove vegetation and displace soil creating 

opportunities for noxious weeds to become established in treated areas. These weeds (e.g., 

Mullen) have shapes that are not common in the natural landscape, drawing attention to them. 

Noxious weeds are generally recognized as non-natives and out-of-place in the landscape by the 

general public. As the quantity of these weeds increase in the landscape, they out-compete native 

plants, resulting in the visual quality decreasing. Efforts are made to minimize this potential, so it 

is difficult to predict where and how wide spread this effect will be on the scenery. 

Thinning and reducing the overall density of ponderosa pine vegetation can lead to amount of

grasses, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods increasing in the landscape. This could increase the 

variety of colors evident now, and in the future, across the landscape. Thinning trees to an even 

spacing can result in a managed, un-natural appearance. 

There is a potential for hardwoods to increase (creating a greater amount of fall color in across 

the landscape) as a result of the removal of conifers in fuel breaks that traverse hardwood stands, 

however it would be limited to these corridors. 

Alternative B would modify the vegetation across the landscape so that management activities 

would be more evident. The variety of treatments would also create a variety of textural 

patterns and improve opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Overstory Removal 

treatments generally do not meet the High or Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective. However, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 267

due to the limited size and groupings of these units in this landscape, the rolling hills and 

ridges will reduce the visibility of these types of treatments – so they will be less evident in this 

landscape. Restoration treatments to increase hardwood sprouting, and thinning treatments to 

decrease potential for MPB to attack forest stands, should meet the assigned SIO. These 

various treatments would move the vegetation in this landscape to being less dense and more 

open, closer to conditions that emulate the effect of natural fire interval in this ecosystem. 

Hardwoods and meadows should be more evident and provide seasonal color and textural 

variety in the landscape, than currently exists. 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The types of treatments and their effects are essentially the same as Alternative B, with the 

addition of the two treatments noted below. The key difference of this alternative, visually, 

from Alternative B, is additional units of Overstory Removals on steep slopes, and the 

associated new road construction and logging systems at the top of these slopes. 

Roadside Treatments (Fuel Breaks) – These treatments remove all the smaller trees, and a 

portion of the overstory trees, to achieve basal area of 60. Visually, the viewer can see into the 

forest, while an overstory is maintained over the area. Groups of trees help maintain a more 

natural appearing condition. Long term, maintenance of these open areas, would reduce 

nutrient competition and allow these remaining trees to grow into larger diameter, and 

potentially “yellow bark” trees – highly desirable from a scenery resource standpoint. A key 

element is how the edges of the fuel breaks are treated – eliminate straight line boundaries and 

feather the edges and a High SIO can be met (see Appendix B). 

When activities are completed, non-commercial thin treatment methods generally meet a 

Moderate SIO. A High SIO can be achieved if the remaining trees vary both in spacing 

(including clumps) and height. 

Logging Systems – “Cable” or “Skyline” logging system would be employed to remove trees 

from steep slopes that are not accessible with ground based (rubber tire skidders and metaltracked skidders) logging systems. Cable systems (on this forest) partially suspend the logs, 

and partially drag them, up the steep hills. This results in vegetation (grass shrubs and shall 

trees) being torn out in the corridors were logs are dragged up the hill, these corridors of bare 

soil, or “drag marks”, are highly visible – often for years, particularly when the viewer is in a 

position where they can look directly into the unit. These vertical lines that are created on the 

landscape are generally uniform in width, length, color, and spacing apart. This created pattern 

is not similar to any natural “lines,” or patterns, in the landscape. Avalanches, fires, or 

landslides, are generally singular on a landform, and do not create a pattern across a landform. 

As a result, this logging system, in conjunction with an overstory removal treatment, generally 

meets a Low or Very Low SIO due to its long-term heavily-managed appearing effect. 

Roads – New road construction on ridge tops exposes cut and fill slopes that have limited 

opportunity to be hidden by other landforms or vegetation. These “lines” of exposed 

brown and/or gray soil/rock create strong color contrasts to the green vegetation. In areas 

were the vegetation is removed below the road, such as with an overstory removal, the road 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 268

is generally highly visible for 30-50 years while the vegetation grows back. The length of 

time is dependent upon the height and steepness of the cut and fill slopes, the steepness of 

the unit below the road, and the growing conditions within that unit. Lighting and seasonal 

conditions can also increase the visibility of roads in these locations. Over time, the soilvegetation color contrast would diminish if grass can grow on the road cut and fill slopes. 

Where the road cut and fill slopes are steep, e.g., 1:1, and grass has a difficult time getting 

established, the color contrast would continue. Unless the road template is returned to the 

original condition – slope and vegetation, the road would appear as a horizontal line in the 

landscape that will be visible for decades. Roads in the ridge top locations generally are 

not rehabilitated to their natural condition, and thus meet a Very Low SIO. 

Unit 091404-5, directly across the reservoir (approximately 1.5 miles) from the Pactola Visitor 

Center, a new road is planned (with an overstory removal treatment below) is expected to be 

highly visible. The road is at the top of the slope. Skyline logging would be employed from this 

road, resulting in the removal of vegetation that could potentially screen the road’s visibility. 

The road would introduce a highly visible horizontal line across the landscape, resulting in a 

Low, or Very Low, Scenic Integrity being achieved, in an area with Moderate SIO. 

Units 091301-9, 091301-10, 091301-3. These three units treat both sides of a landform, Unit 

091301-3 (Moderate SIO) on the west, and Units 091301-9 (High SIO) and 091301-10 (High 

and Low SIO) on the east. Road construction and the effects from cable logging would be 

highly evident. Units 091301-3, 091301-9, and the upper portion of Unit 091301-10 would 

not meet their assigned SIO. Helicopter logging these units (to avoid the effects of road 

construction and cable logging) would reduce the negative soil-vegetation color contrasts. 

Thinning and reducing the overall density of ponderosa pine vegetation can lead to 

amount of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and hardwoods increasing in the landscape. This could 

increase the variety of colors evident now, and in the future, across the landscape. 

Thinning trees to an even spacing can result in a managed, un-natural appearance.

Alternative C would modify the vegetation across the landscape so that management activities 

would be more evident. The variety of treatments would also create a variety of textural 

patterns and improve opportunities to view hardwoods and wildlife. Overstory removal 

treatments generally do not meet the High or Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective. In this 

alternative, those units on the slopes above the reservoir would be highly visible; with the 

limited remaining vegetation, the effects from road construction and the logging systems and 

would be highly visible and have a dominant negative visual impact. These effects would be 

concentrated around, and highly visible from, the campgrounds along Pactola Reservoir, 

Pactola Visitor Center, and US Highway 385. Treatments along main access-egress roads in 

the area would provide visual diversity and the potential for hardwoods and shrubs to vegetate

these areas. In the rest of the area, the effects would be similar to Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Understanding past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, is necessary in order to 

evaluate potential cumulative effects of the various alternatives. The boundary on the 

ground for analyzing cumulative effects is primarily that of the project area. This identified 

area is the landscape that is primarily evident in the foreground and middleground from the 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 269

main travel routes (Sensitivity Level 1 and 2 corridors) – approximately 30% of the project 

area, and the Developed Recreation Complexes (Management Area 8.2) – approximately 

20% of the project area. 

The time boundary for this analysis extends from 1980 to 2017, including known 

management activities and activities that are planned but have yet to be accomplished. Fire 

suppression over the past century has played a role in the increased density of the vegetation 

on the forest. Likewise, much of the Forest was non-commercially thinned by the Civilian 

Conservation Corp in the 1930s and 1940s, however we do not know if that effort included 

any or all of this project area. During the period from 1980 to 2010, commercial harvests 

and non-commercial thinning has taken place on approximately 50% of the project area (see 

Appendix C). Of the commercial treatments, approximately 98% were Shelterwood cuts, 

and the remaining were Sanitation and/or Salvage cuts. These treatments resulted in a more 

open vegetated forest, allowing viewers to see into the forest – this open condition is similar 

to the ecological condition that resulted from natural-occurring fire in this ecosystem. The 

areas where these treatments occurred are evident locally, but do not stand out at the 

landscape scale, due to the limited viewing opportunities caused by the rolling terrain. 

Under the action alternatives, trees of all sizes would be removed. Alternative C would 

create vegetation textural differences that will be highly evident from travel corridors and 

various locations within MA 8.2, both in the Foreground and Middleground. The resulting 

appearance of vegetation treatments would change little for the first ten years after the 

treatments are completed. Any treatments would result in fewer trees across the landscape - 

reducing risk of mountain pine beetle infestation and fire risk. However, after ten years time, 

the understory in commercial treatments would start to be more evident in the landscape and 

the vegetation would have a less managed appearance. 

The remaining commercial and non-commercial treatments, which are mostly viewed in 

Foreground and Middleground distance zones, Alternative B should produce a natural 

appearing forest – but one that has fewer trees – as if fire had continued to play its natural 

role all along. As long as the beetle pockets, and the corresponding treatment, stay small 

and scattered, and the beetle activity can be reduced (as a product of these treatments), a 

less dense (but) forested landscape may be maintained across the landscape where large 

trees would be highly evident. Existing roads and other activities that change the natural 

contours may be more evident with the removal/thinning of the vegetation on the 

landscape. A forested backdrop to private land could be maintained with a Moderate level 

of Scenic Integrity being maintained in the project area. Alternative C should produce a 

more managed appearing forest – but one that has fewer trees, and from a scenery

standpoint, openings – as if fire had continued to play a larger role all along. As long as the 

beetle pockets, and the corresponding treatment, stay small and scattered, and the beetle 

activity can be reduced (as a product of these treatments), a less dense (but) forested 

landscape may be maintained across the landscape where large trees would be highly 

evident. Existing roads and other activities that change the natural contours may be more 

evident with the removal/thinning of the vegetation on the landscape. A forested backdrop 

to private land could be maintained with a Moderate to Low level of Scenic Integrity being 

maintained in the project area, depending upon how quickly skyline corridors heal. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 270

RECREATION USE 

Affected Environment

Recreation within Pactola Project area is primarily dispersed recreation with a 

concentrated public use area and reservoir on the far eastern project boundary providing a 

variety of developed activities. 

The Pactola concentrated public use area (CPUA) contains two campgrounds (96 sites), 

two public boat launches, two picnic grounds, one swim beach, one accessible developed 

trail, three hiking trails, one visitor center, and one boat marina. In addition, a blue ribbon 

trout fishery, located below the Pactola dam, provides concentrated dispersed recreational 

opportunities, as well. There are also 11 individual summer homes located within Pactola 

Basin, at the inlet adjacent to Silver City, and near the south boat marina area. 

The project area hosts a large number of local users in pursuit of both motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities. The Deerfield Trail (40), Centennial Trail (89), and Osprey Trail 

(58) are located in the project area. Mountain bike riders, hikers, and horseback riders access 

these trails at four trailheads around Pactola Reservoir, mainly during the summer season. 

Other dispersed recreational activities include big game hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. 

Authorized under special use permits, commercial use by outfitters and guides occur within the 

project area. Two permitted outfitters operate in the Pactola Project area offering mountain 

bike tours and kayak services. One permitted hunting and one permitted fishing outfitter

operate west of Pactola Reservoir. Also, within the project area, recreation events such as the 

Silver City Annual Volksmarch occur under authorized special use permits as well. 

Motorized recreation within the project area consists of All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) and 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) riding, motorcycle riding, jeep riding, and other vehicle 

driving on all levels of Forest System Roads. Motorized use is limited to designated 

roads and trails within the project area (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Camping within the Pactola CPUA is allowed only in developed campgrounds. Dispersed 

camping is allowed in the rest of the project area, within 300 feet of a road or motorized trail. 

Recreation in the project area is managed to allow moderate to high contact with other 

groups and individuals. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Both dispersed and developed recreation users would benefit in the short term as there 

would not be any noise or dust or closures due to the logging activity. In the long run, 

the health of the forest would decrease as the area becomes more susceptible to insects, 

disease, and large-scale wildfire. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 271

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both Alternatives B and C propose vegetative treatments that would open up the forest and 

increase wildlife habitat (deer, turkey), meadows, and fuel breaks near developed 

recreation sites. 

These treatments would increase wildlife habitat and meadows, thus increasing the 

opportunity for recreationists to view and observe deer and other wildlife. The proposed 

treatments would also open up the forest and enhance scenic viewsheds. Treatments 

around the Pactola CPUA would reduce MPB and wildfire hazard and improve safety 

conditions for recreationists. In Alternative C, 400 additional acres would be treated 

along roadways, as well as, additional acres of cable and helicopter logging. Roadside 

treatments would make travel within the forest safer by day lighting the road. 

Recreation users in both the dispersed and developed portions of the project area are most

affected by the visuals of tree removal which include skid trails, less screening, slash on 

the ground, slash piles, and piles of logs during and after project implementation. 

Recreationists perceive a healthy forest as a lot of trees and/or other vegetation in a 

“natural” looking environment (USDA Forest Service 2009f). As the forest ground cover 

regenerates, the recreational users’ visual experience would increase. 

Recreationists would be displaced during project implementation, as some roads and motorized 

trails could be temporarily closed during logging operations for safety reasons and concerns. 

Removing MPB infested trees adjacent to and west of the Pactola CPUA would help slow 

the spread of the MPB infestation, thus preserving scenic integrity. 

Cumulative Effects 

General maintenance and site specific hazard tree removal would continue to occur on 

developed recreation sites within the project area. This includes, but is not limited to: resanding beaches, painting and/or replacing signs, repairing picnic tables, etc. 

LANDS AND SPECIAL USES 

Affected Environment 

In 1862, Congress passed the Homestead Act that authorized the Federal Government to sell 

federal lands to settlers and/or land company speculators. The passage of the U.S. Mining 

Laws Act in May 1872 assisted the progress of miners and settlers to the west. Passage of the 

Organic Administration Act of 1897 established many Forest Reserves in the west. 

The Pactola Project Area has several areas that have been administratively withdrawn for 

power lines, highway uses, mineral entry, reclamation, administrative site, and recreation. 

The purpose of a withdrawal is to withhold National Forest System land from operation 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 272

of the mining laws and other public land laws, to either reserve the area for some future 

use or to maintain other public values of the area. 

Of the more than 1.5 million acres within the Black Hills National Forest boundary, 

approximately 289,000 acres are in private, state, or other federal ownership. This creates 

a complex landownership pattern. This ownership pattern has provided a need for the 

Forest Service to acquire easements and to grant rights-of-ways to individuals, and local 

and state agencies. 

The Pactola Project Area pattern of land ownership is typical for the Black Hills National 

Forest. That is, parcels of private property that are surrounded by the National Forest 

System lands. Also, typical of land ownership patterns in the Black Hills is the move

towards subdividing the more historic working ranches into rural residential home sites 

and other developments. The project area contains approximately 30 miles of 

distribution and transmission overhead power utility lines under special use permits to 

Black Hills Power, Black Hills Electric Cooperative, Qwest, and Black Hills Fiber Com. 

Most of the roads within and adjacent to the Pactola Project Area are utilized throughout 

the year to access special use permitted areas, such as utility lines right-of-ways, recreation 

residences, public water systems, electronic tower installations, subdivisions and private 

property. The existing road system provides excellent opportunities to adequately disperse 

the number of individuals engaged in recreational activities within the project area. 

Within the project area, the Black Hills National Forest has completed one small tracts 

case involving the Silver City VFD. 

There are a number of private road easements and public road easements that have been 

granted in the project area for access across the NFS lands, and easements that the Forest 

Service acquired to cross private land. There are also Special Use Permits and other 

authorizations issued for utility and water lines, outfitting and guiding permits and other uses 

of NFS lands within the project area. The project file contains information related to these 

easements and other special uses. 

Environmental Consequences 

All Alternatives 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

All alternatives would continue existing easements and special use permits. The project 

area would continue to be maintained, used, and managed for: utility corridors, private 

land in holdings, subdivisions, land survey monuments/corners, FLPMA Private Road 

Easements, Forest Road Special Use Permits, National Forest System Roads, FRTA 

public easements, and special use permit areas. 

FLPMA private road easement would continue to be granted to landowners and/or 

landowner associations that need access to private property. FRTA easement would also 

continue to be granted to Pennington County Highway Department for subdivisions, and 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 273

County maintained roads. All identified Lands/Special Use Permit request would be 

completed under all alternatives. 

Additional access roads may need to be constructed and/or reconstructed to provide 

access to overhead and underground utility lines to private property. Acquisition of 

easements by the Forest Service from individuals for access across their private property 

to reach NFS lands would continue, as well. 

Road system changes would have potential adverse effects if access to permitted areas, 

facilities and private property is not accommodated. Certain access roads, private road 

easements, and public road easements must be provided for maintenance and 

management activities. Unclassified roads that are currently being used for private road 

easements, need to remain unclassified and maintained by the easement holder. If these 

roads are changed to system roads there would be increased road maintenance costs and 

increased time needed to convert private road easements to public road easements. 

New construction of houses and subdivisions is anticipated. This would result in new 

requests for road access and utility access routes across the NFS lands. Regardless of 

which alternative is selected the Forest Service would continue to respond to requests for 

legal access and utility lines to private property would address each request on its own 

merits under existing land and policy direction. 

There would be negligible direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the lands or special use 

programs. 

HERITAGE 

Affected Environment 

The central Black Hills contain a wide variety and number of cultural resources. Prehistoric 

period resources include habitation sites, hunting camps, stone quarries, and rock shelters. 

Historic period resources represent economic activities related to ranching, timber, and 

mining; occupation activities related to homesteading; infrastructure development related to 

water resources, transportation, and fire control; and recreational activities. Traditional 

cultural properties, which may fall under either time period, can include Native American 

individual or single family use prayer sites, current use Sundance locations, annual 

ceremonial sites such as Harney Peak, and locations associated with tribal origin and oral 

history such as Buffalo Gap and Wind Cave. 

The Black Hills are part of the greater culture area of the Northwestern Plains (Rom et. 

al. 1996; Sundstrom 1989). 

The rugged central Black Hills prehistory is mainly represented by summer and fall camps 

that exhibit habitation and hunting related activities. Time periods represented include the 

Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Prehistoric (Rom, et. al. 1996:2c.8-9). Other site 

types include short term camps associated with specific resource procurement, such as stone 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 274

quarry sites (Rom, et. al. 1996:2c.9). Among the many sites discovered in the Pactola Project 

Area are a prehistoric lithic scatter, time period unknown, and a Middle Archaic isolated 

projectile point. However, the majority of the sites in the project area are associated with the 

Historic period. Site types include mining, Civilian Conservation Corps construction 

projects, railroad and stage lines, and recreation sites. 

Between 1992 and 2007 archaeologists conducted a total of 25 cultural resource surveys on 

approximately 11,059 acres on NFS lands within the Pactola Project Area. A total of 

13,804 additional acres were identified for survey on NFS lands to complete the coverage 

for this project. This last survey, as amended, was completed by Mystic Ranger District 

heritage staff between May 2008 and February 2011 (Boen, et. al. 2011, Harper 2010). All 

26 surveys cover the entire 24,863 acres of NFS lands within the Pactola Project Area. 

A total of 146 cultural resources were recorded on 24,863 acres of NFS lands in the 

Pactola Project Area between 1992 and 2009. Of this total, 120 were determined to be 

Not Eligible and 26 were determined to be Eligible or were Unevaluated for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

No Traditional Cultural Properties are currently known to be present within the project area. 

Eligible and Unevaluated cultural resources would be protected by following the compliance 

process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA and recommendations outlined in the cultural 

resource reports. The regulations governing Section 106 review are contained in 36 CFR 

Part 800, which describes the compliance process. 

All Eligible and Unevaluated sites would be protected by avoidance or other site-specific 

mitigations identified by the district archaeologist (see Appendix B). 

Environmental Consequences

Heritage resource effects were assessed through a presence/absence determination of 

significant cultural resources and mitigation measures/design criteria to be employed 

during commercial thinning, prescribed fire (broadcast burning), fuel break construction 

and/or fuel reduction activities, road construction, and non-commercial thinning. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y), 

for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f) (NHPA). However, 

no action could result in the destruction or damage to cultural resources due to increased fuel 

loading and tree mortality from MPB. Twenty-six cultural resources in the Pactola Project 

Area are Eligible or Unevaluated for listing on the NRHP. Several of these cultural resources 

have wood-frame or log architectural features and surface artifacts. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 275

The risk of damage to wood-frame or log architectural features and surface artifacts 

would increase as MPB trees die and fall on or in the vicinity of these cultural resources. 

The increased number of dead trees on and near cultural resources would increase the 

fuel load in these areas. The potential for wildfires would increase with higher fuel loads 

over time. This would create a high risk to flammable architectural features and surface 

artifacts. Wildfires, as seen in many areas of the Black Hills, could completely destroy 

these vulnerable cultural resources or permanently damage them. 

Fighting wildfires creates another set of threats to cultural resources. These threats could 

include damage from tree felling, creating fuel breaks and access roads, and establishing 

fire camps to fight the wildfire. Erosion following the loss of protective vegetation could 

cause increased runoff across prehistoric sites, potentially damaging the context of artifacts 

and features. Wildfire could also expose sites to vandalism and unauthorized collecting 

due to the increased visibility. 

Wildfire could also permanently destroy or damage glass, ceramic, stone, metal, cloth, and 

paper surface artifacts. Data loss would occur as a result. For example, a bottle with a 

temporally diagnostic marker’s mark on the base could be completely melted and 

unrecognizable (Jackson 1998:17) or intact paper labels destroyed. Stone tools could heat 

rapidly and shatter or change color, affecting identification. Wildfire could also make 

identification of unintentional heat treatment versus intentional prehistoric heat treatment of 

stone materials virtually impossible. Again, this would lead to the permanent loss of data. 

Appropriately managed fuel loads, using low intensity controlled burns, presents a considerably 

lower level threat to a cultural site than high intensity, uncontrolled wildfire (Jackson 1988:18). 

Cumulative Effects 

Archaeological resources are non-renewable. The cumulative effects of taking no action 

to reduce the threat of the MPB and reduce fuel loads is that more cultural resources 

would be destroyed or permanently damaged by falling trees and wildfires. Over time, 

fewer archaeological resources would be available to learn about past human lifeways. 

Under Alternative A, the Pactola Project Area could ultimately lose its essential character 

with respect to prehistoric and historic use of the central Black Hills. The loss of these 

cultural areas could not be replaced by reclamation of any type. 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternatives B and C, there would be No Adverse Effect to any of the 26 Eligible 

or Unevaluated cultural resources if the design criteria and mitigation measures are 

implemented and followed (see Appendix B). 

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the Pactola Project Area include 

mineral exploration and extraction, watershed control and development, timber harvest, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 276

road construction, prescribed fire, community growth, and recreation and associated 

improvements. All of these activities may have cumulative effects on cultural resources 

such as erosion, ground surface disturbance, increased visitor use and traffic, and 

vandalism. Although difficult to quantify, impacts could be avoided or minimized by 

implementing site-specific mitigation measures and design criteria developed in 

consultation with the SD SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

Subsurface cultural resources are potentially present, but may not yet be identified in the 

Pactola Project Area. If previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during 

project activities, all operations must cease within a 100 meter radius of the site location and a 

district archaeologist notified immediately. Any cultural resources located during project 

implementation would be protected based on the recommendations of the district archaeologist 

and the SD SHPO. All sites would be evaluated under the terms specified in 36 CFR Parts 

60.4 and 800 and applicable Forest guidelines (FP Guidelines 4102, 6101, and 6106). 

Consultation 

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 analysis, 

tribal representatives recommended landscape treatments that were implemented to 

enhance areas for tribal use. 

SOCIAL 

Affected Environment 

The Pactola Project Area lies in both Pennington and Lawrence Counties of South Dakota

about 10 miles west of Rapid City, the regional trade center and second largest city in South 

Dakota. The project area encompasses the ‘at risk’ community of Silver City, 1,154 acres of 

private lands, subdivisions, businesses, and a major recreational complex. Forest resources 

play an important role for the people living in and adjacent to the project area. The project 

area provides great scenery and abundant dispersed recreation in a setting that is close to 

town, or for some, right out their back door. 

The project area also encompasses the Pactola concentrated public use area (CPUA), which 

provides aquatic recreation opportunities such as fishing, motor boating, canoeing, etc. 

The Pactola CPUA contains two campgrounds (96 sites), two public boat launches, two day 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 277

use picnic grounds, one designated swim beach, one developed trail, three hiking trails, a 

visitor center, and a boat marina. A blue ribbon trout fishery is located below the Pactola 

Lake dam and provides additional concentrated dispersed recreational opportunities. 

Demographics 

The examination of population trends is important to the understanding of the overall 

nature of an area. The use and occupation of the Black Hills is increasing due to 

population growth and a fairly diverse and flexible economy. Subdivisions and home 

construction building permits on private lands within and adjacent to the project area have

increased steadily and demands for public access roads and utility lines across the project 

area will continue to exert additional pressure on the Forest. The average household size 

within the project area is between 2.35 and 2.62 persons. There are an estimated 60 

housing units in the Silver City Community. Estimated housing units within the entire 

project area is approximately 300 (Census 2000).

Wildland-Urban Interface 

Most of the Pactola Project Area within Pennington County and Lawrence County is 

categorized as wildland urban interface (PCCWPP)(LCCWPP). 

Individuals that chose to live within the WUI or secluded areas are lured by solitude and the 

opportunity of being close to nature. Problems brought about by the influx of people are not 

just wildfire-related. Development of subdivisions and private lands within the project area 

are complete with forest insect/disease outbreaks, vegetation management, and urban forestry 

concerns. Many new residents moving to the area carry expectations of urban services with 

them. Residents with tenure have a strong tradition of multiple-use of resources and expect a 

balance of goods and services from these resources. Wherever there are people living in or 

adjacent to wildland areas there is a concern about the threat of wildfire. 

Communities by nature of their location, play a key role in mitigating wildfire hazard. The 

resources, authorities and people share in the responsibility with adjacent landowners and 

managers, for developing healthy and disaster resilient communities. Without significant 

action by communities to mitigate hazards (e.g., homes, yards and private forested lands 

that are highly ignitable), there will be continued high probability for catastrophic wildfire 

in the wildland urban interface in spite of actions on Federal lands. 

These same communities are also concerned with the mountain pine beetle epidemic that is 

currently expanding within and adjacent to the project area. As trees are killed, they fall to 

the ground adding dead, dry fuels within an area already rated as having high wildfire hazard. 

These dead falling trees also have the potential to damage fences, structures, power lines, and 

block access. 

Lifestyles 

Although population growth is bringing in more people with new and different ideas, there is 

little evidence that attitudes or lifestyles are changing in a major way. The beauty of the area 

brings in new residents and those with tenure are tied to the way the Forest is already 

managed, either by employment such as the logging/ranching industries or people are 

outdoor-oriented and have developed varied and specific outdoor user expectations (hunting, 

fishing, biking, off-road use and tourist based activities). Some residents in the area consider 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 278

the forest resources and forest health as an important part of their quality of life. Visitors, 

both local and non-local use the area for a wide range of dispersed recreation activities 

including, hunting, fishing, boating, camping, wildlife viewing, and off-road vehicle use. 

Human Health and Safety 

Public safety is more often affected by the choices people make on their own while visiting 

the project area, or by the consequences of natural events, like wildfires, flooding or wind 

and hail storms. Despite being in close proximity to Rapid City and Hill City, the project 

area is rural forested and in places semi-remote. Hazards exist in the form of natural and 

human-caused conditions. Wild animals, insects, like ticks which may carry lime disease, 

are present. Weather-related events can be life threatening, and probability of a wildfire is 

a risk every month the year. Most human activities in the Forest, including hunting, hiking, 

mountain biking, boating, and driving a vehicle, carry some inherent risk. 

Vegetative treatments that reduce the existing MBP epidemic and potential of a large scale 

wildfire from occurring also help to protect human health and safety. Fuel treatment areas 

are marked and signed to make travelers aware of individuals and actions associated with 

the activity. Smoke from prescribed broadcast burning and wildfire could be a nuisance

and may pose a threat to human health and safety. 

Currently, there is an extensive road system throughout most of the project area for fire 

suppression. A main concern is the ability of the Forest Service and local volunteer fire 

departments to have access and that important arterial and access roads are not closed in 

order to suppress most fires while they are still small in size (see Fire/Fuels Report 

discussion on access). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative there would be no reduction to current insect or fire/fuels hazards or 

changes to roads/access relative to implementing any proposed actions in the Pactola Project. 

The mountain pine beetle epidemic is expanding within and adjacent to the Pactola 

Project Area. This epidemic is killing large numbers of mature pine trees. This epidemic 

is changing vegetation structure and wildlife habitat on a landscape scale. As trees are 

killed they fall to the ground adding dead, dry fuels within an area already rated as having 

high wildfire hazard. 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). 

A great deal of attention has also been focused on the increasing size and severity of 

wildfires occurring on forested lands, particularly pine forests of the west. Recent wildfires 

on the Black Hills National Forest have demonstrated that these fires are larger, hotter and 

more lethal to vegetation and soils than historic fires in ponderosa pine ecosystems. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 279

Additionally, these wildfires are more dangerous or damaging to human settlements, 

property, and values because of settlement patterns of humans within these environments. 

A large, uncontrolled fire could threaten the numerous subdivisions and homes previously 

described within the surrounding wildland-urban interface. These homes may have dense

and continuous vegetation surrounding them, inadequate space between flammable fuels, 

lack of fire-resistant landscaping, and woodpiles or other flammable debris near structures. 

Although not noted for loss of life in the Black Hills to date, fires in the wildland/urban 

interface are responsible for extremely large property losses (Alabaugh Canyon Fire 2007 

included one human fatality, 33 homes lost, and a burn over of firefighters).

If a large scale wildfire were to happen, aesthetics, privacy, and economic property values in 

the burned area would likely be considerably diminished in the short-term. Also, highways 

and roads, transmission lines, and municipal watersheds values could be affected by large-scale 

wildfires. As vegetation grows back and burned dead timber falls and deteriorates, the longterm (beyond 10-15 years) effects of the wildfire on property values would be lessened. Sense 

of loss of amenities and property values gradually fades. People become accustomed over time 

to changes in scenery and other impacts like loss or damage to structures. Large amounts of 

smoke could affect the city of Rapid City and surrounding communities during a fire event. 

Smoke from such a wildfire would present health problems to elderly and persons with 

respiratory problems (see Fire and Fuels section). 

There would be no effect to access and travel beyond current impacts, as management 

activities would not change. The Black Hills National Forest issued a forest-wide Travel 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2010) designating routes for motorized use (see 

Transportation and Travel Management sections). 

Alternatives B and C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternatives B and C, forest vegetation would be treated on a broad landscape scale 

to reduce the rapidly expanding MPB epidemic and fire and fuel hazards within the 

Pactola Project Area. 

Prescribed broadcast burning (5,037 acres) would occur under both Alternatives B and C. 

The potential social effects from prescribed broadcast burning and pile burning include the 

risk of fire escape, smoke impacts to health and safety, and associated costs. These risks are 

minimized by design criteria such as construction of fire lines, the use of suppression engines 

and crews, and adherence to prescribed burn plans. 

The reduced MPB risk and fire hazard in the treatment areas and the completion of fuel 

breaks along private lands would reduce the potential for large scale wildfire and would 

increase the likelihood that firefighters would be suppressing, from defensible positions, low 

to moderate intensity fires that may threaten private property, at-risk communities and forest 

resources versus a high intensity one. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 280

The Black Hills National Forest issued a forest-wide Travel Management Plan (USDA, 

Forest Service 2010) designating routes for motorized use (see Transportation and Travel 

Management sections). 

Cumulative Effects

The population will continue to grow in the future. The majority of this growth is expected 

on private lands in and near the forested areas located outside, but near established towns 

and communities. 

Fuel treatments that reduce the potential for large-scale wildfire occurrence helps to protect 

human health and safety. Since no vegetative treatments or prescribed broadcast burns occur 

with Alternative A, this alternative would be the least effective in protecting human health 

and safety. In fact, the potential for a serious incident would increase with increased fuel 

loadings and fire behavior under the No Action Alternative. Both Alternatives B and C 

reduce insect and fire hazards in the short-term. Alternative B would provide slightly fewer 

benefits in the long-term to protecting human health, well-being, and safety than Alternative 

C (see Fire and Fuels, and Vegetation sections). 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus attention on the

human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income 

communities. The purpose of the Executive Order is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. 

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. 

Civil Rights 

No civil rights effects associated with age, race, creed, color, national origin, or sex have 

been identified. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 

OF RESOURCES 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those 

that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in 

forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. For 

further discussion of the effects on the resources listed below, see Chapter 3 under the 

respective resource topics. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 281

There are no irreversible commitments of resources with any of the alternatives analyzed. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources include the following: 

Soil productivity and timber productivity is lost where road construction is planned in 

Alternative B and C (about 3 and 19 miles). 

Air quality is temporarily impacted (lost) to varying degrees by smoke generated from 

prescribed burning and dust from road use resulting from implementation of the action 

alternatives. 

Wildlife habitat loss or modification for certain wildlife species is likely under the 

action alternatives. As vegetation recovers, habitat would eventually return over various 

periods of time depending on the amount of vegetation treatment and/or disturbance. 

Noxious and invasive weeds resulting from alternative implementation could potentially 

have an irretrievable commitment of resources if allowed to persist. Infestation can 

impact native plan communities that lead to losses in wildlife habitat, soil productivity, 

soil erosion, forage for grazing, and vegetative diversity. 

Scenic conditions will be modified to varying degrees depending on the action 

alternative implemented. 

SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). For further discussion of the effects on the resources listed below, see Chapter 3 

under the respective resource topics. 

Actions under Alternatives B and C are implemented using design measures that protect 

soil productivity. Any decrease in long-term soil productivity resulting from actions will 

be negligible. 

As provided for by the Forest Plan, minimum management requirements guide 

implementation of the action alternatives. Adherence to these requirements ensures that longterm productivity of the land is not impaired by short-term uses. Monitoring specified in this 

EIS and the Forest Plan validates that the management requirements and mitigation are 

effective in protecting long-term productivity. 

 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

The following is a description of adverse effects that are unavoidable with implementation 

of action alternatives. For further discussion of the effects on the resources listed below, see 

Chapter 3 under the respective resource topics. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 282

Forest Insect and Disease will continue in the project area, at epidemic levels, in some 

areas and endemic levels in others. 

Wildlife habitat for certain species will be adversely affected to varying levels with 

implementation of the action alternatives. The Wildlife section of this EIS discloses 

those effects. 

Air quality will be adversely affected on a temporary/seasonal basis as a result of planned 

prescribed burning and dust from roads and activities. 

Scenic quality will be affected adversely for some observers by the various levels of 

vegetation treatment and other actions planned. 

Fire/Fuels hazard will be increased during the short-term in some areas as a result of 

slash created from vegetation treatment. With disposal treatment this hazard will be 

reduced. There exists a higher long-term potential for large-scale wildfire under 

Alternative A versus the action alternatives. 

Soils can be eroded wherever vegetation and soils are disturbed. Compaction can occur 

where vehicles and equipment are used. 

Heritage resources can be disturbed or destroyed where human or natural activities take place. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 283

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPY/REFERENCES 

36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 to Part 299 

Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf. [Accessed 

January 2011]. 

Abella, S. R, W. W. Covington, P. Z. Fule, L. B. Lentile, A J. Sanches Meador, and P. Morgan. 

2007. Past, present, and future old growth in frequent –fire conifer forests of the western United 

States. Ecology and Society 12(2): 16 [Online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art16/ 

(Accessed January 9, 2011) 

Addison, E. 1991. Rainfall/runoff relationships and modeling of changes in water yield from 

timber harvest in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Rapid City, SD: South Dakota School of 

Mines and Technology. 103 p. Thesis 

Alexander, R.R. 1987. Silvicultural Systems, Cutting Methods, and Cultural Practices for Black 

Hills Ponderosa Pine. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-139. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest And Range Expirement Station. 32 p. 

Allotment 2210 Files. Located at the Mystic Ranger District Office. 

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior, NWCG, 

GTR INT-122. 

Anderson, M. T. 1980. Water quality and quantity of three adjacent Black Hills watersheds. 

Rapid City, SD: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. 159 p. Thesis. 

Anderson. T. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American dipper in the Black Hills

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

SD. 35pp. Available: http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012057.pdf. 

[Accessed January 2011] 

Anderson, T. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the woodpeckers in the Black Hills National 

Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

SD. 176pp. Available: http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012579.pdf. 

[January 2011]. 

Anderson, T. K. 2003b. Land Snail Survey of Wind Cave National Park, Final Report. USDI 

National Park Service, Wind Cave National Park. Contract #P1505020021. April 2003. 57pp. 

Anderson, T. 2004a. Callused Vertigo (Vertigo arthuri): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/callusedvertigo.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 284

Anderson, T. 2004b. Mystery Vertigo (Vertigo paradoxa): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mysteryvertigo.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Anderson, T. 2005. Oreohelix strigosa cooperi (Cooper’s Rocky Mountain Snail): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coopersrockymountainsnail.pdf [January 2011]. 

Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song sparrow (Melospiza 

melodia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 704. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of 

North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA. 

Arno, Stephen F., Joe H. Scott, and Michael G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-Class Structure of Old 

Growth Ponderosa Pine / Douglas-Fir Stands and Its Relationship to Fire History. Research 

Paper INT-RP-481. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station, United States Department of 

Agriculture - Forest Service. 

Backlund, D. 2007. The American dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota: Past and present. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks. [Online] 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/dipper/index.htm. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Baker, M. D., and M. J. Lacki. 2006. Day-roosting habitat of female long-legged myotis in 

ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Wildlife Manage. 70(1): 207-215. 

Ballard, Amy 2011. Recreation Forester, Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, 

email communication. 

Battaglia, B.A., Smith, S.A., Sheppard, W.D. 2008. Can Prescribed fire be used to maintain fuel 

treatment effectiveness over time in the Black Hills ponderosa pine forests? Forest Ecology and 

Management, 256, pp. 2029-2038. 

Baker, M. B., Jr. 1986. Effects of ponderosa pine treatments on water yield in Arizona. Water 

Resources Research. 22(1): 67–73. 

Bastias, Brigitte A., Zhihong Xu, and John W.G. Cairney. 2006. Influence of long-term repeated 

prescribed burning on mycelial communities of ectomycorrhizal fungi. New Phytologist. 172: 149-158. 

Beckner, Craig. 2007. Personal communication with Mark Vedder, RMS regarding effect of pine 

needles on forage quality and palatability for livestock use. 

Beecham, J. J. Jr., C. P. Collins, and T. D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

(Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. [Accessed January 2011]. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 285

Belica, L.T., and N. P. Nibbelink. 2006. Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf [January 2011] 

Belsky, A. Joy & Blumenthal, Dana M. April, 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand 

Dynamics and Soils in the Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, Vol. 11, 

No. 2, pp. 315-327. 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association. 2001. South Dakota Silviculture Best Management 

Practices Audit Project Final Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation. Black Hills 

National Forest Resource Association. Rapid City, SD. 

Black, S. H., D. Kulakowski, B.R. Noon, and D. DellaSala. 2010. Insects and Roadless Forests:

A Scientific Review of Causes, Consequences and Management Alternatives. National Center 

for Conservation Science &Policy, Ashland, OR. 

Blakesly, J. A., G. Girior, and C. White. 2008. Population densities and trend detection of avian 

species on the Black Hills National Forest. Tech. Rep. M-MBBH07-02. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory,Brighton, CO, 45 pp. 

Boen, Renee, John D. Swallow, and Justin Hammer. 2011. An Amendment to the Gorman Mining 

Complex in the Pactola Analysis Area Project, Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger 

District, Pennington County, South Dakota, Heritage Project #R2008020300056a. Prepared by the 

Mystic Ranger District. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Boldt, Charles E.; Van Deusen, James L. 1974. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the Black 

Hills: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-124. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 45 p. 

Bonnot, T. W., J. J. Millspaugh, and M. A. Rumble. 2009. Multi-scale nest-site selection by 

black-backed woodpeckers in outbreaks of mountain pine beetles. Forest Ecology and 

Management. Vol. 259, Issue 2, pages 220-228. 

Boyle, S., and S. Owens. 2007. North American Beaver (Castor canadensis): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanbeaver.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Breece, C. R., T.E. Kolb, B.G. Dickson, J. D. McMillan, and K. M. Clancy. 2008. Prescribed 

fire effects on bark beetle activity and tree mortality in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. 

Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 119-128. 

Brooks, K. N., P. F. Ffolliott, H. M. Gregersen, and L. F. DeBano. 1997. Hydrology and the 

Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. p 338-339. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 286

Brown, J. Pers. Comm. 2010. Regarding the presence of Chytrid in swab samples taken from 

the Black Hills National Forest. Graduate Student, University of South Dakota. Biology 

Department, Vermillion, SD. 

Brown, P.M. and C. Hull Sieg. 1999. Historical variability in fire at the ponderosa pine – northern 

Great Plains prairie ecotone, southeastern Black Hills, South Dakota. Ecoscience 6(4): 539-547 

Brown, P. (2001). Landscape Age Structure of Ponderosa Pine Stands, Limestone Plateau, Black 

Hills National Forest: Final Report. Challenge Cost Share Agreement No. CCS-11020399-23 

between Rocky Mountain Tree Ring Research, Inc. and U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest 

Service Black Hills National Forest. 

Brown, Peter M., Blaine Cook. 2006. Early settlement forest structure in Black Hills ponderosa 

pine forests. Forest ecology and management 223:1-31-3, 284-290, Elsevier, 2006. 

Brown, P.M., C.L. Wienk and A.J. Symstad. 2008. Fire and Forest History at Mount Rushmore. 

Ecological Applications, 18(8), 2008, pp. 1984-1999. 

Brown, Thomas C. and Terry C. Daniel. 1986. “Predicting Scenic Beauty of Timber Stands”. 

Forest Science, Vol. 32, no. 2 (1986). pp. 471-487. 

Bull, E., and B.C. Wales. 2001. Effects of disturbance on birds of conservation concern in 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, Vol. 75, Special Issue. 166-173p. 

Bunkers, M.. J. 2007. NOAA, National Weather Service, Rapid City, SD. Personal 

Communication. 10 Dec 2007. 

Burns, K., and B. Cook. 2006. Forest Plan implementation clarification on goshawk 

management. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Buseck, R. S., D. A. Keinath and E. Everett. 2005. Species assessment for the black-tailed 

prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Wyoming. Prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, WY. 62pp. 

Buskirk, S. W. 2002. Conservation assessment for the American marten in the Black Hills

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, SD. 51pp. [Accessed January 2011]. Available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012366.pdf 

Buskirk, S. W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Chapter 2: American Marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F,: 

K.B.: Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L .J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis for 

conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 7-37. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 287

Busse, Matt D., Steven A Simon, and Gregg M. Riegel. 2000. “Tree-Growth and Understory 

Reponses to Low-Severity Prescribed Burning in Thinned Pinus ponderosa Forests of Central 

Oregon”. Forest Science, Vol. 46, no. 2 (May 2000). pp. 258-268. 

Busse, M.D. 2006. USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station. Personal email communication to 

Jessica Gould regarding minimum soil and duff moisture levels to prevent detrimental soil 

heating during prescribed burning. October, 2006. 2p. 

Butler, Robert W. 1992. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/025 [January, 27, 2011]. 

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, J. E. Williamson, and V. A. Lindquist. 2002. Atlas of Water 

Resources in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-747. U.S. 

Geological Survey: Reston, VA. Available: http://www.fws.gove/mountainpraire/species/mammals/preble/peer/USGSZapusInformationReview.pdf.

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, and J.F. Sawyer. 2003. “Ground-Water Resources in the Black Hills 

Area, South Dakota.” Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4049. U.S. Geological Survey: 

Rapid City, SD. 

Carter, U.S. President Jimmy. 1977a. Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management. 

Available online: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html. 

Carter, U.S. President Jimmy. 1977b. Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands. 

Available online: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11990.html. 

Chatwin, S.C.; Howes, D.E.; Schwab, J.W.; and Swanston, D.N. 1994. A Guide for 

Management of the Landslide-Prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest. Second Ed. Canadian 

Ministry of Forests with USDA Forest Service. Land Management Handbook, ISSN 0229-

1622:18. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests: Victoria, British Columbia. 220 p. 

Cline, R. G.; Haupt, H. F.; Campbell, G. S. 1977. Potential water yield response following clearcut 

harvesting on north and south slopes in northern Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-191. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. 

Collins, C.P. and T. D. Reynolds. 2005. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Colorado State University Extension Office Revised 2008. Canada thistle facts sheet 

http://search.colostate.edu/searchcsu.aspx?cx=001074770120494240330%3Annxeddf6qe0&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A11&q=s

eed+viability+canada+thistle#1184
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 288

Cook, B. and Allen, K. 2008. Black Hills National Forest – Timber Harvesting Effects on the 

Mountain Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 

Crookston, Nicholas L. 1990. User’s guide to the event monitor: part of Prognosis Model 

version 6. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-275. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 21p. 

Cryan, P.M. 2004. Synthesis of existing information on meadow jumping mice (Zapus 

hudsonius) in the northern Great Plains. Information Review Compiled for the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver, CO. 27pp. 

Cryan, P. M., and L. E. Ellison. 2005. Distributional survey of the meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius) in the northern Great Plains: Trapping Report, summer 2005. Administrative 

report compiled for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver CO. 

DeBano, L.F., Neary, D.G., and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley 

and Sons, New York, NY. 333 p. 

DeKeyser, S. et. al. December, 2009. Are Changes in Species Composition on Central North 

Dakota Rangelands Due to Non-Use Management? Rangelands. Vol. 31, No. 6: 16-19. 

Dewitt E., Redden, A., Wilson, A. B., Busher D., Dersch, J.S. 1986. U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1580, Mineral Resource Potential and Geology of the Black Hills National Forest, South 

Dakota and Wyoming, Washington D.C. 

Diaz, Nancy, and Dean Apostol. 1993. Forest Landscape Analysis and Design. USDA Forest Service. 

Dinsmore, S. J. 2003. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainplover.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Doran, J. W., and T. B. Parkin. 1994. Defining and Assessing Soil Quality” in J. W. Doran et al (Ed.)

Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. SSSA Spec. Pub. 35. SSSA, Madison, WI. 

Drilling, N. E. 2010. 2009. Black Hills Owl Surveys. Tech. Rep. M-SDBBA2-03. Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 13pp. 

Driscoll, Daniel G., Hamade, Ghaith R. and Kenner, Scott J. 2000. Summary of Precipitation 

Data for the Black Hills Area of South Dakota, Water Years 1931-98. Open–File Report 00-329. 

USDI, US Geological Survey. 151 pp. 

Driscoll, D. G., J. M. Carter, J. E. Williamson, and L. D. Putnam. 2002. Hydrology of the Black 

Hills Area, South Dakota. Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4094. USDI, US Geological 

Survey. 150 pp. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 289

Driscoll, D.G., J.M. Carter, and D.O. Ohlen. 2004. “Hydrologic Effects of the 1988 Galena

Fire, Black Hills Area, South Dakota.” Water Resources Investigation Report 03-4323. U.S. 

Geological Survey: Rapid City, SD. 

Duckwitz, J. J. 2001. Small mammal survey of Wind Cave National Park. Master’s Thesis, 

Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. South Dakota State University, Brookings. 

EPA. 2008a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Clean Water Act. Available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa/cfm?program_is=45 

EPA. 2008b. Wetlands. Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11988.html. 

EPA. 2008c. Wetlands. Protection of Wetlands. Executive Order 11990. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/eo11990.html. 

EPA. 2009. What is a Watershed? [Online] Available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm 

EPA. 2011a. Our Waters. [Online] Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/ 

EPA. 2011b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Clean Water Act. Available 

[Online] Available at: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html. 

Evans, M. and Warburton, J. 2007. Geomorphology of Upland Peat: Erosion, Form, and 

landscape Change. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA. 288 p. 

Everett, A.M. 2004. 2004 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation of 

South Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Black Hills National Forest Resource 

Association. Rapid City, SD. 33 p. 

Fauna West Wildlife Consultants. 2003-2009. Survey results for small forest owls, the northern 

goshawk, and other raptors of interest in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Reports prepared for 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre. 

Feck, J., and R.O. Hall Jr. 2004. Response of American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) to 

variation in stream water quality. Freshwater Biology. 49, 1123-1137. 

Fecske, D. M. 2003. Distribution and abundance of American martens and cougars in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Dissertation: Dr of Philosophy, South Dakota State 

University. 170pp. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1998. National Flood Insurance Program, 

Q3 Flood Data. GIS data on CD-ROM for South Dakota. Also available at 

http://www.fema.gov. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 290

Federal Registry, Vol. 66, No.3, Thursday, January 4, 2001, Notices 

Fellows, S. D., and S. L. Jones. 2009. Status assessment and conservation action plan for the 

long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Tech. 

Publ. FWS/BTP-R6012-2009, Washington, DC. 98pp. 

 

Fettig, C. J., K. D. Klepzig, R. F. Billings, A. S. Munson, T. E. Nebeker, J. F. Negron, and J. T. 

Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control 

of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest 

Ecology and Management 238 p. 24-53. 

Finch, D. M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in 

the Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-215. Rocky Mountain 

Region. Denver, CO. 

Finch, D. M., J. L. Ganey, W. Yong, R. T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and 

interactions of fire, logging, and grazing. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292. Pp. 103-136. 

Ford, R.C. 1988. Black Hills Stream Inventory and Classification 1984 and 1985. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Report No. 88-1. 

Foster, G.R. 1982. Modeling the erosion process. In: Haan, C.T., Johnson, H.P., Brakensiek, 

D.L., eds. Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds. St. Joseph, MI. American Society of 

Agricultural Engineers. Chapter 8. 

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1993. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. Unpubl. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming, Summary Report 1991-2001. Unpubl. Report prepared for USDA 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 127pp. and appendices. 

Frid, A., and L. M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. 

Conservation Ecology 6(1):11. 16p. 

Gary, H. L. 1975. Watershed management problems and opportunities for the Colorado Front 

Range ponderosa pine zone: The Status of our Knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-139. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 32 p. 

Ghalambor, C. K., and R. C. Dobbs. 2006. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmynuthatch.pdf. Accessed [January 2011]. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 291

Godwin, D.C, and J.R. Miner. 1996. The Potential of Off-Stream Livestock Watering to Reduce 

Water Quality Impacts. Bioresource Tech. 58(3):285-290. 

Gould, J. J. 2003. Hydrologic Modeling of High-Intensity, Short-Duration Rainfall on Burned 

Ponderosa Pine Forested Watersheds Existing in Highly Permeable Geology within the Black Hills of 

South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology: Rapid City, SD. 121p. 

Gove, Philip B. 1966. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, 

Unabridged. G. & C. Merriam Company. Springfield Massachusetts. 

Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, M. F. Jurgensen, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn, and D. S. Page-Dumroese. 

1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. INT-RP-477. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Odgen, UT. 

Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey Sarah; Jain Theresa B. tech. eds. 2004. Science basis for 

changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station; Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; 43 p. 

Graham, R. T., and T. B. Jain. 2005. Application of free selection in mixed forests of the inland 

northwestern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 209:131-145. 

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B. 2005a. Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems. in USDA Forest Service Gen. 

Tech Rep. PSW-GTR-198. 2005. 32p. 

Grafe, E. and Horsted, P. 2002. Exploring With Custer: The 1874 Black Hills Expedition. 

Golden Valley Press: Custer, SD. 285p. 

Graves, Henry S. 1896. Black Hills Forest Reserve 

Griebel, R., K. Burns, and S. Deisch. 2007. Focus species. Norbeck Wildlife Preserve. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 54pp Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114246.pdf. Accessed [January 2011]. 

Grimm, E.C. 2000. Paleoenvironmental Data from Iron Bogs in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota: Ironclad Evidence for Environmental Change. Poster Presentation. American 

Quaternary Association Meeting, May 22-24, 2000. University of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR. 

Griscom, H., D. Keinath, and J. Handley. 2008. Five year study of factors affecting jumping 

mice (Zapus) on the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming, USA; Five Year Project Report: 

2008. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 

Gruver, J. C., and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): 

a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf. 

Accessed [January 2011]. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 292

Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and M. H. Brooks. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis 

of Scientific Information. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

Hansen, C., J. Millspaugh, and M. A. Rumble. 2008. Factors affecting the probability of 

detecting ruffed grouse in the Black Hills National Forest. Progress Report 1. January 24, 2008. 

FS Agreement Number: 05-JV-11221609-239. 

Harper, Kristine L. 2010. A Level III Cultural Resource Survey of the Pactola Analysis Area, 

R2008020300056, in Pennington and Lawrence Counties, South Dakota. Prepared by the Mystic Ranger 

District, Black Hills National Forest. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Haskins, Kristin E. & Catherine A. Gehring. 2004. Long-term effects of burning slash on plant 

communities and arbuscular mycorrhizae in a semi-arid woodland. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

41: 379-388. 

Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United 

States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-253. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest, and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 214 pp. and maps. 

Hayward, G. D., C. H. Flather, E. Uloth, H. D. Safford, and D. A. Cleaves. 2009. Managing 

fish and wildlife habitat in the face of climate change: USDA Forest Service perspective. 

Transaction of the 74th North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife 

Management Institute Publications Department March 16-19, 2009. p. 98-109. 

Heidel, B, 2007. Wyoming Plant Species of Concern. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

(WYNDD). University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Higgins, K. F., E. D. Stukel, J. M. Goulet, and D. C. Backlund. 2000. Wild mammals of South 

Dakota. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre. 278pp. 

High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC). 2008. [Online] 

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/data/historical/index.php?state=sd&action=select_state&submit=Selec

t+State. Accessed 11 Nov 2008. 

Hoeft, D. 1985. Soil Map Descriptions and Interpretations Notebook. 

Hoeft, D. 1988. Land Classification System and Soils Information; Black Hills National Forest. 

Hoeft, D. 1988. Black Hills National Forest Ecological Land Units Study. USDA Forest 

Service, Custer, SD. 68pp, plus Appendices. 

Hoffman, George R.; Alexander, Robert R. 1987. Forest vegetation of the Black Hills National 

Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming: a habitat type classification. Res. Pap. RM-276. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 48 p. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 293

Hopkins, A.D. 1905. The Black Hills Beetle. USDA, Bureau of Entomology, Bulletin No. 56, p.13 

Horsted, P. 2006. The Black Hills: Yesterday & Today. Golden Valley Press: Custer, SD. 304p. 

Hoxie, J. and Engelskirger, C. 2009. 2009 Field Audit Report: Implementation Monitoring and 

Evaluation of South Dakota Forestry Best Management Practices. Black Hills Forest Resource 

Association, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Lawrence 

County Conservation District. Rapid City, SD. 18 p. 

Hough, M. 2008. Research techniques, habitat use, and ecology of northern flying squirrels, and 

research techniques and distribution of red squirrels in the Black Hills National Forest and 

Northeastern South Dakota. Master of Science Thesis, South Dakota State University. 132pp. 

Hungerford, R.D.; Frandsen, W.H.; and Ryan, K.C. 1992. Heat Transfer into the Duff and 

Organic Soil. Final Project Report. FWS Agreement No. 14-48-0009-92-962. USDA Forest 

Service Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab. Missoula, MT. 52 p.

Hurley, K. 2004. North American Wild Sheep and Goat Council Position Statement on 

Helicopter-supported recreation and mountain goats. Bienn. Symp. North. Wild Sheep and Goat 

Counc. 14:131-136. 

Huxoll, C. 2010. Big game harvest projections, 2009 annual report. South Dakota Game 

Report No. 2010-01. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre. [Online] 

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/harvest/default.aspx . Accessed [January 2011]. 

Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide. 2008 Guide. 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) as well as National 

Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) partners the National Association of State Foresters 

(NASF) and the United States Fire Administration (USFA). Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fireuse/rxfire/rxfireguide.pdf 

Isaak, D.J., W.A. Hubert, C.R. Berry, Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, 

mountain sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and 

Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, 

South Dakota. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/chub_sucker_dace.pdf 

Jackson, Robert J. 1988. Prescribed Fire and the Protection of Heritage Resources. A Heritage 

Resources Management Module Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

National Forests of the Sierra Nevada. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Johnson, A. S., and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the western burrowing 

owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 294

Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 24pp. 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012149.pdf. Accessed [January, 2011]. 

Johnson, A. S., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Saw-whet 

owl in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming [Online]. USDA Forest 

Service, Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012447.pdf. [January, 2011] 

Kanta, J. 2011. Pers. Comm. E-mail regarding management of bighorn sheep in the Pactola 

Project Area. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department, Rapid City, SD. 

Kanta, J. 2009. Pers. comm. Regarding bighorn sheep use in the central Black Hills. South 

Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. Rapid City, SD. 

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Kennedy, J. F. 1992. Habitat selection by female white-tailed deer in the northern Black Hills, 

South Dakota and Wyoming. Master’s thesis. South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD. 

Kennedy, P. L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf. Accessed [January 2011]. 

Kennedy, R. 1997. Road Maintenance Frequency versus Sediment Production. Region 4. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Bridger-Teton National Forest. Jackson, WY. 

Kilgore, Bruce M. and George A Curtis. 1987. Guide to Understory Burning in Ponderosa PineLarch-Fir Forests in the Intermountain West. General Technical Report INT-233. Ogden, UT: 

Intermountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. 

King, J. G. and L. C. Tennyson. 1984. “Alteration of Streamflow Characteristics Following 

Road Construction in North Central Idaho.” Water Resources Research 20, No. 8.: 1159-1163. 

King, T. L., J. F. Swuitzer, C. L. Morrison, M. S. Eackles, C. C. Young, B. A. Lubinski and P. 

M. Cryan. 2006. Comprehensive genetic analysis reveal evolutionary distinction of a mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) proposed for delisting from the US Endangered Species Act. 

Molecular Ecology (2006) 15, 4331-4359. 

Klenner, W. and A. Arsenault. 2009. Ponderosa pine mortality during a severe bark beetle 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) outbreak in southern British Columbia and implications 

for wildlife habitat management. Forest Ecology and Management 2585 S5-S14. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 295

Knapp, Eric E., Dylan W. Schwilk, Jeffrey M. Kane, and Jon E. Keeley. 2007. Role of burning 

season on initial understory vegetation response to prescribed fire in a mixed conifer forest. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 37:11-22. 

Knight R. L. and J.K. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreationist; coexistence through 

management and research. Editors. Island Press. 1718 Connecticut Ave. N. W., Suite 300. 

Washington, DC. 20009. 

Knowles, C. J., and P. R. Knowles. 2009. Nesting ecology of the northern goshawk in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Report for the 2009 nesting season. Prepared for the South Dakota 

Game, Fish and Parks Department, Pierre, SD. 40pp. 

Kocis, Susan M., Donald B.K. English, Stanley J. Zarnoch, Ross Arnold, Larry Warren, and 

Catherine Ruka. 2004. Black Hills National Forest. In : National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Results, [Online]. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station (Producer). Internet Accessed [May 2005] at : 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year4/R2_F3_blackhills_final.htm 

Kotliar, N. B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Kricher, J. C. 1995. Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia). In: The Birds of North America, 

No. 540. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Krueger, E. M. 2004. Distribution and habitat associations of the northern flying squirrel in the 

northern Black Hills of South Dakota. Self-published. Filed in Black Hills National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office (Forest Biologist’s files), Custer, South Dakota. 

Land Status Atlas, corner cards and Utility Atlas for the Pactola Planning Area. 

Lang, J.W. 1969. Hibernation and movements of Storeria occipitomaculata in northern 

Minnesota. Journal of Herpetology. 3:196-197. 

Larson, G. E.; J.R. Johnson. August 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge 

Mountains. Brookings, SD. South Dakota State University. 

Lawrence County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 2009. Lawrence County, SD 

Leaf, C. F. 1975. Watershed management in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains: A 

summary of the status of our knowledge by vegetation types. Res. Pap. RM-142. Fort 

Collins,CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 28 p. 

Lee, W.K. 2001. Wyoming Silviculture Best Management Practices Field Audit: 

Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation. Wyoming Timber Industry Association and 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Saratoga, Wyoming. 17 p. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 296

Lee, W.K. and Everett, A.M. 2001. South Dakota Silviculture Best Management Practices 

Audit Project Final Report: Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation. Black Hills Forest 

Resource Association and South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 

Rapid City, SD. 48 p. 

Lentile. L., F.W. Smith, and W. Shepperd. 2000. Final report: Snag populations of the Black 

Hills National Forest. USDA Forest Service Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

Lentile, Leigh B., Zachary A. HoldenA, Alistair M. S. Smith, Michael J. Falkowski, Andrew T. 

Hudak, Penelope Morgan, Sarah A. Lewis, Paul E. Gessler and Nate C. Benson. 2006. Remote 

sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 15: 319-345. 

Lentile, L.B., Smith, F.W., Sheppard, W.D. 2006. Influence of topography and forest structure 

on patterns of mixed severity fire in ponderosa pine forests of the South Dakota Black Hills, 

USA. International Journal of Wildlandfire 15, pp.557-566 

Litton, R. Burton, Jr. 1984. Visual Vulnerability of the Landscape Control of Visual Quality. 

Research Paper WO-39. Berkley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Research Station, 

United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. 

Long, J. N., and F. W. Smith. 2000. Restructuring the forest – goshawks and the restoration of 

southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry, August 2000. Vol. 98, no. 8, pages 25-30. 

Lovett, K. 2010. The American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) in the Black Hills of South Dakota. 

Final report to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 56p. 

Luce, C. H. and T. A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in 

Western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35, No. 8.: 2561-2570. 

Marc, Jaques, “Predicting the Visual Impacts of Retention Cutting”, BC Ministry of Forests, 

Abstract of REC035, 2003. Internet Accessed [June 2006] at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/fordev/visual_resource_mgnt.htm#publications 

Marc, Jacques, Clearcutting and Visual Quality – A Public Perception Study, BC Ministry of 

Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Published 1996. Internet Accessed [June 2006] at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/fordev/visual_resource_mgnt.htm#publications 

Marriott, H. J. 2000. Survey of Black Hills montane grasslands. Report to the South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. Pierre, SD. 56pp. 

Marriott, H. J., D. Faber-Langendoen, A. McAdams, D. Stutzman, and B. Burkhart. 1999. 

Black Hills community inventory: Final report. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest 

Conservation Science Center. Minneapolis, MN. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 297

Marriott, H. J. and D. Faber-Langendoen. 2000. The Black Hills community inventory; Vol. 2: 

Plant Community Descriptions. The Nature Conservatory. Midwest Conservation Science 

Center and Association for Biodiversity Information. Midwestern Resource Office, 

Minneapolis, MN. 326pp. 

Marrone, G. M. 2002. Field guide to butterflies of South Dakota. Published by South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 478pp. 

Marrone, G. M. 2005. A butterfly survey of the southern Black Hills and adjacent areas with 

emphasis on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report 

submitted to South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks. Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Marrone, G. M. 2006. A butterfly survey of the northern Black Hills and adjacent areas with 

emphasis on species monitored by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. Report 

submitted to South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks. Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Marrone, G. M. 2007. Monitoring Surveys for the Dakota Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis 

pahasapa) in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Report submitted to South Dakota Dept. Game, 

Fish, and Parks. Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 

Martin, J.E, et al. 2004. Geologic Map of South Dakota, General Map 10. South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Geological Survey. 

McCambridge et al. 1982. Ponderosa Pine Mortality Resulting from a Mountain Pine Beetle 

Outbreak. Research Paper RM-235. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 

McCambridge, W.F.; Stevens, R.E. 1982. Effectiveness of Thinning Ponderosa Pine Stands in 

reducing Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Tree Losses in the Black Hills-Preliminary 

Observations. Research Note RM-414. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S. J. Lantz. 2004. The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia): a 

technical conservation assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

McDonald, Phillip M., and R. Burton Litton, Jr. 1998. Combining Silviculture and Landscape 

Architecture to Enhance the Roadside View. Research Paper PSW-RP-235. Albany, CA: 

Pacific Pactolawest Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. 

Meehan, W. R. ed. 1994. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and Their Habitats. AFS Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 

Megahan, W.F. 1986. Recent studies on erosion and its control on forest lands in the United 

States. In: Richard, F. ed. Range basin sediment delivery: Proceedings, 1986, August. 

Albuquerque, NM. IAHS Publication 159, Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom: 178-189. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 298

Mehl, S. M. 1992. Growth descriptions for the major cover types in the Rocky Mountain 

region. In: Old-growth forests in the Southwest & Rocky Mountain regions, Proceedings of a 

workshop. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-213. 

Millspaugh, J.J., G.C. Brundidge, R. A. Gitzen, K. J. Raedeke. 2000. Elk and Hunter space-use 

sharing in South Dakota. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 64. No. 4. Pp. 994-1003. 

Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. 2007. Wetlands. 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, 

NJ. 582 p. 

Mohren, Sean R. 2002. Habitat evaluation and density estimates for the black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) and northern three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) in the 

Black Hills National Forest. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Missouri, Colombia. 

Mohren, S. and S. Anderson. 2000. Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides articus) and threetoed woodpeckers (Picoides tridactylus) in the Black Hills National Forest of Wyoming and 

South Dakota: Annual report for 2000 summer field season. Unpublished Report prepared for 

the Black Hills National Forest. Wyoming Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. of 

Wyoming, Laramie. 

Molinar, F., Galt, D. & Holechek, J. 2001. Managing For Mulch. Rangelands, Vol. 23 No.4, 3-7. 

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/EXPLORER. [Accessed: March 2011]. 

Neary, D.G., Ryan, K.C., DeBano, L.F., eds. 2005. Wildland Fire in ecosystems: effects of fire 

on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250p. 

Negron, J.F., et al., Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl.exLaws) to 

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

Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, USA, Forest Ecol. Manage. (2007) 

Negron, J. F., K. Allen, B. Cook, and J. R. Withrow Jr. 2008. Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, 

Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. exLaws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, 

attach in uneven-aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management 254(2008) 327-334. 

Newport, Carl A. 1956. A History of Black Hills Forestry. Pierre, SD: South Dakota

Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 112p. 

Omi, P. N., Martinson, E. J., Chong, G. W. 2007. Tested by Fire: What Happens When 

Wildfires Meet Fuel Treatments. Joint Fire Science Program. Fire Science Brief. Issue 1, 

October, 2007. www.firescience.gov. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 299

Opler, P. A., K. Lotts, and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2011. Butterflies and Moths of North 

America. [Online]. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ 

Accessed: [January 2011]. 

Oregon State University and Sea Grant Extension. 2003. Watershed Stewardship Education 

Program Training Guide. Watershed Definition. http://www.co.yamhill.or.us/ ybc/defnWS.htm. 

Orr, H. K. 1968. Soil-moisture trends after thinning and clearcutting in a second-growth 

ponderosa pine stand in the Black Hills. Res. Note RM-99. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Orr, H. K. 1972. Throughfall and stemflow relationships in second-growth ponderosa pine in 

the Black Hills. Res. Note RM-210. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p. 

Orr, H. K. 1975. Watershed management in the Black Hills: The status of our knowledge. Res. 

Pap. RM-141. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. 

Orr, H. K.; VanderHeide, T. 1973. Water yield characteristics of three small watersheds in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Res. Pap. RM-100. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Parrish, J. B.; Herman, D. J.; Reyher, D. J. 1996. A century of change in Black Hills forest and 

riparian ecosystems. B 722. Brookings, SD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Agriculture Experiment Station, South Dakota State University. 20 p. 

Parson, A.; Robichaud, P.R.; Lewis, S.A.; Napper, C.; and Clark, J.T. 2010. Field guide for 

mapping post-fire soil burn severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-243. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. 

Pearson, G. A. 1951. A comparison of the climate in four ponderosa pine regions. Journal of 

Forestry. 49: 256–258. 

Pennington County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 2006. Pennington County, SD 

Pennington County Register of Deeds - private landowners adjacent to and within the Pactola 

Planning Area. 

Permit 2230 Files. Located at the Mystic Ranger District Office. 

Peterson, C. R. 1974. A preliminary report on the amphibians and reptiles of the Black Hills of 

South Dakota and Wyoming. MS Thesis. Univ. of Illinois. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 300

Peterson, R.A. 1995. The South Dakota breeding bird atlas. South Dakota Ornithologists' Union. 

[Online]. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. Version 06JUL2000). 

Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/sdatlas/index.htm. [June, 2011] 

Pettingill, P. S., and N. R. Whitney. 1965. Birds of the Black Hills. Special publication number 

1, Cornell Lab. of Ornithology. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 140pp. 

Rahn, P.H. and J.P. Gries. 1973. “Large Springs in the Black Hills, South Dakota and 

Wyoming”, Report of Investigations No. 107. South Dakota Geological Survey: Vermillion, SD. 

Reid, L., and T. Lisle. 2008. Cumulative Effects and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/cumulative-effects.shtml [Accessed March 29, 2011] 

Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E., Cohen, J.D. 2008. Objectives and considerations for 

wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 256, pp. 1997-2006 

Reynolds, R. T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forests for nesting accipiter hawks. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report RM-102. 

Reynolds, R. T, R. T. Graham, M. Hildegard, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk 

in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest, and Range Experiment Station. 90p. 

Reynolds, R. T., and S. M. Joy. 2006. Demography of goshawks in northern Arizona, 1991-

1996. Studies in Avian Biology 31:63-74. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A. Boyce. 2006. An ecosystem-based conservation 

strategy for the northern goshawk. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 31:299-311. 

Ribe, Robert G., The Aesthetic of Forestry: What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught 

Us?, Environmental Management, Volume 13, Number 1 / January, 1989, Internet Accessed 

[October, 2006] at : http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4x5132735646770/fulltext.pdf 

Richardson, A. 1971. The Rocky Mountain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks. Bulletin Number 2. 25pp. 

Richie, C. 2008. Management and challenges of the mountain pine beetle infestation in British 

Columbia. Alces Vol. 44: 127-135. 

Rick, Randall. R. 2010, 2011. Mystic District Silviculturist – Field observations of recently 

harvest units on the Mystic Ranger District. 

Rideout, C. B., and R. S. Hoffmann. 1975. Oreamnos americanus. Mammalian Species. 

American Society of Mammalogists. No. 63. Nov. 21, 1975. pp. 1-6. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 301

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2001-2010. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: 

[Online] USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114243.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest Cultural

Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO. 350p. 

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on 

elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: Transactions of the 69th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: p. 491-508. 

Ruggiero, L., K. McKelvey, J. Squires, and W. Block. 2008. Wildlife and Climate Change. 

(May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource 

Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildlife.shtml 

Rumble, M. A., L. Benkobi, and R. S. Gamo. 2005. Elk responses to humans in a densely 

roaded area. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. Vo. 11. No. 1-:10-24 

Rumble, M. and Anderson. 1996. Feeding ecology of Merriam’s turkeys (Meleagris gallepavo 

merriami) in the Black Hills, South Dakota. American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 136. No. 1 

(Jul., 1996), pp. 157-171. 

Running, S.W. 2006. Is Global Warming Causing More, Larger Wildfires? Science. 18 August 

2006. Vol 313:927-928. 

Saab, V., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkuhl, L. Bate and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of 

the interior wets: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23p. 

SAIC. 2003. A framework for revising deer and elk strategic management direction on the 

BHNF. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Project number 01-0209-04-

4456-106. 26pp. Available: http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012190.pdf. 

SAIC. 2005. Selection of management indicator species on the Black Hills National Forest 

Phase II Plan Amendment. Science Application International Corporation. 

Sando, S.K. 1998. Techniques for Estimating Peak-Flow magnitude and Frequency Relations

for South Dakota Streams. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4055. 52p. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html. Accessed [January 2011]. 

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 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 302

3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ [Accessed January 2011]. 

Sawyer, H., R. M Nielson, F. Lindzey and L. L. McDonald. 2006. Winter habitat selection of 

mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 70(2) 396-403. 

Schaupp, B. 2011. Pers. Comm. regarding mountain pine beetle effects to pine and spruce 

communities. USDA Forest Service. Forest Health Protection, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Rapid City, SD 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A.; Schaupp, W.C., Jr. 2009. Mountain pine beetle-killed trees as snags in 

Black Hills ponderosa pine stands. Res. Note RMRS-RN-40. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5p. 

Schmid, J. M., S.A. Mata, and W. C. Schaupp, Jr. 2009a. Mountain Pine Beetle-Killed Trees as 

Snags in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station Research Note RMRS-RN-406p. 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A; Kessler, R.R.; and Popp, J.B. 2007. The Influence of Partial Cutting 

on Mountain Pine Beetle-caused Tree Mortality in Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Stands. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19p. 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots 

surrounded by unmanaged stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-54. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11p. 

Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. and Obedzinski, R.A. 1994. Hazard Rating Ponderosa Pine Stands for 

Mountain Pine Beetles in the Black Hills. Res. Note RM-529. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 19pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 16pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003c. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 22pp. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 303

Schmidt, C. A. 2003d. Conservation assessment for the long-legged myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

Black Hills National Forest, Custer SD. 20pp. 

Schmidt, C. A. 2003e. Conservation assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, SD. 23pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012119.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Schmidt, C. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the fringed bat in the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. 

Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012246.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep., RMRS-GTR87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Schultz, B. 2011. Senior Scientist, Air Quality Staff. South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resource. Pierre, South Dakota. Email Communication. 

SD Codified Laws: 31-18-1 Section Line R-O-W; 31-18-2 Section Line R-O-W; 31-22-1 Access 

from Isolated Tracts; 31-22-2 Inability to Agree with Servient Landowner; 40-28-5 Trespass 

Liability not Applicable to Unfence Lands within the National Forest; 43-23-3 Fence Agreed to 

by Owners of Adjoining Land; 43-23-4 Legal Portition Fence 

SDDA-State of South Dakota 2010. Noxious and Invasive Plant List 

http://sdda.sd.gov/Ag_Services/Plant-Protection/Weed%20and%20Pest/State-Noxious-Weeds.aspx 

SD DENR. 1998. The 1998 South Dakota 303(d) Waterbody List. 109 pp. Available at: 

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/ 

SD DENR. 1999. Article 74:51. The Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD 74:51:01, 

:02, and :03). South Dakota's Surface Water Quality Standards. 

SD DENR. 2002. South Dakota Total Maximum Daily Load Waterbody List 2002. 67 p. 

Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SD DENR. 2004. The 2004 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality 

Assessment. 230 p. Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SD DENR. 2006. The 2006 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality 

Assessment. 211 p. Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 304

SD DENR. 2008. The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality 

Assessment. 262 p. Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SD DENR. 2010. The 2010 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality 

Assessment. 272 p. Available at: http://denr.sd.gov/des/sw/IntegratedReports.aspx 

SD DENR. 2011a. Water Rights Program. South Dakota Well Completion Reports Database. 

Accessed February 2011. Available at http://denr.sd.gov/des/wr/dblogsearch.aspx 

SD DENR. 2011b. Groundwater Quality Program, Online Spill Reporting Database. Accessed 

February 2011. Available at http://denr.sd.gov/des/gw/Spills/SpillData.aspx 

SD Department of Transportation. 2006. 2005 South Dakota Traffic Flow Map. Pierre, South 

Dakota. 2006. Available on line at 

http://www.sddot.com/pe/data/Docs/trafficmaps/Traffic2005.pdf (accessed November 17, 2006). 

SD Division of Forestry (unknown date). Best Management Practices For Water Quality 

Protection on Timber Harvest And There Silvicultural Activities In South Dakota, Pierre, SD. 

SDGFP. 2004. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. South Dakota Bat Management Plan. 

South Dakota Bat Working Group. Wildlife Division Report 2004-08. July 13, 2004. 97pp. 

[Online]. Available: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/plans/bat-managementplan.aspx.[Accessed January 2011] . 

SDGFP. 2005. Stream Fisheries Database. April 14, 2005. 

SDGFP. 2005b. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. South Dakota All bird Conservation Plan 

[Online]. South Dakota game fish, and Parks Department, Pierre, SD Wildlife Division Report 

2005-09 Available: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/docs/bird-plan.pdf. [Accessed January 2011] 

SDGFP. 2006. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2006. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes 

Region 1. Report 07-11. 

SDGFP. 2006a. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2004. Surveys of Public Waters. Part 1 Lakes 

Region 1. Progress Report No. 06-09. http://e.library.sd.gov/SodakLIVEDocs/content/gfp/GFPdoc104.pdf 

SDGFP. 2006b. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2005. Surveys of Public Waters. Part 1 Lakes 

Region 1. Progress Report No. 06-10. 

SDGFP. 2006c. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. South Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Plan. [Online]. South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department. Pierre, SD. 

2006-08. 261pp. Available: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/plans/wildlife-actionplan.aspx. [Accessed January 2011]. 

SDGFP. 2007. Statewide Fisheries Surveys, 2007. Surveys of Public Waters – Part 1 Lakes Region 1. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 305

SDGFP. 2009. South Dakota 2009 fish stocking schedule. Accessed on August 13, 

2010.http://gfp.sd.gov/fishing-boating/tacklebox/lake-surveys/fish-stocking.aspx 

SDGFP. 2010. Stream Fisheries Database. March 31, 2010. 

SDGFP. 2010b. Hunting and Trapping Handbook. South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

Department Pierre, SD 61pp. 

SDGFP. 2011. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. 

[Online]. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 

http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/threatened-endangered/default.aspx. [Accessed January 12, 2011]. 

SDGFP. 2011a. Natural Heritage Database: List of State Species of Concern. [Online] South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diveristy/. [Accessed January 5, 2011] 

SDNHP (South Dakota Natural Heritage Program). 2009. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered 

Plant Species Tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks. [Online]. http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RarePlant.htm. 

Accessed January 12, 2011. 

SD Pennington County. 2007. Noxious and Invasive Plant List 

http://www.co.pennington.sd.us/weedpest/localwds.htm 

SDSU. 2003. South Dakota State University, South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural

Resources and South Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2003. Forestry Best Management 

Practices for South Dakota. 39 p. 

SDSU. 2004. South Dakota State University, South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural

Resources and South Dakota Department of Agriculture. 2004. Forestry Best Management 

Practices for South Dakota. 

Sedgwick, J. A. 2006. Long-Billed Curlew (Numenius americanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf. [January 2011] 

Selby, G. 2005. Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe W.H. Edwards): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ottoeskipper.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Selby, G. 2007. Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/regalfritillary.pdf. [January 2011]. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 306

Shearer, J. 2006. E-mail message dated May 25, 2006 from Jeff Shearer, Coldwater Fisheries 

Biologist, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Rapid City, SD to Steve Hirtzel, 

Fisheries Biologist, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD regarding the spawning period for 

mountain suckers in the Black Hills. 

Shepperd, Wayne D.; Battaglia, Michael A. 2002. Ecology, silviculture. And Management of 

Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-97. fort Collins, CO. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Shepperd, Wayne D., Fredrick W. Smith, Leigh Lentile. 2000. Snag Management In The Black 

Hills National Forest: Final Report. Un-publish Paper by Department of Forest Sciences, 

Colorado State University and Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of 

Agriculture - Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO, for the USDA -FS, Black Hills National Forest. 

Shepperd, W. D.; Troendle, C. E.; Edminster, C. B. 1992. Linking water and growth and yield 

models to evaluate management alternatives in Subalpine ecosystems. In: Murphy, D., comp. 

Getting to the future through silviculture—Workshop proceedings; 1991 May 6–9; Cedar City, 

UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-291. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 42–48. 

Shinneman, D. J., and W. L. Baker. 1997. Non-equilibrium dynamics between catastrophic 

disturbances and old-growth forest in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. 

Conservation Biology, Vol. 11. No. 6. Pp.1276-1288. 

Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Severson, Keith E. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer in the 

Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMGTR-274. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 24 p. 

Skinner, C., Ritchie, M. 2008. The Cone Fire: A Chance Reckoning for Fuel Treatments. Joint

Fire Science Program. Fire Science Brief. Issue 4, January, 2008 

Skorkowsky, R. C. 2009. Response of northern goshawk under a no-action alternative to tree 

mortality resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic. White-paper completed for USDA 

Forest Service Region 2 in response to large scale insect epidemic conditions in lodgepole pine 

forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO. 13pp. 

Slater, G. L. 2004. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Slater, G. L., and C. Rock. 2005. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Slepnikoff, D. 2009. Personal communication regarding vault toilet and well locations on Black 

Hills National Forest lands within the Slate Castle Project Area. March 5, 2009. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 307

Smith, B. E. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Custer, SD. 78pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012268.pdf. [January 2011] 

Smith, B. E. and N. T. Stephens. 2003. Conservation assessment for the redbelly snake in the 

Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online] USDA Forest Service, 

Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 18pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012483.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

Smith, B. E. and D. A. Keinath. 2007. Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Smith, David M., et al. 1997. The Practice of Silviculture. New York City, NY: John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. 577p. 

Smith, F. M. 1983. Appraisal of water yield as affected by basal area reduction of ponderosa 

pine: Sturgis Watersheds, Black Hills, S.D. Cooperative agreement 16-949-CA. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 36 p. 

Spiering, D. J. and R. L Knight. 2005. Snag density and use by cavity-nesting birds in managed 

stands of the Black Hills National Forest. Forest Ecology and management 214(2005)40-52.

Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and metaanalysis. Biological Conservation141 (2008) p. 2159-2173 

Stasiak, R. and G.R. Cunningham. 2006. Finescale Dace (Phoxinus neogaeus): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/finescaledace.pdf. [Accessed January 15, 2011]. 

Stefanich, M. R. 1995. Movements and habitat use of white-tailed deer in the northwestern 

Black Hills of Wyoming and South Dakota. Master’s thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie. 

Stefanich, M. R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black Hills 

National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest. March 2001.

Stephens, R. M., and S. H. Anderson. 2002. Conservation assessment for the Cooper’s hawk 

and sharp-shinned hawk of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 50pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012178.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Stephens, R. M., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Conservation assessment for the broad-winged 

hawk of the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. [Online]. USDA Forest 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 308

Service. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 25pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_012127.pdf. [January 2011]. 

Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminister, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Harrington, M., Keeley, 

J.E., Knapp, E.E., McIver, J.D., Metlen, K., Skinner, C.N., Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire treatment 

effects on vegetative structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. 

Ecological Applications, 19(2), pp. 305-320. 

Stewart, R.K. and C.A. Thilenius. 1964. Stream and lake inventory and classification in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota. Dingell-Johnson Project F-1-R-13, Job Numbers 14 and 15. South 

Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre. 

Stubblefield, C. H., K. T. Vierling, and M. A. Rumble. 2006. Landscape-scale attributes of elk 

centers of activity in the central Black Hills of South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 

70(4): 1060-1069 

Strobel, M.L., Jarrell, G.J., Sawyer, J.F., Schleicher, J.R., Fahrenbach, M.D. 1999. Distribution 

of Hydrogeologic Units in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota. USGS Hydrologic Investigations 

Atlas HA-743. 

Sundstrom, Linea. 1989. Archaic Hunting Practices Depicted in Northwest Plains Rock Art 

Style. Plains Anthropologist 34 (124) 149-169. 

Swengel, Ann B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. 

Biological Conservation 83:77-89. 

Tallman, D. A., D. L. Swanson, and J. S. Palmer. 2002. Birds of South Dakota. 3rd Edition. 

Northern State Univ. Press. Aberdeen, SD. 441 pp. 

Thomas, S. 2008. BMP/WCP Monitoring Report. Black Hill National Forest. Mystic and Hell 

Canyon Ranger Districts 2002-2007. Rapid City, South Dakota. 

Tigner, J., and W. C. Aney. 1994. Report of Black Hills bat survey, October 1993-October 1994. 

Yearly Report, Nemo/Spearfish Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Nov. 25, 1994 

Tigner, J. and E. D. Stukel. 2003. Bats of the Black Hills: a description of status and conservation 

needs. [Online] South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Division Report 2003-05. 

Pierre, South Dakota. Available: 

http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/diversity/docs/battechreport.pdf. [Accessed January 2011]. 

Troendle, C. A.; King, R. M. 1987. The effect of partial and clearcutting on streamflow at 

Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology. 90: 145–157. 

Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. eds. 1996. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Special 

Report 247, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. National Academy 

Press: Washington, D.C. 675 p. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 309

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. University of 

Kansas. Museum of Natural History. Miscellaneous Publication 60:1-178. 

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1988. Influence of Ponderosa Pine Overstory on Forage Quality 

in the Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 5p. Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 48 No. 1 January 1988.

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1989. Understory-overstory relationship in ponderosa pine 

forests, Black Hills, South Dakota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station 6p. Journal of Range Management Vol. 42 No. 3 May 1989. 

Ursek, Daniel W.; Severson, Kieth. 1998. Response of Understory Species to Changes in Ponderosa 

Pine Stocking Levels in the Black Hills. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 16p. Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 58 No. 4 1998.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways 

Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 

US Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. 

Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources – Final Rule. Federal Register April 

10, 2008. Part II. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers at 33 

CFR Parts 325 and 332; Environmental Protection Agency at 40 CFR Part 230. 113 p. 

US Census Bureau. 1990. Available at http://www.census.gov 

US Census Bureau. 2000. Available at http://www.census.gov 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 2010. Federal Noxious Weed List 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service, Best Management Practices for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution from 

Silvicultural and Related Road Activities. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota, n.d. 

USDA Forest Service. 1973. Agricultural Handbook 434. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Agricultural Handbook 483, National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 2 - Chapter 4, Roads. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. 1980. Agricultural Handbook 559. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 2 - Chapter 5, Timber. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Photo Series for Quantifying Forest Residues in the Black Hills: 

Ponderosa Pine Type and Spruce Type. USFS Rocky Mountain Region. 80pp. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 310

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Agricultural Handbook 608. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 2 - Chapter 6, Fire. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Mineral Program Handbook. 

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.18 – Soil 

Management Handbook. Fort Collins, CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook, FSH 2509.13. 

Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Agricultural Handbook 701. Landscape Aesthetics; A Handbook 

for Scenery Management, and (2000) Landscape Aesthetics Handbook Revision. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available on-line at <http://www.esf.edu/es/via/> 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Black Hills 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA-Forest Service. 1996b. Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver, Colorado. August, 2006. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996c. Memo 2500/2600 (July 29, 1996) NEPA Guidance for 

Watershed from Jim Maxwell, Water Program Team Leader to Region 2 Director of Planning 

and Budget and Region 2 Watershed Staff. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Livestock Grazing Environmental Assessment for 

Pactola/Harney Ranger District. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills 

National Forest. Rapid City, South Dakota. September, 1997. 

UDSA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the 

National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Biological Evaluation R2-00-03, Evaluation of Mountain Pine 

Beetle Activity in the Black Hills National Forest. 19 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Expert interview summary for the Black Hills National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 151pp. Available: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011876.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. R2 Roads Analysis Supplement to FS-643. Denver, Co. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 311

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Agricultural Manual 7700 Transportation System, Chapter 10 

Atlas, Records, and Analysis, Chapter 20 Development, and Chapter 30 Operation and 

Maintenance. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Memo 2070/2520-7/2620 (March 19, 2002) Wetland Protection - 

Fens from Bruce F. Short (FOR) Marisue Hilliard, Director Renewable Resources to Region 2 

forest supervisors. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Black Hill National Forest, Forest Plan Best Management 

Practices Evaluation. Custer, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed Management Plan, 

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. 209 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Western Forests, Fire Risk, and Climate Change. Science Update, 

Issue 6. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland, Oregan. January 2004. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Record of Decision for the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Biological Evaluation for the Phase II Amendment to the Forest 

Plan. Black Hills National Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/amendments/phase_II/feis/10_append_c_20

05_1019_p1-106.pdf 

USDA-Forest Service. 2005d. Analysis of Alternative Treatment Methods to Maintain Limited 

Fire Potential Following the Prairie Project, Black Hills National Forest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture-Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. Rapid City, South Dakota. March, 2005. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005e. Deerfield Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Black Hills National Forest, Mystic Ranger District. Rapid City, South Dakota. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/nepa/public_docs/deerfield/index.shtml. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 1997 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Black 

Hills National Forest, as amended by the Phase II Amendment. Custer, SD 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Monitoring Implementation Guide for Sensitive Plant Species 

and Plant Species of Local Concern for the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Addendum to the October 2005 Guide). [Online]. Custer, SD. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/plant_monitoring_guide_2006.pdf
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 312

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Forest Service Handbook, Region 2 Supplement, 2509.25 – 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. Rocky Mountain Region, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

USDA, Forest Service. April, 2006d. Writing a Cumulative Effects Analysis for Rangeland/Allotment 

Planning Documents. Version 2.0 Rocky Mountain Region (Chuck Quimby). 27 pgs. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006e. Forest Service Manual 2880 - Geologic Resources, Hazards, and 

Services. Washington Office, Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. RCSC-08-01, Mountain Pine Beetle Conditions in the Upper 

Spring Creek Area, Black Hills National Forest. 9p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Black Hills National Forest FY2006 monitoring and evaluation 

report. [Online] Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2006_report.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Groundwater Technical Guide. Washington Office, Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Black Hills National Forest FY2008 monitoring and evaluation 

report. [Online] Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2008_report.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Black Hills National Forest FY2007 Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report. Custer, South Dakota. [Online] Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy2007_report.pdf. [January 2011].

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Forest Service Manual 2880 - Geologic Resources, Hazards, and 

Services. Washington Office, Washington DC. 18 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Forest Service Strategic Framework for responding to climate 

change. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C., 21pp. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climate-change-1-0.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008d. Climate Change Resource Center. Web based information and 

tools for managers. [Online] http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/ [Accessed March 2011]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Black Hills National Forest plants database. Unpublished 

database information updated in November 2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Slate Castle Project Area Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Black Hills National Forest. Rapid City, South Dakota. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. FY2008 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Black Hills National

Forest. January 2009. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Telegraph Project Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 313

Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District. Spearfish, South Dakota. Available 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/nepa/public_docs/Telegraph/index.shtml 

USDA-Forest Service. 2009e. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – USDA Forest Service, 

Region 2 - Black Hills National Forest – February 2009. United States Department of Agriculture - 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station (Producer). Updated June 11, 2010. Available on-line at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/2009/BlackHills_FY2009.pdf 

USDA-Forest Service. 2009f. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results – USDA Forest Service – 

National Summary Report – FY 2005 thru FY 2009. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station (Producer). Updated April 25, 2010. Available on-line at

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/nvum_national_summary_fy2009.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2009g. Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region and Northern Region and South Dakota Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources. Forest Service Agreement #09-MU-11020000-014. 8 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009h. Monitoring implementation guide for the Black Hills National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. [Online]. Custer, South Dakota. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/MonGuide.pdf. [January 2011]. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009i. Permitting Regulations for Take of Eagles. Letter from Joel. D. 

Holtrop, Deputy Chief , National Forest System, to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area 

Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and WO Directors. File Code 2010. November 9, 2009. p. 2. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Black Hills National Forest Travel Management FEIS and Record 

of Decision, May 7, 2010. Available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/bhnf 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Mystic Range FEIS and Record of Decisions October 12, 2010. 

Available at http://go.usa.gov/g4a. 

USDA Forest Service. December, 2010c. Black Hills National Forest FY2009 monitoring and 

evaluation report. [Online] Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. Available: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5262950.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. Forest Health Evaluation R2-10-02, Evaluation of Mountain Pine 

Beetle Activity in the Pactola Area, Black Hills National Forest. 9p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010e. RCSC-2-11, Consequences of the No Action Alternative in the 

Pactola Area. 3p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Black Hills National Forest FY2009 monitoring and evaluation 

report. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. [Online] 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/fy08_monitoring_evaluatio_report29sept2009.

pdf. Accessed December 8, 2009. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 314

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Species Conservation Program: Region 2 Regional Forester's 

Sensitive Species. [Online] http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/sensitivespecies/index.shtml 

Accessed January 11, 2011. 

USDA Forest Service, Best Management Practices for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution from 

Silvicultural and Related Road Activities. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota, n.d. 

USDA – Forest Service, Manual 2230. 

USDA – Forest Service, Handbook 2209.13 

USDA-FSH, 2409.15 – Timber Sale Administration Handbook, Chapter 50, Specified 

Transportation Facilities, Black Hills Supplement No. 2409.15-92-1. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Web Soil Survey [Online] 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Soil Data Mart, Geospatial data 

for Soil Survey Area SD604 – Custer and Pennington Counties, Black Hills Parts, South Dakota. 

[Online] Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 30, 2010. 

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Custer and Pennington Counties, Black 

Hills Parts, South Dakota. Prepared in cooperation with USDA Forest Service and South Dakota 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing 

Proper Function Condition. Tech. Ref. TR-1737-9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management: Denver, CO. 58 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000 Microfiche unpatented mining claims. 

USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. Monthly Values for Pactola Reservoir, Rapid Creek near 

Rapid City, SD - Monthly Total Discharge (acre-feet) for Period of Record 1956-2011. [Online] 

http://www.usbr.gov/gp-bin/res070.pl. Accessed February 2011. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory. Available online: 

http://www.fws.gov/nwi/index.html. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Memo (January 14, 1999) Regional Policy on the 

Protection of Fens, as amended from Dennis Buechler, Senior Staff Specialist for Federal 

Activities to multiple individuals and agencies as listed in included distribution list. 7 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Peatland Mitigation Policy Considerations. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Ecological Services. Colorado Field Office, Lakewood 

Colorado. 43 p. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 315

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995b. Memo (January 14, 1999) Regional Policy on 

the Protection of Fens, as amended from Dennis Buechler, Senior Staff Specialist for Federal 

Activities to multiple individuals and agencies as listed in included distribution list. 7 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual 

Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 

Federal Register. Vol. 72 No. 234. 69034. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48, States From the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 130. Monday, July 9, 2007. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/baldeaglefinaldelisting.pdf. [December 10, 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 130. Monday, July 9, 2007. [Online] 

http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/baldeaglefinaldelisting.pdf. [December 10, 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. National Bald Eagle Guidelines. May 2007. [Online]. 

USDA Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington D. C. 

pp. 25. Available. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/ 

BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99pp. [Online] Available: 

http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/BCC2008.pdf [Accessed January, 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009a. 12-month finding on a petition to list the black-tailed 

prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) as threatened and endangered. Federal Register. Vol. 74, 

No. 231. December 2, 2009, p. 63343-63366. Available: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/btprairiedog/74FR63343.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009b. 90-day finding on a Petition to List the American 

Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register, Vo. 

74. No. 206, p.55177-55180. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009c. Candidate Notice of Review. [Online]. Vol. 74, No. 

215. Federal Register 69034, November 9, 2009. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/CNOR/CNOR%2011-9-09.pdf [December 10, 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009d. 90-day finding on a petition to list the northern leopard 

frog (Lithobates pipiens) in the western United States as threatened. Federal Register. Vol. 74, 

No. 125 July 1, 2009, p. 31389-31401. [Accessed January 21. 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009e. Eagle Permits; Take Necessary To Protect Interests in 

Particular Localities; 50 CFR Parts 13 and 22.Final Rules. Federal Register, Vol. 74. No. 175. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 316

Friday September 11, 2009. p. 46836 – 46878. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/BaldEagle/Final%20Disturbance%20Rule

%209%20Sept%202009.pdf [ Accessed January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered Species by County List. Last updated 

November 2, 2009. South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. [Online] 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm. [accessed on January 25, 2010]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. DRAFT A national plan for assisting states, federal agencies, 

and tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. DRAFT, 21 October 2010. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/WNSNational%20Plan_DRAFT_10.21.2010.pdf

[January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Candidate Notice of Review. [Online]. Federal Register

/ Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules p. 69222 - 69294 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/pdfs/CNOR/CNOR%2011-9-09.pdf [Accessed January 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System 

(TESS) for South Dakota. Accessed January 11, 2011. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListingAndOccurrence.jsp?state=SD 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Plants of the Mountain Prairie Region. Accessed Jan. 11, 

2011. [Online] http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/plants/ 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System for 

South Dakota: Proposed Species. Accessed January 11, 2011. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=proposed 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011d. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species System for 

South Dakota: Candidate Species. Accessed January 11, 2011. [Online] 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/stateListing.jsp?state=SD&status=candidate 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011e. Endangered Species by County List. [Online] 

Mountain-Prairie Region, South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. Pierre, SD. Updated 

November 2, 2009 Available: http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/endsppbycounty.htm 

[January 5, 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011f. 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Eastern 

Small-Footed Bat (Myotis leibii) and the Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as 

Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register. Vol. 76, No.125 June 29, 2011, p. 38095-38106. 

[Accessed July 1, 2011]. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011g. A national plan for assisting states, federal agencies, 

and tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. May 2011. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/WNSnationalplanMay2011.pdf. [May 2011]. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 317

USDI Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team. 2001. Elk Mountain Complex 

Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan: Roger’s Shack and Elk Mountain 

II Fires. Custer, SD 

USDI Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Team. 2002. Grizzly Gulch Fire Burned 

Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan. Spearfish, SD 

US Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. Science in Your Watershed: General Introduction and 

Hydrologic Definitions. HTML version of Manual of Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-Water 

Techniques by W.B. Langein and K.T. Iseri, Water Supply Paper 1541-A, “Methods and 

practices of the Geological Survey”. [Online] Available at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/glossary.html#INTRODUCTION 

US Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. National Hydrography Dataset, Watershed Boundary 

Dataset. [Online] Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed April 21, 2010. 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS). 2009. [Online] http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis. 

US Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. National Water Information System (NWIS). Streamflow 

statistics for selected stations on Rapid Creek. [Online] Available at: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis. 

Vallentine, J.F. 1989. Range Developments and Improvements, Third Edition. Academic Press. 524 

pgs. 

Vandendriesche, Don. 2004. Black Hills National Forest Phase II Amendment - Description of 

the Analysis Process regarding the Construction of Vegetative Yield Profiles Black Hills 

National Forest, Custer, South Dakota, n.d. 

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds 

of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/239/articles/introduction. 

[January 2011]. 

Vierling, K. T., L. B. Lentile, and N. Nielsen-Pincus. 2007. Pre-burn characteristics and 

woodpecker use of burned coniferous forests. Journal of Wildl. Manage. Vol. 72(2). pp 422-427. 

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. AFS 

Monograph 7. Bethesda, MD. 

Weaver, K.F., T. Anderson, and R. Guralnick. 2006. Combining phylogenetic and ecological 

niche modeling approaches to determine distribution and historical biogeography of Black Hills 

mountain snails (Oreohelicidae). Diversity and Distributions, 12, 756-766. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 318

Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R., and Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Sciencexpress. 6 July 2006. Available 

at: www.sciencexpress.org. 

Western Bat Working Group. 2011. Species Account: Myotis septentrionalis. Prepared by M. 

A. Bogan, E.W. Valdez, and K. W. Navo. Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, SD 57701 

2p. Available: http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/myse.pdf 

White, C.M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

peregrinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology: Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660 [Accessed March 14, 2011]. 

White, C.M., J. A. Blakesley, D. C. Pavlacky, and D. J. Hanni. 2010. Monitoring the Birds of 

Black Hills National Forest: 2009 Field Season Report. Tech. Rep. SC-RMRUSFS09-01. 

Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO, 54 pp. 

Wiggins, D. 2005a. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): at technical conservation 

assessment [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf [Accessed January 2011] 

Wiggins, D. 2005b. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccynes americanus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf. [Accessed January 2011] 

Wiggins, D. A. 2005c. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf. [Accessed January, 2011]. 

Wiggins, D. A. 2006a. Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ruffedgrouse.pdf. [Accessed January, 2011]. 

Williamson, J.E.; Jarrell, G.J.; Clawges, R.M.; Galloway, J.M.; and Carter, J.M. 2000. Digital 

data sets for map products produced as part of the Black Hills Hydrology Study, Western South 

Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-471. Online only. Available at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr00-471/ofr00471.html. 

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of offroad Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference: 531-550. 

Wyoming Range Service Team. 2001. Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide: A Cooperative

and Voluntary Approach to Monitoring Rangelands. Wyoming Department of Agriculture. June, 

2001. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 319

Wyoming Timber Industry Association. 2001. Wyoming Silviculture Best Management 

Practices Field Audit: Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation. Wyoming Timber Industry 

Association. Saratoga, Wyoming. 

Youtz, J.A., R. T. Graham, R. T. Reynolds, and J. Simon. 2008. Implementing Northern 

Goshawk Habitat Management in Southwestern Forests; A template for restoring Fire-Adapted 

Forest Ecosystms. Published In: Deal, R. L. Tech. Ed. 2008. Integrated restoration of forested 

ecosystesm to achieve multi-recource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture 

workshop. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 306p. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 320

Page intentionally left blank 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 321

CHAPTER 5 GLOSSARY 

Access The opportunity to approach, enter and make use of public or private lands. 

Activity Fuels Fuels resulting from or altered by forestry practices, such as timber harvest or 

thinning, as opposed to naturally created fuels. 

Adaptive Management Implementing policy decisions as science-driven management 

experiments that test assumptions and predictions in management plans. 

Age Class Groups of trees or shrubs approximately the same age. 

Air Quality Classes Classification established under the "Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration" portion of the Clean Air Act, which limits the amount of air pollution considered 

significant within an area. Class I applies to areas where almost any change in air quality would 

be significant; Class II applies to areas where the deterioration normally accompanying 

moderate, well-controlled growth would be permitted; Class III applies to areas where industrial 

deterioration would generally be allowed. 

Appropriate Suppression Response (Fire Management) The planned strategy for suppression 

action (in terms of type, amount, and timing) on a wildfire that most efficiently meets the Forest 

Plan fire-management direction under current and expected burning conditions. The planned 

response can range from prompt control to one of containment or confinement. 

Confine: To limit the spread of wildfire within a predetermined area principally by use of 

natural or pre-constructed barriers or environmental conditions. Suppression action may be 

minimal and limited to surveillance under appropriate conditions. 

Control: To complete the control line around a fire, any spot fire there-from, and any interior 

unburned areas to be saved; to burn any unburned fuel or areas adjacent to the fire side of the 

control line and to cool all hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line until the 

control line can reasonably be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions. 

Contain: To surround a fire and any spot fires there-from with a control line, as needed, 

which can reasonably be expected to check the fire's spread under prevailing conditions. 

Aquatic Ecosystem The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities, and the 

habitat features that occur within an ecosystem (biological and physical components and their 

interactions) in which water is the principal medium. Examples include wetlands, streams, 

reservoirs, and areas with plants or animals characteristic of either permanent or seasonal 

inundated soils. 

Area of Potential Effects The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. 

Artificial Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by seeding or planting. 

At-Risk Community An area (A) that is comprised of —(i) an interface community as defined 

in the notice entitled “Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal 

Lands That Are At High Risk From Wildfire” issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Title IV of the Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1009) (updated 66 Fed. Reg. 43384, 

August 17, 2001); or (ii) a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and 

services (such as utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to 

Federal land; (B) in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 322

event; and (C) for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of a 

wildland fire disturbance event.” 

Basal Area (Timber Resource) The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured at breast 

height. The area is expressed in square feet per acre. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Land management methods, measures, or practices intended 

to minimize or reduce water pollution. Usually BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather 

than a single practice. BMPs are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that reflect natural 

background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. 

Big Game Certain wildlife that may be hunted for sport under state laws and regulations. In the 

Black Hills, these animals include deer, elk, turkey, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep. 

Biological Control Methods Use of natural organisms such as insects, diseases, parasites, and 

predators to reduce pest populations of insects, diseases, or weeds. Methods may include

importation and release; conservation of native natural-enemy species; and augmentation 

(supplementation through rearing and release or genetic improvement) of biological control agents. 

Biological Diversity The full variety of life in an area including the ecosystems, plant, and 

animal communities; species and genes; and the processes through which individual organisms 

interact with one another and with their environments. 

Biological Evaluations As defined by FSM 2670.5, a biological evaluation is a documented 

Forest Service review of Forest Service programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species. FSM 2672.4 identifies biological evaluation objectives and standards. 

BMPs (See "Best Management Practices.") 

Board Foot A unit of timber measurement equaling the amount of wood contained in a board 

one-inch thick, 12-inches long, and 12-inches wide. 

Broadcast Burning A fire ignited under specific conditions (prescriptions) and within 

established boundaries to achieve some land-management objective. 

BTU British thermal unit. The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of 

water by one degree Fahrenheit at or near its maximum density. 

Burning Index A relative number related to the contribution that fire behavior makes to the amount 

of effort needed to contain a fire in a specified fuel type. Doubling the burning index indicates that 

twice the effort will be required to contain a fire in a specified fuel type, providing all other 

parameters are held constant. 

Canopy, Canopy Closure (Canopy Cover), Canopy Layer (Silviculture) 

Canopy: The cover by vegetation and/or branches. Often but not always restricted to the tree 

layer or greater than six feet tall. 

Canopy Closure/Cover: The percentage of the ground and/or sky covered by vegetation 

and/or branches. These are perceived from a human point of view perpendicular to flat ground. 

Canopy Layer: Cover by vegetation and branches in different height intervals. These 

intervals are often defined in terms of vegetation, such as herbaceous or grass/forbs less than 

two feet tall, shrubs less than six feet tall, and overstory greater than six feet tall. 

Cavity Nesting Species Wildlife species that depend on cavities in trees for their shelter and/or 

nesting. These species include primary cavity nesters, such as woodpeckers, which excavate 

cavities in soft or decayed wood for nesting, and secondary cavity nesters that typically nest in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 323

natural cavities or those excavated by another species. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

Closed Road An intermittent service road in Maintenance Level 1 that is closed to all vehicular 

traffic for more than one year. The closure may be ordered under 36 CFR 261. 

CMAI (See "Culmination Mean Annual Increment.”) 

Commercial Thinning (See "Thinning.”) 

Commercial Timber Sales The selling of timber from National Forest System (NFS) lands for 

the manufacture of commercial products such as lumber, plywood, etc. 

Community (Social) The people who reside in one locality and are subject to the same laws or 

who have common interests, etc. 

Community Life-styles The ways in which residents conduct their everyday routines and how 

the "way they live" is associated with the National Forest. 

Condition Class 2 This term means the condition class description developed by the USDAForest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) in the Development of Coarse-Scale 

Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management (RMRS-GTR-87, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr87.html ), dated April 2000 (including any subsequent 

revisions), under which 

• Fire regimes on the land have been moderately altered from historical ranges; 

• A moderate risk exists of losing key ecosystem components from fire; 

• Fire frequencies have increased or decreased from historical frequencies by one or more 

return intervals, resulting in moderate changes to 

—The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 

OR 

—Landscape patterns 

AND 

—Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical ranges. 

Condition Class 3 This term means the condition class description developed by the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station (RMRS) in RMRS-GTR-87 (see above) under which 

• Fire regimes on land have been significantly altered from historical ranges; 

• A high risk exists of losing key ecosystem components from fire; 

• Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals, 

resulting in dramatic changes to 

—The size, frequency, intensity, or severity of fires; 

OR 

—Landscape patterns 

AND 

—Values of vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical ranges. 

Confine (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Conifer A group of cone-bearing trees, mostly evergreen, such as the pine, spruce and juniper. 

Conservation The management of a renewable natural resource with the objective of sustaining 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 324

its productivity in perpetuity while providing for human use compatible with sustainability of the 

resource; for a forest this may include managed periodic cutting and removal of trees followed 

by regeneration. 

Construction (Roads) The displacement of vegetation, soil, and rock and the installation of 

human-made structures involved in the process of building a complete, permanent road facility. 

The activities occur at a location, or corridor, that is not currently occupied by a road. 

Contain (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Continuous Fuel Concentrations (Fire Management) An uninterrupted distribution of fuel 

particles (surface or aerial) in a fuel bed, which allows a fire to sustain combustion and actively 

continue to spread. 

Control (Fire Management) (See "Appropriate Suppression Response.”) 

Cord A unit of gross volume measurement for stacked roundwood based on external 

dimensions; generally implies a stack of 4 feet by 4 feet vertical cross sections 8 feet long (128 

stacked cubic feet). 

Cost Effective Achieving specified outputs or objectives under given conditions for the least cost. 

Cost Efficient A comparative measure of economic efficiency determined by maximizing the

present net worth or value of an alternative, subject to meeting the objectives of the alternative. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) An advisory council to the President established by 

the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA) of 1969. 

Cover Type The vegetative species that dominates a site. Cover types are named for one plant 

species or non-vegetated condition presently (not potentially) dominant, using canopy or foliage 

cover as the measure of dominance. In several cases, sites with different species dominant have 

been lumped together into one cover type; co-dominance is not necessarily implied. 

Critical Ecosystems Specific areas, including riparian areas, wetlands, winter range, and habitat 

for threatened and endangered species. 

Crown (Vegetation) The upper part of a tree or other woody plant carrying the main branch 

system and foliage and surmounting at the crown base a more or less clean stem. 

Crown Closure (See "Canopy Cover.”) 

Crown Density The thickness both spatially in depth and in closeness of growth (compaction) of 

an individual crown, such as its opacity as measured by its shade density. 

Crown Height For a standing tree, crown height is the vertical distance from ground level to the base 

of the crown, measured either to the lowest live branch-whorl or to the lowest live branch, excluding 

shoots arising spontaneously from buds on the stem of a woody plant or to a point halfway between. 

Cubic Foot A unit of measure usually referring to wood volume (1 foot wide by 1 foot long by 1 

foot thick). 

Culmination Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) The point at which a tree or stand achieves its 

greatest average growth, based on expected growth, according to the management systems and 

utilization standards assumed in the Forest Plan. 

Cultural Element Attributes in a human-altered landscape; scenically positive cultural elements, 

most of which have historical backgrounds or nostalgic connotations. Examples include splitrail fences, stone walls, barns, orchards, hedgerows, and cabins. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 325

Cultural Landscapes Human-altered landscapes, especially those with slowly evolving 

landscapes, scenic vegetation patterns, or scenic structures. Addition of these elements creates a 

visually pleasing complement to the natural character of a landscape. 

Cultural Properties (See "Historic Property.”) 

Cultural Resources (See "Heritage Resources.”) 

Cumulative Effects Collective results of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of which agency or person undertakes the actions. 

Cutover Area Timber stands that have been cut. 

DBH (See "Diameter at Breast Height.”) 

Dead Fuels (Fire Management) Fuels with no living tissue within which moisture content is 

governed almost entirely by solar radiation. 

Dead Woody Material (See "Down Woody Material.”) 

Decision Documents Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the 

formulation and evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative. 

Desired Future Condition, Desired Ecological Condition 

A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

A description of the landscape as it could reasonably be expected to appear at the end of

the planning period if the Plan's goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for that 

landscape are fully achieved. 

Desired Landscape Character Appearance of the landscape to be retained or created over time, 

recognizing that a landscape is a dynamic and constantly changing community of plants and 

animals. It is a combination of landscape design attributes and opportunities as well as 

biological opportunities and constraints. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 6 inches 

from ground level. 

Direct Effects Results of an action occurring when and where that action takes place. 

Diversity Diversity refers to the distribution and abundance of different plant and animal 

communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan 

(LRMP). This term is derived from the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). This term is 

not synonymous with "biological diversity." 

Down and Dead Woody Material, Down Logs, Down Woody Material (Vegetation) Woody 

material from any source that is dead and lying on the forest floor. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) The statement of environmental effects 

required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. 

Easement A right held by one person to make use of the land of another for a limited purpose, 

such as a special-use authorization for a right-of-way that conveys a conditioned interest in 

National Forest System (NFS) land and is compensable according to its terms. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 326

Ecosystem A community of living plants and animals interacting with each other and with their 

physical environment. A geographic area where it is meaningful to address the interrelationships 

with human social systems, sources of energy, and the ecological processes that shape change 

over time. The complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an 

ecological unit in nature. 

Ecosystem Management A concept of natural resources management where-in National Forest 

activities are considered within the context of economic, ecological, and social interactions 

within a defined area or region over both short-and long-term. 

Egress Path by which a person goes out; exit. The means or act of going out. Often used with the 

word "access." 

EIS (See "Environmental Impact Statement.”) 

Eligible (Heritage Resources) Indicates a specific heritage resource qualifies for or is already 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Endangered Species Any species of animal or plant in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range and so designated by the Secretary of Interior in accordance with 

the 1973 Endangered Species Act. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A document prepared by a federal agency in which 

anticipated environmental effects of a planned course of action or development are evaluated. A 

federal statute requires that such statements be prepared. It is prepared first in draft or review form and 

then in a final form. An impact statement includes the following points: the environmental impact of 

the proposed action; any adverse impacts that cannot be avoided by the action; the alternative courses 

of actions; the relationships between local short-term use of the human environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and a description of the irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources that would occur if the action were accomplished. 

Ephemeral Streams A stream or portion of a stream that flows briefly in direct response to 

precipitation in the immediate vicinity and whose channel is at all times above the water table. 

Ephemeral areas drain water to intermittent or perennial stream channels. Any sediment created by soil 

erosion during logging or road-building activities can be carried by way of the ephemeral, intermittent, 

and perennial stream channels to the watershed outlet. Ephemeral areas generally occur above the 

upper reaches of intermittent or perennial streams. Since they can direct water into intermittent or 

perennial stream channels, care should be taken to minimize disturbing soil in these areas. 

Erosion The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other 

geological activities. 

Erosion Hazard Rating The probability of soil loss resulting from complete removal of 

vegetation and litter. It is an interpretation based on potential soil loss. 

Escape Route (Fire Management) A path of travel to get away from danger, such as the threat 

of wildfire. 

Even-aged Management The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests 

are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and therefore, tree sizes) throughout 

the forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level on a stand 

usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Regeneration 

in a particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time of harvest. Clear-cut, 

shelterwood, or seed-tree cutting methods may produce even-aged stands. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 327

Existing Road System All existing roads owned or administered by various agencies that are wholly 

or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forests and other Forest Service-administered 

areas or intermingled private lands. These roads may or may not be included on the current Forest 

Transportation Inventory but are evident on the ground as meeting the definition of a road. 

Fire Incidence The average number of fires in a specified area during a specified time period. 

Fire Occurrence Number of fires per unit time in a specified area (synonym for fire frequency). 

Fire Protection Assessment (FPA) (Fire Management) A computer software based analysis to 

assist managers in determining where specific types and intensities of fire-management activities 

should occur. The analysis uses three map overlays depicting fuel flammability (Hazard); 

potential value change from fire (Value); and the potential that an ignition will occur (Risk) as a 

means of identifying and prioritizing appropriate fire- management activities for a given land unit. 

Risk: A term within the Fire Protection Assessment identifying the potential for an ignition 

to occur in a given land unit based on historical data associated with frequency of natural 

ignitions and the probability of human ignitions based on an assessment of human activities. 

Hazard: A term within the Fire Protection Assessment that represents a function of potential 

fire line intensity based on fuels, topography, and weather influences. 

Value: In the context of the Fire Protection Assessment, value refers to the potential for 

negative value change from wildfire. Value considerations would include the value of

developments and natural resources, including aesthetics, all of which are subject to change 

from wildfire. 

Fire Risk The chance of a fire starting, as affected by the nature and incidence of causative 

agents, including lightning, people, and industry. Three risk scales are used: high, moderate, and 

low. High-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry have commonly 

caused fire in the past; moderate-risk areas include locations where lightning, people, or industry 

have periodically caused fire in the past; and low-risk areas include locations where lightning, 

people, or industry have infrequently caused fire in the past. 

Fire Suppression All the work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operations 

beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

Fire Suppression Objective To suppress wildfires at minimum costs consistent with land and 

resource management objectives and fire-management direction as determined by National Fire 

Management Analysis System (NFMAS). This includes all work and activities associated with 

fire-extinguishing operations beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is 

completely extinguished. An example might be that a fire suppression objective is set at 5 acres, 

based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Fireline Intensity The rate of heat energy released per unit time per unit length of a fire front. 

Numerically, it is the product of the heat combustion, quality of fuel consumed per unit area in the 

fire front, and the rate of spread of a fire as measured in BTUs per second per foot of the fire front. 

Firewood (See "Fuelwood.”) 

Fiscal Year (FY) Within the Forest Service, the fiscal year includes October 1 to September 30. 

The fiscal year is referred to by the calendar year beginning January 1. For example, October 1, 

1991, to September 30, 1992, is referred to as Fiscal Year 1992. 

Forage Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly ungulate wildlife and domestic livestock. 

Forbs Any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass, sedge, and rush families. For example, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 328

any non-grass-like plant that has little or no woody material. 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) An Act of 

Congress requiring the preparation of a program for the management of the National Forest's 

renewable resources, and of land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest 

System (NFS). It also requires a continuing inventory of all National Forest System (NFS) lands 

and renewable resources. 

Forest Interior Habitat That portion of the stand not affected by edge is termed interior habitat. 

The value of forest stands in providing interior habitat depends on the effects of edge on the 

microclimate of the stand. In the Black Hills, forest interior is defined as that portion of a forest 

stand more than 300 feet from an opening. 

Forest Supervisor Official responsible for administering the Black Hills National Forest. The 

Forest Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester. 

Forest System Roads Roads that are part of the Forest Development Transportation System that 

includes all existing and planned roads as well as other special and terminal facilities designated 

as part of the Forest Development Transportation System. 

Forested Area Land at least 10 percent of which is occupied by trees of any size or formerly 

having had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for 

non-forest use include areas for crops; improved pastures; residential or administrative areas; 

improved roads of any width; and adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width. 

FSH Forest Service Handbook. 

FSM Forest Service Manual. 

Fuel Breaks Generally wide strips of land 60 to 1,000 feet in width on which native vegetation 

has been modified so that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. Some fuel 

breaks contain fire lines such as roads or hand lines that can be widened. 

Fuel Continuity Degree or extent of continuous or uninterrupted distribution of fuel particles 

(surface or aerial) in a fuel bed that affects a fire's ability to sustain combustion and spread. 

Fuel Loading The volume of the available or burnable fuels in a specified area, usually 

expressed in tons per acre. 

Fuel Reduction Treatments Prescribed burn, non-commercial thin, mechanical fuel treatment, 

and product other than log (POL) sales. 

Fuel Treatment Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition 

and/or to lessen potential damage and resistance to control, including lopping, chipping, 

crushing, piling, and burning (synonym for fuel modification). 

Fuels The organic materials that will support the start and spread of a fire: duff, litter, grass, 

weeds, forbs, brush, trees, and dead woody materials. 

Fuelwood Round, split, or sawed wood cut into short lengths for burning as fuel. 

Goal Broad, general statement that encompasses the desired future conditions that the U.S. 

Forest Service seeks to attain. 

Grass/Forb, Grass/Forb Stage (Structural Stage 1) (See Structural Stages - Structural Stage 1) 

Green Slash Wood residue left on the ground after logging that still contains moist phloem tissue 

and wood and may be susceptible to attack by bark beetles, generally within 1 year after cutting. 

Guideline Preferred or advisable courses of action; deviations from guidelines are permissible, 

but the responsible official must document the reasons for the deviation. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 329

Habitat The place where an organism (plant or animal) lives. 

Hard Snags (Vegetation) A dead or partially dead tree composed primarily of sound wood, 

particularly sound sapwood. 

Hardwood Pertains to broadleaf trees or shrubs. 

Hazard (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 

Hazard Reduction (See "Fuel Treatment.”) 

Heavy Fuels Fuels of large diameter, usually 3 inches or more, like snags, logs, large branchwood, 

and peat that ignite and burn more slowly than fine fuels (synonym for coarse fuels). 

Herbaceous Fuels Grasses, forbs, and other plants that contain little woody tissue. 

Herbicide A chemical substance used for killing or suppressing plants. 

Heritage Resources The physical remains (including but not limited to artifacts, structures, 

landscape modifications, rock art, trails, or roads) and conceptual content or context (as a setting 

for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for native peoples) of an area. 

High Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Historic Property Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included 

in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This term includes artifacts, records, and 

remains related to and located within such properties. 

Human-caused Risk (Fire Management) A number related to the potential of fire starts originating 

from human activities to which a protection unit will be exposed during the rating period. 

IDT (See "Interdisciplinary Team.”) 

Ignition (Fire Management) The initiation of combustion. 

Implementation Those activities necessary to initiate the actions in the approved land and 

resource management plan (LRMP). 

Indirect Effects Results of an action occurring at a location other than where the action takes 

place and/or later in time but in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Infrastructure The facilities, utilities, and transportation systems needed to meet public and 

administrative needs. 

Ingress The act or right to enter; access; entrance. 

Inholdings Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a National Forest that are owned by some 

other agency, organization, or individual. 

Insect and Disease Epidemics High population levels of insect-or-disease pests that cause 

substantial injury to plant or animal hosts. 

Insect and Disease Suppression Management practices applied to reduce insect-and-disease 

pest populations or damage. Insect- and-disease suppression includes actions taken to limit the 

spread of pests or to reduce susceptibility of hosts in imminent danger of being attacked. 

Intensity (Fire Management) How hot a fire is. Specifically, a measure (in BTUs per foot per 

second) of the energy released per unit of time in an area of actively burning fire. The amount of 

heat released per foot of fire front per second. 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) A group of individuals with different specialized training 

assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no 

one discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. Through interaction, 

participants bring different points of view and a broader range of expertise to bear on the problem. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 330

Intermediate Cut (Timber Management) Any removal of trees from a stand between the time 

of their regeneration and the final harvest. 

Intermittent Stream A stream that flows only at certain times of the year, as when it receives 

water from springs or from a surface source, such as melting snow. A stream that does not flow 

continuously, as when water losses from evaporation or seepage exceed the available streamflow. 

Ips (Pine Engraver Beetle) A genus of bark beetle that feeds beneath the bark of pines, 

typically killing branches, tops, or entire trees. These beetles often breed in logging slash or 

attack stressed and injured pines. 

Irretrievable, Irretrievable Commitments Applies to losses of production or use of renewable 

natural resources for a period of time. For example, road construction leads to an irretrievable 

loss of the productivity of the land under which the road is located. If the road is later obliterated, 

the land may eventually become productive again. The production lost is irretrievable, but the 

action is not irreversible. 

Irreversible, Irreversible Commitments Decisions causing changes that cannot be reversed. 

For example, if an area is mined, that area cannot, at a later date, be allocated to some other 

resource activity, such as Wilderness. Once mined, the ability of that area to meet Wilderness 

criteria, for instance, has been irreversibly lost. Irreversible commitments often apply to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and heritage resources. 

Land Unit (Watershed) A mapped land type polygon; or a mapped soil unit. 

Landline (Land Survey) For Forest Plan purposes, National Forest property boundaries. 

Landscape (Silviculture) The primary unit of analysis for silviculture. A landscape for purposes 

of silviculture is a sixth-level watershed. 

Landscape Character Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an 

image and make it identifiable or unique. Valued landscape character creates a "sense of place" 

and describes the image of an area. The landscape character provides a reference for defining 

the inherent scenic attractiveness classes. 

Landscape Scale A heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems 

that are repeated in similar form throughout. Landscapes vary in size from many thousands of 

acres to only a few acres. 

Late Succession Ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural features. This term 

encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in 

structure, composition, function, and other attributes. 

There are two types of late-successional ponderosa pine defined for the Black Hills. The first 

type, open-canopy late-successional ponderosa pine, occurs where periodic, low-intensity fires 

have been part of the ecosystem. These late-successional stands would consist of clumps or 

groups of trees with grasses in the openings between the clumps. They would contain large old 

trees with open branches, irregular, and flattened crowns. The clumps or groups of trees would 

contain little down dead material and few small trees. 

The second type, closed-canopy late-successional ponderosa pine occurs where periodic, lowintensity high-frequency fires have not been a significant part of the ecosystem. These stands 

would contain large old trees with open branches and irregular crowns. The stands would have 

multiple canopy layers made up of various-aged trees. They would be well stocked with trees 

and contain standing dead and down trees. 

Local Roads (See "Road Functional Classification.”) 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 331

Logging Debris Unmerchantable tree parts like crowns, rotted logs, and uprooted stumps that 

remain after harvest. 

Logging Slash The wood residue left on the ground after harvesting. It includes unused logs, 

uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, tops, branches, and leaves. 

Lopped, Lopping (Timber Management) Cutting off one or more branches of a tree, whether 

standing, dead, or fallen. 

Lopping and Scattering Lopping logging debris and spreading it more or less evenly on the ground. 

Low Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Maintenance Levels (See "Road Maintenance Level.”) 

Management Indicators (Wildlife) Plant or animal species or habitat components selected in a 

planning process that are used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on 

populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are socially or economically important. 

Management Objectives Clearly stated objectives describing the intended post-management 

status of an area. Typically, objectives are disclosed in the NEPA documentation. 

MBF Thousand board feet. 

MCF Thousand cubic feet. 

Meadow An area of perennial, herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or grass-like. A natural opening 

in a forest, generally at higher elevations, that produces exceptional levels of herbaceous plants, 

which is usually a consequence of high soil/water content or a perched water table. Generally, a 

prairie grassland will occupy a convex surface while a meadow will occupy a concave surface. 

Midstory (Vegetation) Vegetative layer 10 to 40 feet tall between the overstory trees and 

ground layer. May consist of trees and/or shrubs. 

Mitigation Includes avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or parts of an action; 

minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 

rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the 

action; or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 

MMBF Million board feet. 

MMCF Million cubic feet. 

Moderate Risk (Fuels) (See "Fire Risk.”) 

Moisture Regime (Soils) The presence or absence of groundwater or water held at a tension of 

less than 15 bars in the soil or in specified horizons by periods of the year. 

Monitoring The sample collection and analysis of information regarding Forest Plan 

management practices to determine how well objectives have been met as well as the effects of 

those management practices on the land and environment. 

Multi-storied Stands (Vegetation) Plant communities having two or more recognizable canopy 

layers or height levels. 

Multiple Use According to the Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act of 1960, multiple use is the 

management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System (NFS) 

so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; 

such management makes the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or 

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 332

use to conform to changing needs and conditions. Some lands will be used for less than all of the

resources. Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources is employed, each 

with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land. Consideration is given to the 

relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give 

the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) An act declaring a national policy to 

encourage productive harmony between people and their environment; to promote efforts that 

will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and simulate the health 

and welfare of people; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural 

resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) A broad umbrella process to help fire 

managers identify the most efficient fire program meeting the direction in the Forest Plan. This 

includes information for the planning record on program composition, annual programmed costs, 

emergency firefighting costs, expected resource impacts, and net value change. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) A law passed in 1976 amending the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of Regional and 

Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development. 

National Forest System (NFS) Land Federal lands designated by Executive Order or statute as 

National Forests, National Grasslands or Purchase Units, or other lands under the administration 

of the Forest Service. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) A list of heritage resources that have local, state, 

or national significance. The list is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Natural Fuels Fuels resulting from natural processes and not directly generated or altered by 

land-management practices (compare activity fuels). 

Natural Regeneration The renewal of a tree crop by natural means without seeding or planting done 

by people. The new crop is grown from self-sown seed or by vegetative means, such as root suckers. 

Net Public Benefit The overall long-term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects 

(benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether they can be 

quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both quantitative and 

qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index. 

Non-motorized Activities Activities that do not incorporate the use of a motor, engine, or other nonliving power source. Non-motorized activities exclude such machines as aircraft, hovercraft, motorboats, 

automobiles, motor bikes, snowmobiles, bulldozers, chainsaws, rock drills, and generators. 

Noxious Weeds Those plant species designated as weeds by federal or state laws. Noxious weeds 

generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; 

poisonous; toxic; parasitic; a carrier or host for serious insects or diseases; and generally non-native. 

Objective Concise statement of desired measurable results intended to promote achievement of

specific goals. Attainment of objectives is limited by the application of standards and guidelines. 

Obliteration (Transportation) The reclamation and/or restoration of the land occupied by a 

transportation facility for purposes other than transportation. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel on or immediately over land, water, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 

Openings (Tree Canopy) The hole created by removing the majority of the tree canopy. This 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 333

includes the harvesting of the majority of trees in a given area. 

Overstory (Biological Diversity) The portion of vegetation in a forest forming the uppermost 

foliage layer. 

Pine Engraver Beetle (See "Ips.”) 

Piling and Burning (Timber Management) Piling slash resulting from logging and 

subsequently burning individual piles. 

Plant Associations A grouping of plants that has reached dynamic equilibrium with the local 

environmental conditions and is equivalent to climax. On site, there is no evidence of 

replacement by other dominant plant species (and there is no evidence of serious disturbance.) 

Plant Communities Assemblage of plant species living in an area. It is an organized unit to the extent

that it has characteristics in addition to the individuals and populations and functions as a unit. 

Pre-commercial Cutting (See "Thinning.”) 

Preparation Cut (Silviculture) A timber harvest method that removes trees near the end of a 

rotation so as to open the canopy and enlarge the crowns of seed bearers to improve conditions 

for seed production and natural regeneration, as typically in a shelterwood method. 

Preparedness Level (Fire Management) Planning levels of suppression readiness dependent on 

fire activity, fuel moisture, drought conditions, fire weather, fire danger, and resources deployed or 

available. There are five preparedness levels with level five being the most active state of readiness. 

Prescribed Burning Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or 

modified state under specified environmental conditions that allows the fire to be confined to a 

predetermined area and at the same time produce the fireline intensity and rate of spread required 

to attain planned resource management objectives (synonym for controlled burning). 

Prescribed Fire A fire burning within prescription resulting from planned or unplanned ignition. 

Prescription (Fire Management) A written statement defining objectives to be attained, as well 

as temperature; humidity; wind direction and wind speed; fuel-moisture content; and soil 

moisture, under which the fire will be allowed to burn, generally expressed as acceptable ranges 

of the various indices, and the limit of the geographic area to be covered. 

Present Net Value (PNV) The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs 

to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs 

of managing the planning area. 

Pre-suppression (Fire Management) Activities required in advance of fire occurrence to ensure 

an effective suppression action. It includes recruiting and training fire forces; planning and 

organizing attack methods; procuring and maintaining fire equipment; and maintaining structural 

improvements necessary for the fire program. 

Products Other than Logs (POL), Products Other Than Sawlogs, Products Other Than 

Sawtimber Products such as posts, poles, and fiber from trees or parts of trees less than sawlog 

size. POL usually include trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast height (dbh) (4.5 feet from 

ground level) and less than 7.9 inches diameter breast height (dbh), with tops of trees greater 

than 4 inches to less than 6 inches in diameter. 

Project One or more site-specific activities designed to accomplish a specific on-the-ground 

purpose or result. Projects are tiered to the Forest Plan and will have further site-specific analysis. 

Public Access Usually refers to a road or trail route over which a public agency has secured a 

right-of-way for public use. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 334

Ranger District Administrative subdivisions of the Forest supervised by a District Ranger who 

reports to the Forest Supervisor. 

Raptor Habitat Habitat required by hawks, falcons or owls, especially for nesting. 

Rate of Spread (Fire Management) Relative activity of a fire in extending its horizontal 

dimensions, expressed as rate of increase of the perimeter, rate of increase in area, or rate of 

advance of its head, depending on the intended use of the information, generally in chains or 

acres per hour for a specified period in the fire's history. 

Reforestation Reestablishment of a tree crop on forested land. 

Regeneration (Silviculture) The renewal of vegetation whether by natural or artificial means. 

Also, the new growth itself. 

Resource Value-at-risk (Fire Management) Fire-suppression planning tool providing a relative 

expression in five classes of fire effects on all resources but not the value of the resources 

themselves (compare values at risk). 

Resource Values The tangible and intangible worth of forest resources. 

Responsible Official The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to make a 

specific decision. 

Retention (Vegetation Management) To keep the existing extent of a vegetative component. 

Usually refers to a species, such as aspen, birch, or bur oak. 

Revegetation The reestablishment and development of a plant cover. This may take place 

naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially through the direct 

action of reforestation or reseeding. 

Rights-of-way Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under, or through such 

land. The privilege that one person or persons particularly described may have of passing over 

the land of another in some particular line. 

Rights-of-way Corridors A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of 

transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. 

Riparian Area (See "Riparian Ecosystem.”) 

Riparian Communities Repeating, classified, defined, and recognizable assemblages of plantor-animal communities associated with riparian areas. 

Riparian Ecosystem The moist transition zone between the aquatic ecosystem and the relatively 

drier, more upland, terrestrial ecosystem(s). This transition zone can extend both laterally and 

longitudinally away from aquatic ecosystems, sometimes into headwater swales that have no defined 

stream channel. The riparian ecosystem is the area whose soil is relatively more moist than the 

adjacent upland and whose vegetation growth reflects the greater accumulation of available water. 

Risk (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 

Risk Index (Fire Management) A number related to the probability of an ignition of a fire 

(Compare "Human-caused Risk.") 

Roads A general term denoting a way with at least two-wheel tracks for purposes of travel by 

vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. 

Road Functional Classification The way in which a road services land and resource 

management needs and the character of service it provides. Functional classifications for roads 

are forest arterial, forest collector, and forest local. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 335

Forest Arterial Road: Provides service to large land areas and usually connects with public 

highways or other Forest arterial roads to form an integrated network of primary travel routes. 

The location and standard are often determined by a demand for maximum mobility and travel 

efficiency rather that specific resource management service. It is usually developed and 

operated for long-term land and resource management purposes and constant service. 

Forest Collector Road: Serves smaller land areas than a Forest arterial road and is usually 

connected to a Forest arterial or public highway. Collects traffic from Forest local roads 

and/or terminal facilities. The location and standard are influenced by both long-term multiresource service needs, as well as travel efficiency. May be operated for either constant or 

intermittent service depending on land use and resource management objectives for the area 

served by the facility. 

Forest Local Road: Connects terminal facilities with Forest collector or Forest arterial roads 

or public highways. The location and standard are usually controlled by a specific resource 

activity rather than travel efficiency. Forest local roads may be developed and operated for 

either long- or short-term service. 

Road Maintenance Level Defines the level of service provided by and maintenance required for 

a specific road consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. The 

maintenance levels are 

Maintenance Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed 

to vehicular traffic. The closure period is 1 year or longer. Basic custodial maintenance is 

performed. 

Maintenance Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger 

car traffic is not a consideration. 

Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver 

in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. 

Maintenance Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. 

Maintenance Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. Normally, roads are double-laned and paved or aggregate-surfaced with dust 

abatement. 

Road Prism Equivalent to the term "roadway." The portion of the road within the limits of 

excavation and embankment, including slope rounding. A similar term is "road template," the 

shape and cross-sectional dimensions of the roadway to be constructed as defined by the

construction staking notes and the characteristics of the typical sections. 

Roadside Corridors A passageway that frames a road or travelway. The corridor includes the 

viewing area and facilities, which may be within the immediate roadside area or part of a 

sweeping distance panorama. 

Roadway (See "Road Prism.”) 

Salvage Harvest Removal of damaged, dead or dying trees resulting from insect and disease 

epidemics, wildfire, or storms to recover logs before they have no commercial value for production. 

Salvage of Dead Material (See "Salvage Harvest.”) 

Sanitation Cutting, Sanitation Harvest (Silviculture) The removal of trees occupied by insect 

or disease pests to reduce pest populations and limit their spread. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 336

Sawtimber Trees suitable in size and quality for producing logs that can be processed into lumber. 

For planning purposes, trees with an 8-inch diameter or more are classified as sawtimber. 

Scarify To abrade, scratch, or modify the surface of the ground to expose mineral soil. 

Scenery The composition of basic terrain, geologic features, water features, vegetative patterns, and 

landrise effects that typify a land unit and influence the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors. 

Scenic Class Scenic classes measure the relative importance or value of discrete landscape areas 

having similar characteristics of scenic attractiveness and landscape visibility. Scenic classes are 

used during forest planning to compare the value of scenery with the value of other resources, such 

as timber, wildlife, late succession, or minerals. The higher the scenic class, the more important it 

is to maintain the highest scenic value. Scenic classes are determined and mapped by combining 

the three classes of scenic attractiveness with the distance zones and concern levels of landscape 

visibility. A numerical value of 1 to 7 is assigned to Forest lands. Generally, scenic classes 1-2 

have high public value; classes 3-5 have moderate value; and classes 6 and 7 have low value. 

Scenic Integrity (Existing or Objective) State of naturalness or conversely the state of 

disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation 

from the existing landscape character in a national forest. It is the measure of the degree to 

which a landscape is visually perceived to be complete. The highest scenic integrity ratings are 

given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the character valued by

constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is used to describe an existing situation, 

standard for management, or desired future conditions. 

Very High: A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change only. 

High: A scenic integrity level meaning human activities are not visually evident. In high 

scenic integrity areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture 

found in the existing landscape character. 

Moderate: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape 

character "appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate 

to the landscape character being viewed. 

Low: A scenic integrity referring to the landscapes where the valued landscape character 

"appears moderately altered." Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character 

being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, effect, and pattern of

natural opening, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside the 

landscape being viewed. They should not only appear as valued character outside the 

landscape being viewed but compatible or complimentary to the character within. 

Very Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued landscape 

character "appears heavily altered.” Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape 

character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and 

pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or architectural styles within or outside 

the landscape being viewed. However, deviations must be shaped and blended with the 

natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, landings, and structures do not 

dominate the composition. 

Unacceptable Low: A scenic integrity level that refers to landscapes where the valued 

landscape character being viewed appears extremely altered. Deviations are extremely 

dominant and borrow little if any line, form, color, texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape 

character. Landscapes at this level of integrity need rehabilitation. This level should only be 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 337

used to inventory existing integrity. It must not be used as a management objective. 

Second Growth (Silviculture) Forest growth that has become established after some 

disturbance with the previous forest stand, such as cutting, serious fire, or insect attack. 

Sediment Material suspended in water or that has been deposited in streams and lakes. 

Sediment Load The solid material transported by a stream and expressed as the dry weight of all 

sediment that passes a given point in a given period of time. 

Sediment Yield Amount of sediment leaving an analysis area and entering a channel. 

Seed Cutting (Silviculture) A harvest method that removes all mature trees from a stand except 

for selected seed-bearing trees retained on the site to provide a seed source for stand 

regeneration. In a two-step shelterwood cutting method, the first of the shelterwood cuttings. 

Seed Tree, Seed-tree Cutting Small number of seed-bearing trees left singly or in small groups 

after timber harvest to provide seed for regeneration of the site. 

Selection Cut (Silviculture) A harvest method that periodically removes mature trees 

individually or in small groups from an uneven-aged forest. By this method, both regeneration 

cutting and tending of immature stand components are accomplished at each entry. 

Sensitive Species Those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward 

trends in population numbers or density; or significant current or predicted downward trends in 

habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. 

Seral (Ecology) A biotic community that is in a developmental, transitory stage in an ecological 

succession. 

Seral Stages (Ecology) The sequence of a plant community's successional stages to potential 

natural vegetation. 

Severely Burned Soil A condition in which most woody debris and the entire forest floor is 

consumed down to bare mineral soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat. Also, fine 

roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil. 

Shelterwood, Shelterwood Method (Silviculture) A harvest method in which a portion of the 

mature stand is retained as a source of seed and/or protection during the period of regeneration. 

The mature stand is removed in two or more cuttings commonly termed seed cutting and 

removal cutting. The seed cutting may or may not be preceded by a preparatory cutting. 

SHPO (See "State Historic Preservation Officer.”) 

Silvicultural System A management process that tends, harvests, and replaces forests, resulting 

in a forest of distinctive form with a desired condition. 

Silvicultural Treatment A management practice that utilizes a method of tree culture, harvest, 

or replacement (See "Single-tree Selection,” "Shelterwood Method,” "Group Selection,” "Evenaged Management,” "Uneven-aged Management,” and "Clearcutting.”) 

Silviculture Generally, the science and art of tree management, based on the study of the life history 

and general characteristics of forest trees and stands, with particular reference to local factors; more 

particularly, the theory and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and 

growth of forests for desired conditions. 

Site An area considered in terms of its physical and/or biological environment; for example, a riparian 

zone, a homogenous stand of vegetation, or a campground. 

Site Index A measure of the relative productive capacity of an area for growing trees. Measurement 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 338

is based on height of the dominant trees in a stand at a given age. 

Site Preparation (Silviculture) The activity that prepares a site for natural regeneration or the 

planting of seedlings. The objective is to create a favorable environment for establishing and growing 

the desired vegetation classes. Treatments could include chemical, mechanical, or fire. 

Site Productivity Production capability of specific areas of land. 

Skid Trails (Timber Management) Any way, more or less prepared, over which logs are dragged. 

Any road or trail leading from stump to landing. 

Skidding (Timber Management) Moving logs from the stump to a collecting point. 

Skyline Logging Taking logs from the stump area to a landing using an overhead system of winchdriven cables to which logs are attached with chokers.

Slash (Timber Management) The residue left on the ground after harvesting, sanitation operations, 

windstorm, or fire. It includes such material as unutilized logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted 

stems, tops, branches, and leaves. 

Snag (Vegetation) Standing dead tree or standing portion from which at least the leaves and smaller 

branches have fallen; often called a stub if it is less than 20 feet tall. 

Snag-dependent Species (See "Cavity Nesting Species.”) 

Soft Snags (Vegetation) A snag composed primarily of wood in advanced stages of decay and 

deterioration, particularly in the sapwood (outer) portions; generally there are no live branches 

on the snag. 

Softwood A conventional term for both the timber and the trees belonging to the evergreen group, as 

the pine, spruce, fir, etc. 

Soil Compaction A physical change in soil properties that results in a decrease in porosity and an 

increase in soil-bulk density and strength. 

Soil Erosion The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by water or wind. Soil 

erosion and sediment are not the same (See "Sediment.”) 

Soil Productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of 

volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass accumulation. 

Soil Surveys The systematic examination, description, classification, and mapping of soils in an area. 

Standard Mandatory courses of action; any deviation from standards requires amendment of the LRMP. 

Stand (Vegetation) A community, particularly of trees, possessing sufficient uniformity as regards 

to vegetation type, age class, risk class, vigor, size class, and stocking class that distinguishes it from 

adjacent communities and thus forms a management or silvicultural unity. Within a stand, a 

dominant or primary species and age class is identifiable, but there may be inclusions or clusters of 

different species or ages. R2 RIS stands are typically greater than 10 acres. IRI stands are typically 

greater than 5 acres. 

Stand-replacing Fire A fire that kills all or most living overstory trees in a forest and initiates 

secondary succession or regrowth. 

Stand Risk Rating (Insects) A ranking of relative forest stand conditions that reflects the degree of 

susceptibility to attack by a particular insect species and the potential level of damage if an outbreak 

occurs. It does not indicate where or when an infestation will actually occur. For mountain pine 

beetles in ponderosa pine, a computer model exists to determine low-, medium- and high-risk stands 

based on measures of stand structure, average basal area, and average tree diameter. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 339

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) A person appointed by a state's governor to 

administer the State Historic Preservation Program. 

Stream Health The condition of a stream relative to robust health for that stream type and 

landscape, considering indicators such as channel pattern; slope; particle size; pool frequency and 

depth; bank vegetation; and woody debris that reflect the stability and habitat quality of the stream. 

Structural Stages (Vegetation) Any of several developmental stages of tree stands described in 

terms of tree size and the extent of canopy closure they create. They include 

Structural Stage 1 (Grass/Forb): An early forest successional stage during which grasses 

and forbs are the dominant vegetation. At the RIS site level, Structural Stage 1 is defined as 

nonstocked, with an AMD less than 10 percent. Small-scale Structural Stage 1 within RIS 

sites are at least one acre in size, do not meet the seedling stocking criteria, and contain no 

saplings, poles, or mature trees. 

Structural Stage 2 (Shrubs/Seedlings): Developmental stage dominated by tree seedlings 

(less than one inch dbh) and shrub species. 

Structural Stage 3 (Sapling/Pole): Developmental stage dominated by young trees 1 to 7 

inches dbh, 10 to 50 feet tall, and usually less than 50 years old. This stage is subdivided into 

three canopy closure classes: A (less than 40 percent); B (40 to 70 percent); and C (greater 

than 70 percent). 

Structural Stage 4 (Mature): Consists of trees larger and older than structural stage 3. Also 

classified by the same canopy closure categories as structural stage 3. 

Structural Stage 5 (Late Succession): This structural stage is characterized by trees 160 

years of age and older. 

Subdivisions Areas of previously undeveloped land divided into individual home sites and/or 

blocks of lots. 

Successional Stages (Seral Stages) The relatively transitory communities that replace one 

another during development toward a potential natural community. 

Suitability The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices. 

Suppress a Fire To extinguish a fire or contain it within specified boundaries. 

Suppression (See "Fire Suppression" and "Insect and Disease Suppression.”) 

Swale 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. 

Temporary Roads (See "Short-term Transportation Facility.”) 

Thinning (Silviculture) The practice of removing some of the trees in a stand to meet desired 

conditions. Two types of thinning may be done: 

Pre-commercial, Non-commercial: Removing trees that are too small to make a 

merchantable product. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 340

Commercial: Removing trees that have reached sufficient size to be manufactured into a 

product and to improve tree spacing and promote more rapid growth. 

Threatened Species Any species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range and that has been designated in the Federal 

Register by the Secretary of Interior as such. 

Timber A general term applied to tree stands that provide a wood-fiber product. 

Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) The elimination or suppression of the less desirable vegetation in 

favor of the more desirable tree growth, such as thinning, cleaning, weeding, and release cuttings. 

Trail A general term denoting a way usually less than 50 inches wide for purposes of travel by 

foot, stock, or trail vehicle. 

Transportation System All roads needed to manage and administer Forest resources. A road network. 

Transportation/Utility Corridor A linear strip of land identified for the present location of 

transportation or utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. 

Travel Corridor A strip of land that includes up to a maximum of 1,000 feet for major roads 

(500 feet either side of the road's centerline) or 500 feet for major trails (250 feet either side of 

the trail's centerline); travel corridors form a passageway that allows travelers to experience and 

interact with the quality and character of the landscape. 

Travel Management Travel management is the movement of people and products to and 

through national forests and grasslands. It connects many different varieties of users and multiple 

uses on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

Treated Area Area on which management such as timber harvesting or prescribed burning occurs. 

Tree Improvement (See "Timber Stand Improvement.”) 

Understory (Vegetation) The lowest layer of vegetation in a forest or shrub community composed 

of grass, forbs, shrubs, and trees less than 10 feet tall. Vegetation growing under the tree canopy. 

Uneven-aged Management (Silviculture) The application of a combination of actions needed 

to simultaneously maintain tall, continuous cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, 

and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to 

provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the 

number or proportion of trees of particular sizes to be retained within each area, thereby 

maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain 

uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and group selection. 

Value (Fire Management) (See "Fire Protection Assessment.”) 

Values at Risk (Fire Management) Any or all natural resources, improvements, or other values 

that may be jeopardized if a fire occurs (Compare "Resource Values-at-risk.”) 

Vegetative Buffer Strips Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between areas of 

ground disturbance and areas needing protection from sedimentation. 

Vegetative Management, Vegetative Manipulation, Vegetative Treatment Any activities 

undertaken to modify the existing condition of the vegetation. 

Vertical Diversity The diversity in an area that results from the complexity of the above-ground 

structure of the vegetation; has two or more layers; the more tiers of vegetation or the more 

diverse the species makeup, or both, the higher the degree of vertical diversity. 

Viable Population Group of individuals of a particular species that produces enough offspring for 

long-term persistence and adaptation of the species or population in a given place. 36 CFR 219.19 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 341

defines a viable population for planning purposes as one that has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to insure that a continued viable population is well 

distributed in the planning area. Planning area is further defined by 36 CFR 219.3 as the "area of 

the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest plan." Direction from the Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) defines a viable population as one 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. 

Viewshed Total visible area from a single observer position or the total visible area from multiple 

observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, 

towns, cities, or other view locations. Examples are corridors, feature, or basin viewsheds. 

Water Influence Zone The land next to streams and lakes where vegetation plays a major role in 

sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic ecosystems. Includes the geomorphic floodplain, 

riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge, and has a minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) 

of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation, whichever is greater. 

Watershed The area of land bounded by a divide that drains water, sediment, and dissolved 

materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel or to a lake, reservoir, or 

other body of water. Also called drainage basin or catchment. 

Watershed Level The number assigned to an entire drainage basin contributing to the stream 

segment of a given level and bearing an identical designation; for example, a first-level 

watershed contains all the drainage area of a first-level stream (See “Stream Level.”) 

6th Level Watersheds: A watershed coded with a 12-digit code, typically 10,000 to 30,000 

acres in size. 

Waters of the United States 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. Waters of the United States include perennial and 

intermittent streams, lakes, wetlands, and their tributaries. 

Wetlands Those areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater with a frequency 

sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of 

vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth 

and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as 

sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. 

Wildfire Any wildland fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire within an approved 

prescription. All wildfires will be given an appropriate suppression action. 

Wildland-Urban Interface In applying Title I of the HFRA, this term means: 

• An area within or adjacent to an at-risk-community (ARC) identified in recommendations 

to the Secretary in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

OR 

• In the case of any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in effect: 

—an area extending 1⁄2 mile from the boundary of an at-risk community (ARC) 

—An area within 1-1/2 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community (ARC), including any

land that 

Has a sustained steep slope that creates the potential for wildland fire behavior

endangering the at-risk community (ARC) 

Has a geographic feature that aids in creating an effective firebreak, such as a road or 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 342

ridgetop 

OR 

Is in Condition class 3 as documented by the Secretary in the project-specific 

environmental analysis 

AND 

An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for an at-risk community (ARC) that the 

Secretary determines—in cooperation with the at-risk community (ARC)—requires 

hazardous-fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 343

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Interdisciplinary Team

 

Robert Thompson District Ranger - Bachelor of Science, Geology, University of Montana, 

1979. Thirty years of Forest Service experience at district and forest level 

in Montana and South Dakota. Fourteen years experience as geologist 

conducting mineral appraisals, permitting, environmental analysis and 

compliance. Certified Review Mineral Examiner. Seventeen years as 

District Ranger on two ranger districts responsible for managing a full range 

of resources, goods and services. 

Katie Van Alstyne ID Team Leader, Writer/Editor - Bachelor of Arts, Biology, Hollins 

University, 1990. Eleven years with the National Park Service as an 

interpreter and law enforcement dispatcher. Eleven years of Forest Service 

experience at the district, regional and national level in planning/litigation. 

Jessica Eggers Writer/Editor - Master of Science in Forestry Wildland Recreation with a

minor in Public Administration, University of Tennessee, 2005; Bachelor of 

Science in Forestry Wildland Recreation with a minor in Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science, University of Tennessee, 2003. Three years with the 

National Park Service as a Law Enforcement Park Ranger. One year with 

the National Park Service as the Natural Resource Program Coordinator. 

Two years of Forest Service experience at the district level in 

planning/litigation. 

Randy Rick Silviculturist – Bachelor of Science, Forest Resources: Ecosystems and 

Silviculture, University of Minnesota, 1984. Continuing Education in 

Ecosystem Management, 2002. Twenty-seven years of Forest Service 

experience at the district level in timber sale preparation, fire, and 

silviculture, including 6 years as Sale Prep Forester and 8 years as a 

Silviculturist. Region 2 Certified Silviculturist. 

Chris Stover District Assistant Fire Management Officer, Fuels - Bachelor of Science, 

Geography, University of Wyoming, 1992. Ten years of experience in fire 

operations, fuels, and prescribed fire planning at the District level on the 

Black Hills National Forest. Fire qualifications include Incident 

Commander Type 4 and Ignitions Specialist. 

Shirlene Haas Travel Management Specialist / Wildlife Biologist - Master of Science in 

Wildlife Ecology, Utah State University, 1991; Bachelor of Science in 

Biology, University of Nebraska, 1986. Twenty years of Forest Service 

experience at the district and forest level in South Dakota, Wyoming, and 

California in project and forest planning, and wildlife program 

management. Planning experience includes vegetation management, 

special uses, lands, minerals, prescribed fire and fuels, range management, 

travel management, and recreation. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 344

Jessica Gould Hydrologist – Master of Science in Civil Engineering, South Dakota School 

of Mines and Technology. Currently working towards a PhD in Geology & 

Geological Engineering, focusing on hydrogeology. Fourteen years of 

Forest Service experience at the district level in Montana and South Dakota 

managing soil and water resources. 

Renee Boen South Zone Archaeologist - Master of Arts, Anthropology/Museum Studies, 

University of Nebraska, 1993; Bachelor of Science, 

Anthropology/Sociology, University of South Dakota, 1977. Thirty years 

experience with the South Dakota State Historical Society as an 

archaeologist, repository manager, and State Burial Coordinator. Two years 

experience as a research associate at the University of South Dakota 

Archaeology Lab. One year experience as the manager for the University

of Nebraska State Museum archaeology lab. Private contractor conducting 

archaeological surveys and museum/repository evaluations for Native 

American tribes. 

Jeff Knutson Roads and Travel Management Engineering Technician – University of 

South Dakota; Black Hills State University. Twenty-five years of Forest 

Service experience at the District and Forest level in transportation 

planning, road design, contract preparation and administration, and 

environmental analysis. Certified in roads, aggregate base and surfacing, 

concrete, trails, asphalt, bridges, and administration of timber sales and 

public works under the National Construction Certification Program. 

Patti Lynch Wildlife Biologist - Bachelor of Science Wildlife Resource with an 

emphasis on habitat resources from the University of Idaho 1986. Twentyone years as a district wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service, 

Black Hills NF. Experience with wildlife, botany, and fishery resources 

projects and monitoring. Experience as team member and team leader on 

various ID Teams at the district and forest level. 

Chelsea Vollmer Botanist- Bachelor Degree in Biology with options in Botany and Ecology, 

University of Montana, 2003. Seven years of experience in botany with the 

USFS in Colorado, California, and South Dakota. 

Kelly Owens Botanist- Bachelor of Science in Botany, University of Wyoming, 2008. 

Three years of experience in botany and research with the Forest Service

and State in South Dakota. 

Eugene F. Bolka Noxious Weed Coordinator – Twenty-six years with the United States Air 

Force as a Life Support Superintendent. Nineteen years of Forest Service 

experience with YCC program, recreation, range, and noxious weed 

management. Representing the Forest Service in the Deerfield/Hill City

and Doty Springs Noxious Weed Management Areas. 

Amy Ballard Recreation Forester - B.S. Aquatic Biology/Ecology, Allegheny College, 

1986. M.S. Recreation Resources, Colorado State University, 1988. M.F. 

Forestry, University of Montana, 1990. Twenty-two years with USFS as a 

recreation forester. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 345

Steve Keegan Landscape Architect - BS, Landscape Architecture & Environmental 

Studies, State University of New York, 1980; BS, Syracuse University 

1980; AA, State University of New York - Onondaga, 1978. Twenty-eight 

years of Forest Service experience at the forest and zone level in MT, ID, 

OR, SD, conducting: Scenic Resource Assessments, watershed analysis, 

recreation facility design, scenic byway coordination, and road design. 

Mark Vedder Rangeland Management Specialist – Bachelor of Science, Range 

Resources, University of Idaho 1978. Thirty-two years experience with the 

Forest Service in ID and SD in Fire/Fuels Management, Range 

Management, noxious weed control, trail construction and maintenance, 

road maintenance and special projects, travel management, and contract 

preparation with administration. 

Gary Haag Geologist/Minerals Specialist –Master of Science, Geology, Rutgers 

University, 1982. Bachelor of Arts, Geology, Rutgers University, 1979. 

New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection 1984-1989, groundwater 

discharge permit program. South Dakota Dept. of Environment and Natural 

Resources 1989-2010, groundwater discharge permit program. February 

2010 - present on BHNF as a geologist working on locatable and mineral 

material projects and mineral potential reports for mineral withdrawals and 

timber sales. 

Steve Hirtzel Fisheries Biologist – Bachelor of Science in Wildlife & Fisheries Science, 

South Dakota State University. Twenty-three years of experience in 

research, regulatory and management programs with various federal 

agencies, the past seven years on the Black Hills NF. 

Rodney Brown Lands/Recreation Forester – Bachelor of Science, Michigan State 

University, 1977. Over 30 years working for the US Forest Service at the 

District level in Michigan and South Dakota working in special use permit 

administration, recreation residence permits, small tract act and land 

exchange cases; acquired and granted road and trail easements; working 

with utility companies on new and existing over head and underground 

power lines, telephone and fiber optic lines. 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 346

Page intentionally left blank 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 347

CHAPTER 7 INDEX 

ARC, 2, 144, 145, 341, 342 

At-Risk-Community, 2 

BA, 2, x, 120, 126, 161, 172, 193, 196, 203, 

225, 232, 233, 234 

Basal Area, 2, 322 

CMAI, 2, 123, 127, 323, 324 

collaboratively, 34 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2, 13, 

20, 25, 38, 134, 135, 295, 299, 341 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans, 30, 

34, 36 

Condition Class, 2, 38, 141, 323 

crown density, 157 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment, 2 

CWPP, 2, 13, 18, 20, 25, 30, 135, 144 

Deciding Official, iv, 22, 29 

design criteria, 11, 34, 35, 193, 194, 225, 

226, 235, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 250, 

252, 274, 275, 276, 279 

Design Criteria, x 

EIS, 2, i, ii, iii, v, 11, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 

31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 121, 172, 177, 

192, 233, 236, 237, 242, 246, 281, 282, 

326 

environmental impact statement, 11 

Environmental Impact Statement, 2, i, 11, 

14, 121, 159, 232, 310, 311, 312, 325, 326 

fire hazard, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 31, 

37, 39, 117, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 130, 

131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 

143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 153, 

154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 181, 182, 186, 

229, 236, 279 

Fire Protection Assessment, 327, 329, 334, 

340 

fire regime, 25, 38, 141, 142, 149, 153, 172, 

190, 243, 244 

fire suppression, iii, 13, 30, 34, 154, 173, 

177, 187, 188, 190, 204, 205, 236, 237, 

238, 278, 327 

Firewise, 34 

Forest Plan, i, ii, iii, v, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 24, 

26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 116, 119, 120, 

121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 134, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 

148, 149, 150, 156, 159, 172, 177, 178, 

180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 

209, 211, 215, 216, 217, 219, 220, 223, 

225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 232, 233, 234, 

235, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 248, 264, 

281, 286, 311, 321, 324, 330, 331, 332, 

333 

FP, 14, 15, 130, 276 

fuels reduction, 124, 144 

hardwood stands, 22, 31, 39, 40, 127, 135, 

160, 163, 164, 167, 174, 260, 263, 266 

Healthy Forest Initiative, i, ii, 20 

Healthy Forest Restoration Act, 121 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 2, i, ii, iv, 

11, 20, 36, 148 

HFRA, 2, i, ii, 11, 20, 29, 30, 31, 35, 125, 

134, 341 

hydrogeology, 343 

ID Team, 2, iii, 23, 24, 29, 343 

insect and disease, i, ii, 15, 17, 21, 31, 119, 

121, 124, 128, 136, 177, 236, 335 

Interdisciplinary Team, 2, iii, 21, 329, 343 

MA, 2, iv, 15, 18, 21, 26, 40, 117, 118, 138, 

179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 207, 

215, 216, 219, 220, 238, 289 

Management Area, 2, 15, 18, 19, 120, 130, 

131, 137, 138, 153, 209 

Management Areas, x, 15, 138, 344 

management indicator species, 16, 301 

MIS, 2, 16, 172, 177, 194, 195, 196, 198, 

199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 207, 233, 234, 

236, 240, 243 

mitigation, iii, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 233, 247, 

274, 275, 276, 281 

monitoring, ii, 11, 19, 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 

129, 132, 136, 139, 159, 169, 170, 171, 

197, 198, 202, 204, 206, 214, 215, 216, 

220, 223, 224, 226, 233, 235, 311, 312, 

313, 344 

mountain pine beetle, i, ii, iii, iv, 13, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 25, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39, 116, 119, 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 348

120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 

130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 

142, 163, 174, 177, 180, 208, 243, 248, 

251, 260, 261, 262, 269, 277, 278, 298, 

300, 302, 306 

MPB, 2, i, ii, iii, iv, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 

22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 

126, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 

140, 141, 142, 148, 150, 154, 156, 157, 

158, 165, 174, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 

184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 196, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 

222, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 

236, 237, 238, 240, 261, 262, 267, 271, 

274, 275, 279 

National Environmental Policy Act, 2, i, iii, 

11, 20, 30, 44, 250, 255, 324, 325, 332 

National Fire Plan, i, ii, 20, 148 

National Forest System, 2, ii, 12, 14, 20, 25, 

113, 116, 141, 168, 241, 271, 272, 323, 

325, 328, 331, 332, 340, 341 

NEPA, 2, i, iii, 11, 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 35, 44, 

281, 310, 324, 325, 331, 332 

NFS, 2, iv, 15, 16, 17, 34, 37, 118, 127, 128, 

133, 140, 143, 146, 159, 161, 162, 168, 

169, 170, 237, 246, 254, 255, 272, 273, 

274, 323, 325, 328, 331, 332, 340 

noxious weed, iii, 30, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

177, 193, 223, 237, 344, 345 

prescribed broadcast burning, 16, 30, 39, 

146, 149, 150, 153, 154, 278, 279 

prescribed fire, 19, 26, 32, 33, 128, 148, 

149, 153, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 

171, 178, 183, 187, 191, 206, 210, 227, 

231, 274, 276, 295, 341, 343 

proposed action, i, ii, iii, iv, 11, 15, 22, 23, 

24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 43, 183, 241, 247, 

248, 249, 250, 252, 254, 322, 326 

Record of Decision, 2, 34, 159, 311, 313 

restoration, 16, 20, 31, 127, 128, 132, 139, 

164, 167, 186, 189, 190, 191, 193, 206, 

207, 209, 210, 225, 237, 238, 251, 253, 

264, 296, 332 

Restoration, 2, i, ii, iv, 11, 20, 27, 32, 33, 36, 

40, 41, 121, 125, 127, 128, 134, 135, 148, 

263, 267 

retention, 31, 127, 131, 138, 162, 164, 185, 

189, 206, 209, 210, 237, 251, 253 

Retention, iv, 27, 32, 33, 40, 41, 125, 128, 

134, 135, 263, 296, 334 

ROD, 2, 34, 35, 159, 163 

scoping, i, iii, iv, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 

35, 44, 163, 166, 168 

slash, 26, 117, 123, 126, 129, 135, 136, 137, 

149, 153, 154, 156, 162, 208, 249, 250, 

252, 253, 254, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 

271, 282, 292, 330, 333 

snags, 36, 39, 133, 140, 178, 182, 183, 184, 

195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 212, 213, 216, 

217, 219, 221, 228, 236, 238, 239, 302, 

329 

Snags, 133, 140, 182, 183, 184, 302, 329, 

338 

soils, 141, 148, 149, 157, 171, 190, 192, 

193, 204, 214, 227, 251, 253, 278, 282, 

298, 321, 338 

SOLC, 16, 172, 177, 211, 219, 220, 221, 

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234, 

246, 247, 248 

Species of Local Concern, 172, 177, 211, 

246, 247, 311 

structural stage, 19, 31, 36, 37, 39, 115, 116, 

117, 119, 120, 122, 126, 127, 129, 131, 

133, 136, 138, 140, 143, 148, 150, 154, 

157, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 196, 

197, 199, 200, 211, 215, 216, 217, 218, 

219, 220, 221, 222, 228, 229, 230, 238, 

339 

structural stages, 19, 26, 36, 37, 39, 117, 

122, 130, 137, 143, 148, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 185, 186, 196, 197, 199, 200, 

207, 210, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 

220, 221, 222, 228, 229, 236, 237 

transportation system, 162, 165, 167 

Transportation System, 35, 310, 311, 328, 

340 

transportation systems, 329 

values at risk, 334 

Values at Risk, 340 
Pactola Project Final EIS, Page 349

wildfire, i, ii, iii, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 121, 

122, 123, 124, 125, 141, 149, 153, 154, 

163, 166, 169, 170, 180, 183, 184, 190, 

192, 193, 208, 218, 224, 237, 238, 241, 

243, 248, 251, 252, 254, 262, 270, 271, 

275, 277,278, 279, 280, 282, 321, 326, 

327, 335 

wildfire hazard, i, 13, 14, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 

27, 31, 36, 38, 39, 121, 122, 183, 237, 

271, 277, 278 

wildfires, i, ii, iii, 13, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 30, 

36, 38, 122, 126, 132, 139, 148, 158, 163, 

169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 197, 227, 236, 

237, 261, 275, 278, 279, 327, 341 

wildland-urban interface, 13, 17, 20, 25, 38, 

121, 122, 130, 137, 145, 279 

Wildland-Urban Interface, 2, ii, 277, 341 

WUI, 2, ii, 20, 21, 30, 36, 38, 130, 134, 135, 

137, 144, 148, 158, 187, 237, 277